Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 09:38:23 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  Supreme Court bans juvenile executions
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Print
Author Topic: Supreme Court bans juvenile executions  (Read 5861 times)
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: March 10, 2005, 05:02:43 pm »
Ignore

Sweeney was 16 - and believed he was on a romantic rendezvous with his first girlfriend, Justina Morley, who confessed to the crime - when he was clubbed and hacked to death with a hammer, a hatchet and a rock. He was murdered for the $500 he had earned working in construction with his father.

"We just kept hitting him and hitting him. We took Sweeney's wallet and split up the money, and we partied beyond redemption," Domenic Coia confessed, adding that he used the proceeds to buy marijuana, heroin and pills.

As they fled the murder scene, the killers engaged in a "group hug."

"It was like we were all happy [with] what we did," Domenic Coia told detectives.


Jason Sweeney's face was unrecognizable from the 20 to 40 powerful blows, a deputy medical examiner testified during the trial. Every bone in his face, save one, was fractured, and the wounds were so severe that investigators could not initially determine whether he was young or old.


Nice folks! I vote for hanging em!
Logged
Cashcow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2846


Political Matrix
E: 1.63, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #101 on: March 10, 2005, 05:09:07 pm »
Ignore

Good idea. Let them win.
Logged
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: March 10, 2005, 06:52:01 pm »
Ignore

Good idea. Let them win.

Unless you believe in reincarnation, being executed doesn't seem like much of a win.
Logged
Cashcow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2846


Political Matrix
E: 1.63, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #103 on: March 10, 2005, 06:54:06 pm »
Ignore

Murderers are generally miserable human beings. Death is an escape from that misery.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31304
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #104 on: March 10, 2005, 07:05:43 pm »
Ignore

Ebowed,

Please don't use the bible to defend being anti death penalty. The words of Jesus, of which I strongly agree with, do not apply to the state as a whole. Jesus himself said that the state holds the right to "draw the sword" to punish criminals.
Thanks for posting the scripture, I will post my thoughts in a moment.

First let me say that Jesus himself was given the death penalty (and for being a liberal, no less), so the death penalty may need to be reconsidered as a whole when looked at that context.  Also many of my fellow Southerners who support capital punishment are the same who opposed anti-lynching bills in the 1950s.  Lynching has gone the way of New Coke now in the U.S., and the death penalty should too if we are to join other countries like New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and almost all of Europe.  America is the only English-speaking country where the death penalty is still used to my knowledge, and that's a bad reflection on us.

Though the Law of Moses permits the use of the death penalty, Cain, who killed Abel, was not killed for his murderous crime but rather became a wanderer, and given a mark by God that told nobody to kill him.  But then the law of Moses came around; Jesus replaced it with a message of peace (like that casting the first stone thing).

Now as to your Romans quote.  "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God..."  Well Jesus was God and he preached a pacifist message, and since he is the higher power Paul speaks of here we must "be subject unto" Jesus.

I believe using the king james version, which is tough to understand many times, is rather deceptive, so here's Romans 8:1-4 in NIV:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

I see absolutely no reason for the death penalty usage in this passage.  I see it as one of the greatest arguments against it in the new testament.  In fact, it claims Jesus is a sin offering, and he was sent to meet the 'righteous requirements of the law' so that all could be saved by simple redemption, not meeting the strict requirements of Moses.  This Scripture makes the death penalty look anti-Christian, primitive, and ancient.

Well your points on here are so wrong its unbelievable. First off, Jesus was no "liberal" as you pointed out. He was a orthodox Jew and one of the biggest lies today is that Jesus was some how a big time liberal. After you said "NIV" I completely ignored the rest as the NIV is utter garbage.
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16287
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #105 on: March 10, 2005, 07:14:21 pm »
Ignore

Ebowed,

Please don't use the bible to defend being anti death penalty. The words of Jesus, of which I strongly agree with, do not apply to the state as a whole. Jesus himself said that the state holds the right to "draw the sword" to punish criminals.
Thanks for posting the scripture, I will post my thoughts in a moment.

First let me say that Jesus himself was given the death penalty (and for being a liberal, no less), so the death penalty may need to be reconsidered as a whole when looked at that context.  Also many of my fellow Southerners who support capital punishment are the same who opposed anti-lynching bills in the 1950s.  Lynching has gone the way of New Coke now in the U.S., and the death penalty should too if we are to join other countries like New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and almost all of Europe.  America is the only English-speaking country where the death penalty is still used to my knowledge, and that's a bad reflection on us.

Though the Law of Moses permits the use of the death penalty, Cain, who killed Abel, was not killed for his murderous crime but rather became a wanderer, and given a mark by God that told nobody to kill him.  But then the law of Moses came around; Jesus replaced it with a message of peace (like that casting the first stone thing).

