Jump to content

Time to bring back capital punishment for murder of police officers and prison guards


blackbird

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, herbie said:

I have a brother in law that immediately cracks a "Dad" joke or pun after every comment made at the dinner table. You should meet him.

My sister and nieces would love a day off.

ummm -  sorry bud, your family is already paying me to keep you busy here so THEY can have a break.  The brother in law not only kicked in his share but gave me a nice tip as well.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The biggest deterrent to crime is catching offenders and successfully prosecuting them. I think that happens to most of these people. 

I've often heard that said but honestly it simply doesn't appear to be true. There are tonnes of people in htis country who are caught for crimes 5, 10 , 100 times and stil commit them, often on the same day they get out for the last one.

The punishment element MUST be an influencing factor - and has been said before a finger in jail cna't pull the trigger of a gun.

Having said that all the documents i've seen indicate that capital punishment doesn't significantly raise the deterrence over such options as life in prison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I've often heard that said but honestly it simply doesn't appear to be true. There are tonnes of people in htis country who are caught for crimes 5, 10 , 100 times and stil commit them, often on the same day they get out for the last one.

The punishment element MUST be an influencing factor - and has been said before a finger in jail cna't pull the trigger of a gun.

Having said that all the documents i've seen indicate that capital punishment doesn't significantly raise the deterrence over such options as life in prison. 

We are talking very serious crimes of violence on this thread, not the century-beating offender who has been stealing etc. And if we don’t catch offenders we can’t punish them. 

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

We are talking serious crimes of violence here, not the century-beating offender who has been stealing etc.

 

Oh you mean like the guy who got out on bail and killed the cop? And sadly - that's not even enough info to reference which person i'm talking about specifically because there's more than one!

The papers were full daily for quite a while there of repeat offenders out yet again and who committed crimes right away. The cops and the premiers are SCREAMING about the radical increase in violence since trudeau's catch and release law.

So yes - we are INDEED talking about violent people - catching them doesnt' slow them down at all

Quote

And if you don’t catch serious offenders we can’t punish them. 

If you don't punish them they don't care if you catch them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh you mean like the guy who got out on bail and killed the cop? And sadly - that's not even enough info to reference which person i'm talking about specifically because there's more than one!

The papers were full daily for quite a while there of repeat offenders out yet again and who committed crimes right away. The cops and the premiers are SCREAMING about the radical increase in violence since trudeau's catch and release law.

So yes - we are INDEED talking about violent people - catching them doesnt' slow them down at all

If you don't punish them they don't care if you catch them.

These are frequently not highly rational people but knowing there’s a high chance of being caught tends to be a deterrent to some of them. In fairness, problems with repeat offenders are not confined to Canada or the JT era. 

So flesh out what you are proposing and the number of offenders involved. How many extra prison spots/prisons/officers would be required? What would the cost of this be and what changes to the law would be needed? I’m not necessarily hostile to it but it has to be doable. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

I think I already explained that some time ago.  You can Google it if you want.  The subject here is capital punishment for murder.

No,  there’s no explanation about how a Christian can say “it’s a Jewish thing” for a passage, but say a passage 2 verses above it, talking about the same thing, is still relevant to Christians today. 
 

It’s called cherry-picking.  

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

He's mostly right. When you look at who is still using it, the US is in mostly bad company. South Korea still has it but is one of the countries that hasn't executed anyone in the last 10 years.

Being mistaken doesn't make someone a liar. That word gets used far too much around here.

Technically you are correct, there are other countries with the death penalty that claim to be civilized. But if you wish to go off on a branch over grammar and appear to join those calling for a return of the death penalty in 2023 the risk is yours to take. I admit I was wrong to use the word "ONLY" but that does not make an argument against barbaric practices a lie.

I will state clearly with a quote from an actual civilized entity, the EU:
Capital punishment violates the inalienable right to life and is incompatible with human dignity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

He's mostly right. When you look at who is still using it, the US is in mostly bad company. South Korea still has it but is one of the countries that hasn't executed anyone in the last 10 years.

