Originally posted by whodeySo the Bible favours a form of government, which you said above in inherently bad. Isn't that contradictory?
Not at all, rather, they had judges to judge disputes among the people and had what is called the Mosaic law such as an eye for an eye type of justice. Their power was limited only to that of the dispute brought before them. Crazy huh?
2 edits
Originally posted by wedgehead2Yes and no. If you read the story the people rose up and demanded a king because the judges had become corrupt. I guess you could say that sense we have a sin nature any form of government including anarchy will eventually fail. Having said that, however, we must find a way to maintain order and civility within our societies despite this. For example, even though I am not perfect I can find ways to improve myself dispite my imperfections. The judge system was by no means perfect, but it probably was the best method in that the judges power was only limited to cases that were brought before them thus maintaining order without creating a potential despot.
So the Bible favours a form of government, which you said above in inherently bad. Isn't that contradictory?
3 edits
Originally posted by wedgehead2Not any deaths. As I am sure you are well aware, the eye for an eye type of justice means that if you take a life you will loose yours. Death can be allowable only as a means of punishment for certain kinds of wrongdoing. Although death is never desirable, it was considered less desirable to let those who kill to continue to do so or even encourage others to do the same.
so any deaths are the same- regardless of the numbers involved.
Originally posted by whodeyHow can capital punishmet ever be justified?- it simply isn't a sign of a civilised society. By murdering the criminal you are doing just what they have done- the retribution mentality is never the way forward to a more peaceful society.
Not any deaths. As I am sure you are well aware, the eye for an eye type of justice means that if you take a life you will loose yours. Death can be allowable only as a means of punishment for certain kinds of wrongdoing. Although death is never desirable, it was considered less desirable to let those who kill to continue to do so or even encourage others to do the same.
So people who simply encouarge murder should themselves be murdered?
2 edits
Originally posted by wedgehead2You must realize that back in the time of the Mosaic law there were no jails to warehouse criminals nor were there lawyers waiting to sue you for all you are worth. Justice was swift and to the point albiet harsh at times. I don't think you would agree that setting them free would have been better nor would a sentence that is unsatisfactory with respect to the severity of that particular crime.
How can capital punishmet ever be justified?- it simply isn't a sign of a civilised society. By murdering the criminal you are doing just what they have done- the retribution mentality is never the way forward to a more peaceful society.
So people who simply encouarge murder should themselves be murdered?
So what is better? Is it better to warehouse criminals to the point of overflow and watch them slowly waste away or should justice be immediate, direct, and to the point. Should a murderer have the right to be set free at some future point once they have taken anothers life or should they meet the same fate that they inflicted on another human being? What would you do?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhat if the conviction is overturned after the defendant has been convicted and executed? Cannot pay compensation to a legally murdered man.
You must realize that back in the time of the Mosaic law there were no jails to warehouse criminals nor were there lawyers waiting to sue you for all you are worth. Justice was swift and to the point albiet harsh at times. So what is better? Is it better to warehouse criminals to the point of overflow and watch them slowly waste away or should justice be i ...[text shortened]... aken anothers life or should they meet the same fate that they inflicted on another human being?
Originally posted by EAPOEAre you suggesting that there is a perfect way to deal out justice? What about a man that has wasted his entire life behind bars who had been innocent the entire time. Either way his life has been taken from him. You see you have two options here. You either deal out justice the best way you know how or you simply capitualate to vigilantism.
What if the conviction is overturned after the defendant has been convicted and executed? Cannot pay compensation to a legally murdered man.
Originally posted by EAPOEthose 2 words don't go together .. "legally" and "murdered"
What if the conviction is overturned after the defendant has been convicted and executed? Cannot pay compensation to a legally murdered man.
Murder is never legal .. unless it's your daughter and you live in a Islamic State.
Must mantain the family "honor" .. you'll understand i'm sure
Originally posted by jammerThe execution was legal. . . If the conviction is later overturned is it then manslaughter? No the execution was carried out with intent to take the life of the plaintiff. . That is the meaning of the expression legally murdered.
those 2 words don't go together .. "legally" and "murdered"
Murder is never legal .. unless it's your daughter and you live in a Islamic State.
Must mantain the family "honor" .. you'll understand i'm sure
To answer the previous post I would say I agree the legal system is very far from being objective or fair. There is no absolute or scientific way to make a correct conviction. As has been for a thousand years the courtroom is a stage. In a close run case the result is decided by the best actor/performer.
Also the prison system is primarily a deterrent then secondly a punishment. . .
Originally posted by whodeyNo; the man behind bars has not had his life taken from him. He's had it's quality lessened, but he's still alive. He can still read. He can still exercise. He can have sex - easier if he's gay, but there are conjugal visits, aren't there? He can be set free if he's later found innocent by new evidence. He can have friends, penpals, give advice to his children, get visits from his family, etc.
Are you suggesting that there is a perfect way to deal out justice? What about a man that has wasted his entire life behind bars who had been innocent the entire time. Either way his life has been taken from him. You see you have two options here. You either deal out justice the best way you know how or you simply capitualate to vigilantism.