Now as to your Romans quote.  "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God..."  Well Jesus was God and he preached a pacifist message, and since he is the higher power Paul speaks of here we must "be subject unto" Jesus.

I believe using the king james version, which is tough to understand many times, is rather deceptive, so here's Romans 8:1-4 in NIV:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

I see absolutely no reason for the death penalty usage in this passage.  I see it as one of the greatest arguments against it in the new testament.  In fact, it claims Jesus is a sin offering, and he was sent to meet the 'righteous requirements of the law' so that all could be saved by simple redemption, not meeting the strict requirements of Moses.  This Scripture makes the death penalty look anti-Christian, primitive, and ancient.

Well your points on here are so wrong its unbelievable. First off, Jesus was no "liberal" as you pointed out. He was a orthodox Jew and one of the biggest lies today is that Jesus was some how a big time liberal. After you said "NIV" I completely ignored the rest as the NIV is utter garbage.
Jesus was a "liberal," he preached a message of tolerance and peace that was not custom to the Jewish traditions of that time.  But never mind that, the fact remains that Jesus was given the death penalty.

How's the NIV garbage?  Would you prefer using King James because it is an old tradition?  That fits with your ideas about the death penalty.
Logged

...anyone who says our society must force people to expose themselves to those of the opposite sexual orientation, is not decent.

So you mean if we force the gay to be exposed to the straight, we are treating the gay indecently?  Because you didn't specify which direction the hate was supposed to go there, Black Beans.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31304
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #106 on: March 10, 2005, 07:16:13 pm »
Ignore

The NIV is a MODERN interpretation. I will take the biblical stance on that, "even if an angel were to come down and tell you something other then my scripture, let him be accursed".
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16287
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #107 on: March 10, 2005, 07:25:54 pm »
Ignore

The NIV is a MODERN interpretation. I will take the biblical stance on that, "even if an angel were to come down and tell you something other then my scripture, let him be accursed".
The KJV is also a modern interpretation of the Greek and Hebrew scriptures, except that it's badly outdated to the NIV.  What's your point?
Logged

...anyone who says our society must force people to expose themselves to those of the opposite sexual orientation, is not decent.

So you mean if we force the gay to be exposed to the straight, we are treating the gay indecently?  Because you didn't specify which direction the hate was supposed to go there, Black Beans.
Cashcow
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2846


Political Matrix
E: 1.63, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #108 on: March 10, 2005, 07:33:17 pm »
Ignore

Ebowed, despite my strong opposition to the death penalty and slight distaste for StatesRights, I am inclined to agree with him on this issue. The troubles Christ was facing two thousand years ago cannot be translated into modern culture, as with everything else in the Bible.
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16287
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #109 on: March 10, 2005, 08:01:03 pm »
Ignore

Ebowed, despite my strong opposition to the death penalty and slight distaste for StatesRights, I am inclined to agree with him on this issue. The troubles Christ was facing two thousand years ago cannot be translated into modern culture, as with everything else in the Bible.
I highly doubt StatesRights agrees with that statement.  He seems to just prefer KJV as the original Word of God, and since he's reading a permit of the death penalty in it he's not saying it can't be applied to modern culture.
Logged

...anyone who says our society must force people to expose themselves to those of the opposite sexual orientation, is not decent.

So you mean if we force the gay to be exposed to the straight, we are treating the gay indecently?  Because you didn't specify which direction the hate was supposed to go there, Black Beans.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31304
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #110 on: March 11, 2005, 01:18:54 am »
Ignore

Ebowed, despite my strong opposition to the death penalty and slight distaste for StatesRights, I am inclined to agree with him on this issue. The troubles Christ was facing two thousand years ago cannot be translated into modern culture, as with everything else in the Bible.
I highly doubt StatesRights agrees with that statement.  He seems to just prefer KJV as the original Word of God, and since he's reading a permit of the death penalty in it he's not saying it can't be applied to modern culture.

Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be strickly forbidden or banned?
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16287
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #111 on: March 11, 2005, 01:57:17 am »
Ignore

Ebowed, despite my strong opposition to the death penalty and slight distaste for StatesRights, I am inclined to agree with him on this issue. The troubles Christ was facing two thousand years ago cannot be translated into modern culture, as with everything else in the Bible.
I highly doubt StatesRights agrees with that statement.  He seems to just prefer KJV as the original Word of God, and since he's reading a permit of the death penalty in it he's not saying it can't be applied to modern culture.

Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be strickly forbidden or banned?
1.) While not specific, John 8:3-11 gives a message of peace and forgiveness more than of stoning people for their sins.

2.) Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be used.
Logged

...anyone who says our society must force people to expose themselves to those of the opposite sexual orientation, is not decent.

