The Capital Punishment Debate
- Thread starter Michael Dorosh
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Flip said:
Pilate was the ruthless Governor of an occupied country. His superiors were even more ruthless than he was. They didn't care who Pilate killed or tortured or suppressed as long as he kept the peace, intimidated the population into submission and kept the economic channels to Rome open and functioning.
To him Jesus of Nazereth was just another misguided Jewish Holy man who was getting a lot of the establishment in Jerusalem upset. He disposed of him as easily as he would have a pesky bug and did so as he did with all other rabble rousers...publicly. At one time he crucified over two thousand "dissidents" on the road leading into Jerusalem just to let the populaton know that resistance would not be tolerated. I think he cared little about the morals or ethics of taking life. His God was Ceasar who could have him executed at will should he so desire....he hardly cared about the life and death of a rural mystical holy man.,,,like all politicians he was concerned about himself.
(yes it was God's will that Jesus die...Pilate was handy in carrying that will out but he wasn't inspired by ideals or spirituality in my humble opinion)
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
Pilate washed his hands and passed the decision on to the local authorities for a very simple reason: CYA. Also, they way to keep the locals in line was to create deliberate in fighting among the various factions. I find it hard to believe that a Roman Governor would have a hard time executing ANY Israelite for ANY reason, least of all moral ones.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Kat Stevens said:
He may have washed his hands but it was his soldiers who killed Jesus not the locals. Mt 27:27.
"Then the soldiers of the Governor took Jesus into the Governor's Headquarters and they gathered the whole cohort around him...."
the narrative continues that they then beat him without mercy and compelled him to carry his cross (a Roman form of exucution not a Hebrew one) until he could no longer carry it and then compelled a passer by to carry it. They crucified him outside the city and the soldiers cast lots for his clothes and they remained in charge of the body until it was taken down and buried.
Pilate was the only one who could have a man legally executed...that's why they took him to Pilate in the first place.
He wanted to keep the peace so he signed the warrant and had his men carry out the sentence by law. The washing of his hands was a show of contempt toward those who had disturbed him at his palace.
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
:rofl: But he could see Peter's house from up there.
*sorry, Padres, saw the shot, had to take it. No harm meant*
*sorry, Padres, saw the shot, had to take it. No harm meant*
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Kat Stevens said:
Yikes! I thought he was talking about Pilate being lonely at the top.
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
He probably was, just my cursed oblique view of the world given free reign.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Kat Stevens said:
Understood......just to further digress...Peter was a fisherman from Galilee so it must have been a pretty good view to see it from Jerusalem!
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
See, my post only works if you ever heard the old joke.... :-[
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Dragging this slightly back onto track I noted on the news last night that it was the anniversary of the execution of Saddam Hussien. There was only a hand full of demonstrators at the graveside mourning the loss and it was a very peaceful night throughout the country according to the MSM. I guess not too many people are worried about the fact that we're not keeping him in rations and quarters anymore.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Sorry, Padre but I gotta jump on this one.
Capital punishment in Canada and an execution in Iraq are
not the same thing!
In Saddam's case I believe the execution was necessary.
Iraq is an unstable place and you could rationally argue
that getting rid of Saddam will ultimately save innocent lives.
ergo - it is justified.
In the event that say....Pickton will never see the outside again -
He is removed from society never to hurt anyone again, where's
the legitimacy of killing him? What if a few years hence he
comes clean with who he did kill and who he didn't.
Maybe getting rid of him hides the actions of his accomplices.
It is not necessary to kill him. So we should not.(my opinion)
Yes, he is a case of proven evil. Are we made better by his death?
Does dying by human design serve any purpose not
otherwise served? I think not.
Personally, I like my little acid test - Necessary or not.
Capital punishment in Canada and an execution in Iraq are
not the same thing!
In Saddam's case I believe the execution was necessary.
Iraq is an unstable place and you could rationally argue
that getting rid of Saddam will ultimately save innocent lives.
ergo - it is justified.
In the event that say....Pickton will never see the outside again -
He is removed from society never to hurt anyone again, where's
the legitimacy of killing him? What if a few years hence he
comes clean with who he did kill and who he didn't.
Maybe getting rid of him hides the actions of his accomplices.
It is not necessary to kill him. So we should not.(my opinion)
Yes, he is a case of proven evil. Are we made better by his death?
Does dying by human design serve any purpose not
otherwise served? I think not.
Personally, I like my little acid test - Necessary or not.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Jump away my friend this is a discussion.
I agree that Saddam was a different case....he killed a lot more people than Pickton. But it has now been proven beyond a reasonable doubt ,by a jury of his peers, that he killed at least six people ergo why do we need to hang in (so to speak) for more evidence? The estimated cost of prosecuting him so far is in the vicinity of $23 million dollars. Is that money well spent? What purpose will it serve to spend more on proving he killed 43 more people? what greater purpose will be served by keeping him in maximum security and feeding him for however long his miserable life lasts?