Being mistaken doesn't make someone a liar. That word gets used far too much around here.

fair enough, my bad herbie your not a lair just misinformed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, herbie said:

Capital punishment violates the inalienable right to life and is incompatible with human dignity.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right to life in all situations.  What about police officers doing their duty to protect the public and themselves from someone who is trying to kill someone?  What about in wars when a country is trying to defend itself?  While nobody likes the thought of having to, obviously there are circumstances when police or soldiers have to do it.  Capital punishment for murder of a police officer is no different as long as there is due process and there is absolute certainty of guilt.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

These are frequently not highly rational people but knowing there’s a high chance of being caught tends to be a deterrent to some of them. In fairness, problems with repeat offenders are not confined to Canada or the JT era. 

 

They are an order of magnitude worse during the JT era.  And that's not just my opinion but police and provincial authorities across the country.  Jt promised to 'fix it' but hasn't.

The practical upshot is we're making more arrests but crime is increasing and a large percent of it is recidivists.  And that indicates strongly that it's not the getting caught part that was the deterrent. I'm aware there is a body of work that strongly suggests that it's getting caught that they fear but the lived experiences say otherwise,

Quote

So flesh out what you are proposing and the number of offenders involved. How many extra prison spots/prisons/officers would be required? What would the cost of this be and what changes to the law would be needed? I’m not necessarily hostile to it but it has to be doable. 

Well considering we haven't built a new prison in decades despite our population increasing radically i'd say "More" prisons at any rate :)   It would take time to work out the best number but does it matter? I mean - if cost is the only consideration why not turn all the prisoners loose right now and shut them all down, we'll save a bundle.  It'll cost what it will  cost and that's the price of protecting our citizens.

As to new laws - there's not a lot.  First -get rid of justin's law from 2017  (i believe?), that has directly lead to a number of deaths including police. Scrap it.  New laws basically treating repeat offenders much more seriously would be beneficial, and a 'dangerous offender' designation where someone who has been found to have committed several violent offenses is locked up indefinitely until they can be shown to be very low risk to re offend if released.  And not released at all if they offend after that

And add a 'true life sentence'  - basically death sentence by old age.  No chance of parole, for what we would normally consider 'capital' offenses.  That way if evidence ever does come  forward of wrongful conviction we can do something about it.

It's not like we have to start putting first time jay-walkers in prison for life. But those who don't learn after their first time or two may need to be removed from the public sphere until they get the message.  And punishments should be progressively harsh so that they always know "if you get caught again this gets worse. Don't risk it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

 

No,  there’s no explanation about how a Christian can say “it’s a Jewish thing” for a passage, but say a passage 2 verses above it, talking about the same thing, is still relevant to Christians today. 
 

It’s called cherry-picking.  

  It has nothing to do with the discussion about capital punishment for murder of police officers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, blackbird said:

  It has nothing to do with the discussion about capital punishment for murder of police officers. 

What does Jesus say about capital punishment?  He clearly rejected an “eye for an eye” with his sermon on the mount.  I would therefore say that Jesus rejects capital punishment.   How do you, a supposed Christian, justify the rejection of the clear teachings of Jesus Christ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What does Jesus say about capital punishment?  He clearly rejected an “eye for an eye” with his sermon on the mount.  I would therefore say that Jesus rejects capital punishment.   How do you, a supposed Christian, justify the rejection of the clear teachings of Jesus Christ?

 

 

That is false.  It is not a rejection of the clear teachings of Jesus Christ.   Jesus never specifically opposed capital punishment.  He did not deny the state's authority to exact capital punishment.  The Apostle Paul said in the New Testament in Romans:

"1  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. {ordained: or, ordered} 2  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. " Romans 13:1-4 KJV

These are God's words.  The sword could be understood to be a symbol of capital punishment.  The sword is lethal.

When Jesus rejected an "eye for an eye", I think he was speaking about individuals taking revenge on others for offences against themselves, not government exercising justice against evil doers.  Romans ch13 clearly speaks about the authority of government to exercise justice against evil doers. 

