BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
JCOSTER said:I didn't see your link....
Do you see it now?
JCOSTER said:I didn't see your link....
anitram said:
Yes.
That's EXACTLY what he said when he stated that:
I don't meant to be rude, but....seriously??!!
JCOSTER said:
I take it your not a believer.
JCOSTER said:I didn't see your link....
But you don't have to like anyone but you must love your neighbor so that if they are in ANY kind of need you help them.
FYI: I don't only believe in the DP because of my religion.
True, but I am not burdened by a need to defend the death penalty and I agree. You declare that you feel there is no difference between life in prison and death, some people might feel very differently about that. I still think that the death penalty does hold some attraction if people want a guarantee of finality, even if there is no undoing it.phillyfan26 said:
There's no such thing as certainty in a system based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt either.
phillyfan26 said:
I think she was being sarcastic with the all-caps exactly.
A_Wanderer said:True, but I am not burdened by a need to defend the death penalty and I agree. You declare that you feel there is no difference between life in prison and death, some people might feel very differently about that. I still think that the death penalty does hold some attraction if people want a guarantee of finality, even if there is no undoing it.
People can get out of a prison, they do not rise from the dead.phillyfan26 said:
Well, there was much complaining about how if there's no DP they can still commit the crime, and I was referring to that as in no difference.
My problem with the finality argument remains that there's never certainty that ther person commited the crime. You don't want finality in that case: you want a chance to correct a mistake, better late than never.
JCOSTER said:I definately would need 100% concrete proof for the dp to be initiated. In this case with John Couey its concrete.
A_Wanderer said:People can get out of a prison, they do not rise from the dead.
JCOSTER said:Capital punishment is implicityvalidated in the NT. Jesus acknowledged the legitamacy of capital punishment before Pilate
(John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.)
as did the apostle Paul before the Roman Governor Festus.
Not only so, but one of the thieves crucified with Christ had the candor to confess, We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. (Luke 23:41).
Moreover, Romans 13 implies that the failure of the governing authorities to apply the "sword" the roman symbol for capital punishment exalts evil and eradicates equity.
In short, God instituted capital punishment in the earliest stages of human civilization before the Mosaic Law, and capital punishment is never abrogated by Jesus or the Apostles. Thus capital punishment an enduring moral principle undergirding the sancity of life.
BonoVoxSupastar said:JCOSTER, I see you reposted yourself as if that was suppose to answer anything. I tried to get you to respond to the context of the scripture, it seems to me you can't. You've decided to go the path of diamond and just ignore it. I'm sorry to see that...
JCOSTER said:
I did answer you. Thats why I requoted. I will look again.
phillyfan26 said:
You see, there is no such thing. In our justice system, it's based on guilt beyong a reasonable doubt. Not certainty.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Please do look again, because you never once showed me anything remotely close to examining the context of that scripture you quoted...
phillyfan26 said:
Dwight Schrute from The Office (terrible reference, I know) sort of parodies this thinking, he once said, "Better 1000 innocent men in jail then one guilty man go free." Thought of that when you said that.
Unfortunately, you are correct, that mad line of thinking is coming into play.
A new study has found juries in the United States get the verdict wrong in one out of six criminal cases and judges do not do much better.
According to an upcoming study out of Northwestern University, when they make those mistakes, both judges and juries are far more likely to send an innocent person to jail than to let a guilty person go free.
"Those are really shocking numbers," Jack Heinz said, a law professor at Northwestern, who reviewed the research of his colleague Bruce Spencer, a professor in the statistics department.
Professor Heinz says recent high-profile exonerations of scores of death row inmates have undermined faith in the infallibility of the justice system.
But these cases were considered relative rarities given how many checks and balances - like rules on the admissibility of evidence, the presumption of innocence and the appeals process - are built into the system.
"We assume as lawyers that the system has been created in such a way to minimise the chance we'll convict the innocent," Professor Heinz said.
"The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt - it's supposed to be a high one. But judging by Bruce's data the problem is substantial."
The study, which looked at 290 non-capital criminal cases in four major cities from 2000 to 2001, is the first to examine the accuracy of modern juries and judges in the United States.
It found that judges were mistaken in their verdicts in 12 per cent of the cases while juries were wrong 17 per cent of the time.
More troubling was that juries sent 25 per cent of innocent people to jail while the innocent had a 37 per cent chance of being wrongfully convicted by a judge.
The good news was that the guilty did not have a great chance of getting off. There was only a 10 per cent chance that a jury would let a guilty person free while the judge wrongfully acquitted a defendant in 13 per cent of the cases.
But that could have been because so many of the cases ended in a conviction - juries convicted 70 per cent of the time while the judges said they would have found the defendant guilty in 82 per cent of the cases.
But Professor Spencer cautioned that the study did not look at enough cases to prove that these numbers are true across the country.
But it has provided insight into how severe the problem could be, and has also shown that measuring the problem is possible.
The study will be published in the July edition of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
JCOSTER said:Once again the case against John Couey for murdering Jessica is concrete.
melon said:
I have, and that's hardly support for capital punishment at all. In fact, I'd say that if you had read further down the chapter, you'd see it as an anti-death penalty chapter.
"
phillyfan26 said:
1. How so? Confessions never are 100% accurate either, people have lied in confessions of guilt before, for a variety of reasons.
2. How often are cases "concrete"?
The bottom line is that no where in our system do we define guilt by certainty. It's beyond a reasonable doubt for a reason. Because we can never be sure.
diamond said:is that how you interpret it?
JCOSTER said:
Those who construct their theology solely by finding a verse from scripture that answers a particular question need read no further in this post. From the above, there is no question that the death penalty is mandated to Christians and Jews for the sin of murder.
JCOSTER said:The jury convicted Couey of taking the girl in February 2005 from her bedroom to his nearby trailer, sparking a massive search. Her body was found about three weeks after she disappeared in a grave in Couey's yard, about 150 yards (137 meters) from her own home.
Couey, already a convicted sex offender when he committed the crime, was arrested in Georgia and confessed to the killing. That confession was thrown out as evidence because Couey did not have a lawyer present.
Despite the confession being tossed, Couey incriminated himself other times. Jail guards and investigators testified that he repeatedly admitted details of the slaying after his arrest, insisting that he had not meant to kill the girl but panicked during an intense, nationally publicized police search.
Prosecutors also had overwhelming physical evidence, including DNA from the girl's blood and Couey's semen on a mattress in his room as well as her fingerprints in a closet where investigators said she was hidden.
Couey has a criminal record that includes 24 burglary arrests, carrying a concealed weapon and indecent exposure. He was designated a sex offender for exposing himself to a 5-year-old girl in 1991.
Looks pretty concrete to me.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well I'm convinced that context means nothing to you. I'm sorry about that, but we have nothing further to discuss if you can't look at context and only look at one verse at a time.
diamond said:
BVS-
I also find your Jonny Cash MF picture offensive, please take it down as a courtesy. And the Christ in the Temple analogy was stupid.
Please take it down, it makes you look like nothing more than a misfit.
dbs
JCOSTER said:
Well maybe you should interpret then b/c I really don't know what your getting at with it.