I'm not so sure I believe in death penalty for all, but in the case of monsters like this I'm leaning toward cutting our losses.
I agree that Saddam was a different case....he killed a lot more people than Pickton. But it has now been proven beyond a reasonable doubt ,by a jury of his peers, that he killed at least six people ergo why do we need to hang in (so to speak) for more evidence? The estimated cost of prosecuting him so far is in the vicinity of $23 million dollars. Is that money well spent? What purpose will it serve to spend more on proving he killed 43 more people? what greater purpose will be served by keeping him in maximum security and feeding him for however long his miserable life lasts?
I'm not so sure I believe in death penalty for all, but in the case of monsters like this I'm leaning toward cutting our losses.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
We might be able to agree that lawyers cost too much..
The cost of execution and appeals, we could say for
the sake of argument, would be similar to what the
cost of incarceration would be.
I would prefer to take the financial issue out of it anyway.
Applying a cost vs. benefit rule to human life - don't want to go there.
What greater good is served by actually pushing the button?
He may at some point (no matter how remote) provide some value
to someone else. Should the state and courts have the ultimate
power in a civil society? Picktons' continued existence would be
material proof of our civility. Now if he chose to die by his own hand
I would not feel any particular need to prevent it, like I would just
about anyone else.
Here's the thing. Once capital punishment is accepted and practiced,
the burden of proof and burden of evidence will shift.
Each case brought forward will potentially move the bar up or down
as to what's acceptable. Today were getting rid of caged monsters.
Tomorrow we're getting rid of racial minorities or old people.
If the state has no such ultimate power, no risk exists.
There is no risk of killing the wrong guy, because we never kill unnecessarily.
Howszat?
Edit to add: Two movies come mind; 12 angry men and The Green Mile
Cheers all!
The cost of execution and appeals, we could say for
the sake of argument, would be similar to what the
cost of incarceration would be.
I would prefer to take the financial issue out of it anyway.
Applying a cost vs. benefit rule to human life - don't want to go there.
What greater good is served by actually pushing the button?
He may at some point (no matter how remote) provide some value
to someone else. Should the state and courts have the ultimate
power in a civil society? Picktons' continued existence would be
material proof of our civility. Now if he chose to die by his own hand
I would not feel any particular need to prevent it, like I would just
about anyone else.
Here's the thing. Once capital punishment is accepted and practiced,
the burden of proof and burden of evidence will shift.
Each case brought forward will potentially move the bar up or down
as to what's acceptable. Today were getting rid of caged monsters.
Tomorrow we're getting rid of racial minorities or old people.
If the state has no such ultimate power, no risk exists.
There is no risk of killing the wrong guy, because we never kill unnecessarily.
Howszat?
Edit to add: Two movies come mind; 12 angry men and The Green Mile
Cheers all!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Flip said:
That risk exists whether capital punishment is present or not, and tends to be political vice law enforcement. It also requires a class of people at the top who have no peers to oversee and criticize their actions. I.e. Transportation in jolly old England was supposed to a method for deporting those who committed illegal acts, but in the end the process was used to get more slaves and habitants for Australia and the Colonies.
However, you make a case for no capital punishment - what deterent do you propose? Because obviously the current system isnt working. If rapists, murderers and other extreme sorts know that the risk is a few years in jail, if they get convicted, what measure is there to deter them? A bad reputation? Disassociation from society? Obviously they dont care about these things or they wouldnt have committed the acts in the first place.
In the end, the rules of polite society are for those who agree to abide by the rules. Those who commit capital crimes have no regard for the societal rules and rarely make an effort to change their ways once caught and convicted. What is the alternative? What lesson are sending to the upcoming generation who see the same faults in the system that the current criminals see?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I agree. Perhaps Zipperhead Cop can help us out here.
My patented short , smarta$$ suggestion would be to spend what it
takes to raise the chances of getting caught to close to 100%.
Get them to trial without bail and really damn quick.
Then make sentences appropriately long.
Let people know in advance that they could spend the next
50 years REALLY close to Paul Bernardo or R.Pickton.
See, they're already part of the solution. ;D
Edited: punctuation, my bad.........
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Flip said:
There seems to be no such thing as a really quick trial for anything anymore. It takes years to prosecute cases and the lawyers keep prolonging things as it keeps them on the clock. The whole justice system is broken in my opinion from, the guy charged with common assault to the guy charged with murder, it just takes too darn long and costs too much money.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
IN HOC SIGNO said:
+1 to that! The system and its loopholes are used to extend the cases to the point of being ridiculous rather than shortening them...