Genesis 9:6 orders capital punishment for murder.  That has never been rescinded.  We are still living under human government and government is responsible for law and order.

quote

After the Flood God stepped back from directly judging the earth until the second coming; thus, a human agency known as civil government was divinely appointed to restrain evil and protect man from his own sinful nature. Noah and his wife and his three sons and their wives began to repopulate the earth. Shem would become the father of the Mediterranean region dwellers and eventually the Jews (the word Semitic comes from the Latin word for “Shem”). Ham’s descendants spread into Africa, and Japheth’s into Eurasia.

Noah and his family had practical knowledge of the failure under the dispensation of Conscience, and God made them responsible to protect the sanctity of human life. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). In this way, God established the orderly rule of mankind for the good of society. Capital punishment is the most potent function of human government, and it presupposes all forms of legislation, organization, and enforcement. In the New Testament (Romans 13), man is still responsible to use this authority to enforce righteousness. In other words, God’s command in Genesis 9:6 has not been rescinded.

unquote

What is the dispensation of Human Government? | GotQuestions.org

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Genesis 9:6 orders capital punishment for murder. 

You put too much faith in government.  I don’t trust Trudeau to tie his own shoes correctly, but your bible tells you that he is a servant of God and you trust him with the power to execute people.  
 

That’s a lot of faith in a man you don’t like!   But, if he is a servant of God, and we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, then you must be in favour of Trudeau’s other policies, like fighting climate change, correct?   If not, you’re ignoring your bible’s commands once again.  Another cherry-picking “Christian”.  
 

Many Christians disagree with your assessment of Jesus.  They say Jesus would never be for the death penalty.   How do we tell which Christian teaching is the correct one?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

How do we tell which Christian teaching is the correct one?

 One must study the Bible carefully.  I gave you a lot of detail in the posting above.  I believe dispensationalism is the correct way to interpret the Bible.  Without understanding the Bible is divided into dispensations or ages you can end up in confusion.  God dealt with mankind in different ways in different ages.  But we are obviously still in the dispensation of human government, which means government is responsible for law and order.  The directive in Genesis 9:6 was given during the dispensation of human government and we are still under that system.  That dispensation overlaps one or more other dispensations.  Google dispensations to find out what it is all about.

We also live in a democracy which permits Christians to disagree with government policies which they believe are not supported by the Bible.  So we are free to oppose abortion for example and support capital punishment for murder which is taught in Genesis 9:6.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We also live in a democracy which permits Christians to disagree with government policies which they believe are not supported by the Bible.  So we are free to oppose abortion for example and support capital punishment for murder which is taught in Genesis 9:6.

So you ignore the part of the Matthew 22 where Jesus explicitly states what you are to do.   Jesus didn’t tell you “it’s a democracy, so you can complain about your taxes”.   Jesus said the exact opposite!  Jesus told them that they better not complain, just pay the damn tax!

He didn’t just say this about taxes either, but about whatever was the purview of government.  
 

When you complain about Trudeau passing policies to fight climate change, you contradict Jesus   

Have you ever complained about paying taxes?  I bet you have.   Once again, you cherry-pick the bible for verses that you can agree with and ignore the ones that don’t fit what you already believe.

 

 

Matthew 22

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

So you ignore the part of the Matthew 22 where Jesus explicitly states what you are to do.   Jesus didn’t tell you “it’s a democracy, so you can complain about your taxes”.   Jesus said the exact opposite!  Jesus told them that they better not complain, just pay the damn tax!

He didn’t just say this about taxes either, but about whatever was the purview of government.  
 

When you complain about Trudeau passing policies to fight climate change, you contradict Jesus   

Have you ever complained about paying taxes?  I bet you have.   Once again, you cherry-pick the bible for verses that you can agree with and ignore the ones that don’t fit what you already believe.

 

 

Matthew 22

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

 

We don't live under the same kind of system that existed at the time of Caesar.  Government now includes all the people and the people have the right to input on the laws and policies.  Jesus never opposed that.  Render unto Caesar refers to obeying the existing laws.  So we must obey the speed limits and obey the laws.  I think that is what Jesus meant by rendering unto Caesar.  He did not mean you couldn't speak against or in favour of certain laws.  It is just simple logic.