So you mean if we force the gay to be exposed to the straight, we are treating the gay indecently?  Because you didn't specify which direction the hate was supposed to go there, Black Beans.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31304
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #112 on: March 11, 2005, 02:01:23 am »
Ignore

Ebowed, despite my strong opposition to the death penalty and slight distaste for StatesRights, I am inclined to agree with him on this issue. The troubles Christ was facing two thousand years ago cannot be translated into modern culture, as with everything else in the Bible.
I highly doubt StatesRights agrees with that statement.  He seems to just prefer KJV as the original Word of God, and since he's reading a permit of the death penalty in it he's not saying it can't be applied to modern culture.

Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be strickly forbidden or banned?
1.) While not specific, John 8:3-11 gives a message of peace and forgiveness more than of stoning people for their sins.

2.) Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be used.

Explain "for the wages of sin is death"?
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16287
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #113 on: March 11, 2005, 02:13:41 am »
Ignore

Ebowed, despite my strong opposition to the death penalty and slight distaste for StatesRights, I am inclined to agree with him on this issue. The troubles Christ was facing two thousand years ago cannot be translated into modern culture, as with everything else in the Bible.
I highly doubt StatesRights agrees with that statement.  He seems to just prefer KJV as the original Word of God, and since he's reading a permit of the death penalty in it he's not saying it can't be applied to modern culture.

Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be strickly forbidden or banned?
1.) While not specific, John 8:3-11 gives a message of peace and forgiveness more than of stoning people for their sins.

2.) Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be used.

Explain "for the wages of sin is death"?
Just as it says, the wages of sin is death.  You go to hell, which is ultimate seperation from God.  Unless you repent through Jesus Christ, and then your sins are forgiven and you are 'born again.'

That statement isn't a commandment to use the death penalty either way.
Logged

...anyone who says our society must force people to expose themselves to those of the opposite sexual orientation, is not decent.

So you mean if we force the gay to be exposed to the straight, we are treating the gay indecently?  Because you didn't specify which direction the hate was supposed to go there, Black Beans.
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4374


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

View Profile
« Reply #114 on: March 11, 2005, 02:19:45 am »
Ignore

Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be strickly forbidden or banned?
1.) While not specific, John 8:3-11 gives a message of peace and forgiveness more than of stoning people for their sins.
Quote
Should we just forgive all criminals and open the gates of the prisons?

Quote
2.) Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be used.
Argument error:  shifting burden of proof.  Don't.  Jesus never said I'm not allowed to eat ice cream, yet I'm reasonably sure He wouldn't object.  The burden of proof is on YOU.
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16287
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #115 on: March 11, 2005, 03:59:14 am »
Ignore

Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be strickly forbidden or banned?
1.) While not specific, John 8:3-11 gives a message of peace and forgiveness more than of stoning people for their sins.
Quote
Should we just forgive all criminals and open the gates of the prisons?
Not necessarily, but lighter prison sentences would be good, let alone abolition of the death penalty.

Quote
Quote
2.) Show me any quote where Jesus says the death penalty should be used.
Argument error:  shifting burden of proof.  Don't.  Jesus never said I'm not allowed to eat ice cream, yet I'm reasonably sure He wouldn't object.  The burden of proof is on YOU.
Ice cream is not equal to the death penalty; hopefully you can distinguish between the two, because not every issue is black and white.  Jesus never said to use the death penalty; his message preaches the opposite.  There's my proof, and then I'll ask for proof in your favor.  Did Jesus every say to use the death penalty?  Did he?
Logged

...anyone who says our society must force people to expose themselves to those of the opposite sexual orientation, is not decent.

So you mean if we force the gay to be exposed to the straight, we are treating the gay indecently?  Because you didn't specify which direction the hate was supposed to go there, Black Beans.
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31304
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #116 on: March 12, 2005, 01:16:31 am »
Ignore

Ebowed would you support forced hard labor, like slavery, over the death penalty?
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16287
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #117 on: March 12, 2005, 03:18:54 am »
Ignore

Ebowed would you support forced hard labor, like slavery, over the death penalty?
Hard labor for a crime is not the same as slavery.......
Logged

...anyone who says our society must force people to expose themselves to those of the opposite sexual orientation, is not decent.

So you mean if we force the gay to be exposed to the straight, we are treating the gay indecently?  Because you didn't specify which direction the hate was supposed to go there, Black Beans.
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4374


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

View Profile
« Reply #118 on: March 12, 2005, 09:49:56 am »
Ignore

Not necessarily, but lighter prison sentences would be good, let alone abolition of the death penalty.
Like, 1 year for a rape, 6 months for a murderer, 2 weeks for kidnapping...

Yeah I can see that work real well in society.  We should just all forgive and forget, like Jesus ordererd.

