So that gets us back to "why do we have it" discussions. It comes down to what UKMF says - we just want revenge and will get down on the accused's level. I get the concern UKMF has but part of me gets the "revenge" thing.

 

Believe me, I get both sides of it.

 

I'm just not okay with purposely taking another life, regardless of how depraved or evil they may be.

I have multiple issues with the DP. To tie it to this case, we've had the DP for a long time yet it didn't stop this person from doing what they did.

 

It doesn't work as a deterrent.

 

So that gets us back to "why do we have it" discussions. It comes down to what UKMF says - we just want revenge and will get down on the accused's level. I get the concern UKMF has but part of me gets the "revenge" thing.

 

It's not a deterrent because people sit on Death Row for 20 years before they are executed, some longer. The likelihood of dying in prison is about the same as actually being executed, so why would people be afraid of it?

 

Like I said in my last post... When it's an open and shut case, let's stop wasting tax payer dollars and take care of it ASAP. No reason to feed and shelter these monsters for decades.

I have multiple issues with the DP. To tie it to this case, we've had the DP for a long time yet it didn't stop this person from doing what they did.

 

It doesn't work as a deterrent.

 

So that gets us back to "why do we have it" discussions. It comes down to what UKMF says - we just want revenge and will get down on the accused's level. I get the concern UKMF has but part of me gets the "revenge" thing.

 

Doesnt work because it is rarely used.

Another example of why I couldn't be a police officer. I'd shoot these low life pieces of crap dead on the spot.

I don't think I did. But my answer is the same. No.

 

It's my fundamental belief that we don't have the right or the insight to determine if/when/or how another person dies. No person has the right to decide if another person deserves to live or die.

If the law states you can get the death penalty for committing this crime than that is the just punishment.

I have a problem with housing, feeding and providing medical care for pieces of human debris like this. I also have a problem with a judicial system that allows them to keep breathing through years of appeals. If we must keep them alive, prisons for folks like this need to be more punitive in design and function. They are beyond rehabilitation and will never be productive members of society.

If the law states you can get the death penalty for committing this crime than that is the just punishment.

 

I didn't think this was a legality debate. I know it's legal. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or think it's deserved.

If the law states you can get the death penalty for committing this crime than that is the just punishment.

 

Seems like you're going a bit far here without meaning to. Is something just simply because the law says it is? Does the law have any higher justice to which it is answerable?

"Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Seems like you're going a bit far here without meaning to. Is something just simply because the law says it is? Does the law have any higher justice to which it is answerable?

If you know the rules going into it, the punishment is just.

 

As for humans making the decision on who gets to live or die. Slippery slope,but God is not able to tell us what he feels so humans made laws to keep order.

If you know the rules going into it, the punishment is just.

 

As for humans making the decision on who gets to live or die. Slippery slope,but God is not able to tell us what he feels so humans made laws to keep order.

 

So let's try a hypothetical:

 

In 2035, a newly elected House and Senate take up their posts in Congress. The last election resulted in a landslide for a recently surging Green Party thanks to the new realities of climate change and the disasters that rising sea levels were causing along our coastlines.

 

As part of their new environmental protection measures, Congress passes a law that every American family is now entitled to only one child. The president signs it as public outcry for new protections is very strong. Despite a subsequent legal challenge, which many Americans thought would be overturned, the US Supreme Court upheld the law in an unexpected 5-4 decision.

 

In 2042, Mr. and Mrs. Jones discover they're about to have a child... but there's a problem: they already have little Johnny. Now little Jenny is about to come into the world. When Mrs. Jones has the baby, the hospital dutifully writes a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services in fulfillment of the law's mandatory reporting section.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Jones receive a letter in the mail saying that, in accordance with the law, they have been fined $50,000.00. If they cannot pay the fine, their child will be taken from them and given to another, childless, couple.

 

The law was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the president, and even withstood a constitutional challenge and was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. They knew the penalties when they decided to have a second child.

 

Is the punishment just?

So let's try a hypothetical:

 

In 2035, a newly elected House and Senate take up their posts in Congress. The last election resulted in a landslide for a recently surging Green Party thanks to the new realities of climate change and the disasters that rising sea levels were causing along our coastlines.

 

As part of their new environmental protection measures, Congress passes a law that every American family is now entitled to only one child. The president signs it as public outcry for new protections is very strong. Despite a subsequent legal challenge, which many Americans thought would be overturned, the US Supreme Court upheld the law in an unexpected 5-4 decision.

 

In 2042, Mr. and Mrs. Jones discover they're about to have a child... but there's a problem: they already have little Johnny. Now little Jenny is about to come into the world. When Mrs. Jones has the baby, the hospital dutifully writes a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services in fulfillment of the law's mandatory reporting section.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Jones receive a letter in the mail saying that, in accordance with the law, they have been fined $50,000.00. If they cannot pay the fine, their child will be taken from them and given to another, childless, couple.

 

The law was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the president, and even withstood a constitutional challenge and was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. They knew the penalties when they decided to have a second child.

 

Is the punishment just?

 

Yes

Yes

 

Well to my mind that's a horrifying vision to the future in which the government has run amok and justice is lost to the will of madmen, but to each his own. What about historical realities?

 

Segregation was perfectly legal in Alabama in the 1950s. Was the punishment just when a black man sat down at a whites only lunch counter and instead of getting a patty melt, was tossed in jail?

 

In parts of the middle east, if an unmarried woman has shamed your family by having a sexual relationship, the government says it's perfectly acceptable to stone her to death. Is such a punishment just?

Well to my mind that's a horrifying vision to the future in which the government has run amok and justice is lost to the will of madmen, but to each his own. What about historical realities?

 

Segregation was perfectly legal in Alabama in the 1950s. Was the punishment just when a black man sat down at a whites only lunch counter and instead of getting a patty melt, was tossed in jail?

 

In parts of the middle east, if an unmarried woman has shamed your family by having a sexual relationship, the government says it's perfectly acceptable to stone her to death. Is such a punishment just?

 

In your scenario people voted for the folks who made the laws. Much like segregation in the early years people realized it was wrong and voted to make a change. In your scenario changes needed to be made in order to control the population. You know the rules. Follow them or choose to move to a place that aligns better with your beliefs.

In your scenario people voted for the folks who made the laws. Much like segregation in the early years people realized it was wrong and voted to make a change. In your scenario changes needed to be made in order to control the population. You know the rules. Follow them or choose to move to a place that aligns better with your beliefs.

 

People didn't vote to change segregation. It was forced on them by other people who believed it was wrong.

 

Is there no objective measure of what is right or wrong? Nothing exists apart from what the letter of the law says?