In case you haven't noticed, our Caesar is a Parliamentary system with human rights which include freedom of speech and democratic input to government policies and laws.   Two thousand years ago, practically all countries were absolute dictatorships.   It is perfectly legal and in agreement with what Jesus and the Bible teaches to give input in a democratic system.  That is the kind of system we have.  Ask any politician or ask the King.  If you or I want to complain or advocate about some government policy or law, we have a perfect right to do that.  I am sure you know that.  In fact, I would further say Jesus would want his follows to oppose laws that are against his Word as for example abortion.  Christians should be opposed to abortion and when it seems appropriate, say so.  

Your claim that Jesus opposed capital punishment is false.  He never said anything about it.  Read what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

We don't live under the same kind of system that existed at the time of Caesar.  Government now includes all the people and the people have the right to input on the laws and policies.  Jesus never opposed that.  Render unto Caesar refers to obeying the existing laws.  So we must obey the speed limits and obey the laws.  I think that is what Jesus meant by rendering unto Caesar.  He did not mean you couldn't speak against or in favour of certain laws.  It is just simple logic.

In case you haven't noticed, our Caesar is a Parliamentary system with human rights which include freedom of speech and democratic input to government policies and laws.   Two thousand years ago, practically all countries were absolute dictatorships.   It is perfectly legal and in agreement with what Jesus and the Bible teaches to give input in a democratic system.  That is the kind of system we have.  Ask any politician or ask the King.  If you or I want to complain or advocate about some government policy or law, we have a perfect right to do that.  I am sure you know that.  In fact, I would further say Jesus would want his follows to oppose laws that are against his Word as for example abortion.  Christians should be opposed to abortion and when it seems appropriate, say so.  

Your claim that Jesus opposed capital punishment is false.  He never said anything about it.  Read what I said.

Jesus didn’t say that Matthew 22 is null and void in a democracy.  Render unto Caesar means obey the laws of the government.  His example was paying taxes.  
 

Do you oppose the carbon tax?  I sure hope not…. You may be risking your very soul.  If you came to Jesus and said “Jesus, I don’t like Trudeau’s carbon tax”, do you think Jesus would say “well, since you’re living in a democracy then what I said in Matthew 22 no longer applies”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2023 at 7:25 PM, CdnFox said:

I've often heard that said but honestly it simply doesn't appear to be true. There are tonnes of people in htis country who are caught for crimes 5, 10 , 100 times and stil commit them, often on the same day they get out for the last one.

... 

In general, a person does not shoplift if a policeman is standing nearby - the chance of detection. 

The likelihood of theft is less given the penalty - the time in the slammer.

=====

This is all costly to we honest people.

If capital punishment makes things better, I'm in favour. Heck, Truman dropped two bombs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2023 at 9:42 PM, herbie said:

Technically you are correct, there are other countries with the death penalty that claim to be civilized. But if you wish to go off on a branch over grammar and appear to join those calling for a return of the death penalty in 2023 the risk is yours to take. I admit I was wrong to use the word "ONLY" but that does not make an argument against barbaric practices a lie.

I will state clearly with a quote from an actual civilized entity, the EU:
Capital punishment violates the inalienable right to life and is incompatible with human dignity.

The same EU that put to death all those Nazi's for horrific war crimes...men and women...hung until dead or shot...if WWII would happen again today you think we would be killing those killers...and if we can kill them what about Clifford olson, or Barnardo...could we strap their asses to a table...

what about bin ladin does he have right to life, what about all the terrorist we put down on the war on terror, and in some cases we took their entire families with them... 

 

 

 

Edited by Army Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The same EU that put to death all those Nazi's for horrific war crimes...men and women...hung until dead or shot...if WWII would happen again today you think we would be killing those killers...

The Hague has no death penalty.  That’s likely where any war crimes would be tried. 

44 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

what about bin ladin does he have right to life

Yes. 
 

44 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

what about all the terrorist we put down on the war on terror, and in some cases we took their entire families with them... 

extra-judicial executions are wrong and, if we did that, the perps should be charged.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...