Quote
Ice cream is not equal to the death penalty; hopefully you can distinguish between the two, because not every issue is black and white.  Jesus never said to use the death penalty; his message preaches the opposite.  There's my proof, and then I'll ask for proof in your favor.  Did Jesus every say to use the death penalty?  Did he?
Yes.  God ordered the execution of people for certain crimes.
Logged
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: March 12, 2005, 01:07:11 pm »
Ignore


The brain simply is not developed enough to make this a senseful deterrent to teen offenders.

It's up to the state legislatures to make that determination, not the supreme court.

The 8th amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment was ratified in 1791.  In 1792 congress passed the coinage act of 1792, which specified the death penalty for any employees of the mint who intentionally reduced the precious metal content of coins. So people who participated in ratifying the 8th amendment didn't believe the death penalty was cruel and unusual.
Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6064


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #120 on: March 12, 2005, 01:19:34 pm »
Ignore

The 8th amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment was ratified in 1791.  In 1792 congress passed the coinage act of 1792, which specified the death penalty for any employees of the mint who intentionally reduced the precious metal content of coins. So people who participated in ratifying the 8th amendment didn't believe the death penalty was cruel and unusual.

I've already dealt with that rather specious argument:

By that argument you can say that Lawrence v. Texas was totally wrong because the drafters of the 5th and 14th amendments supported prohibitions on homosexual sodomy.  To paraphrase Justice Kennedy in that same case:

"Had those who drew and ratified the [Eighth Amendment] known the components of [cruel and unusual punishment] in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths."
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: March 12, 2005, 01:47:10 pm »
Ignore

Shall we infer that you, or the Supreme Court, know better what the founders meant than they did?

If you want to change the constitution there is a process for doing so, but you cannot change it by simply saying that it doesn't mean what it says. As soon as you allow that then the constitution means nothing and the protection of our rights afforded by the constitution also means nothing.
Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6064


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #122 on: March 12, 2005, 02:47:24 pm »
Ignore

Shall we infer that you, or the Supreme Court, know better what the founders meant than they did?

I'm saying that the Founders didn't fully appreciate the full meaning of what they wrote (and neither do I), they knew this, and thus allowed for interpretations that would change with time.

Quote
If you want to change the constitution there is a process for doing so, but you cannot change it by simply saying that it doesn't mean what it says.

At no point does it mention anything about the death penalty, meaning that the Founders wished the Eighth Amendment to be controlling on this issue, not what we know to be their personal views of the time on the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment refers to "cruel and unusual" and I'm pretty sure that the Founders didn't want us to be stuck with 18th Century Justice for the continuing existence of the United States, so obviously an evolving interpretation is appropriate.

Quote
As soon as you allow that then the constitution means nothing and the protection of our rights afforded by the constitution also means nothing.

True, but I never said that.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
David S
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5257


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: March 12, 2005, 03:01:26 pm »
Ignore


I'm saying that the Founders didn't fully appreciate the full meaning of what they wrote (and neither do I), they knew this, and thus allowed for interpretations that would change with time.

...so obviously an evolving interpretation is appropriate.

Quote
As soon as you allow that then the constitution means nothing and the protection of our rights afforded by the constitution also means nothing.

True, but I never said that.

But actually you did say that. Your idea of an "evolving interpretation" means exactly that. It says that the constitution may mean something different tomorrow than it does today even though the words did not change. It says that the constitution means whatever somebody wants it to mean rather than what it actually says.
How would we know which parts of the constitution mean what they say and which parts do not? Should we ask you? ,or me? or Hillary Clinton? or Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

The founders gave us ways to change the constitution; either by amendment or by a constitutional convention. Both processes were intentionally made difficult so that the constitution could not be changed without wide spread support. This is much different than allowing the meaning of the constitution to change at the whim of 5 of 9 Supreme court justices.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2005, 03:42:56 pm by David S »Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6064


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #124 on: March 12, 2005, 03:21:45 pm »
Ignore

But actually you did say that. Your idea of an "evolving interpretation" means exactly that. It says that the constitution may mean something different tomorrow than it does today even though the words did not change. It says that the constitution means whatever somebody wants it to mean rather than what it actually says.

My point is that the Constitution in this case effectively says that its meaning should change over time. If you don't like this, feel free to use the methods of amendment you describe to change this.

Quote
How would we know which parts of the constitution mean what they say and which parts do not? Should we ask you? ,or me? or Hillary Clinton? or Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Obviously the Supreme Court and the Courts of Law more generally since they are the arbiters of the Constitution under the Marbury v. Madison decision. Neither I nor Senator Clinton are members of the Supreme Court, so we can only express an opinion of absolutely no weight on the issue, even though our opinion may or may not be correct. Justice Ginsburg is a member of the Supreme Court so obviously her opinion does have some actual bearing on the matter.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines