I'm making a hypothetical:
In this world, we are able to know with 100% certainity whether someone is guilty of a crime or not. In this world, the process of going through with the death penalty is no less feasible than that of supporting a prisoner with a life sentence.
So it's a world where the death penalty is equally feasible to a life sentence, and where we can know with 100% certainty whether someone is guilty or not.
Do you support the death penalty for any crimes in this hypothetical? Or do you take the stance that the death penalty is a wrong form of punishment and life in prison should always be the worst punishment?
Edit: If you're a theist please explain if any religious beliefs factor into your choice.
The Death Penalty
Moderator: Moderators
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #2
My views on this are entirely my own view. Not swayed by an religious beliefs.
You've proposed a scenario where there can be no doubt of the guilt of the person. That's a big factor, because without the "omniscience of certainty" it makes it far more difficult.
Having said the above I reject the very term "Death Penalty". Or "Capital Punishment"
From my perspective, putting someone to death in this situation should not be thought of as a penalty or a punishment. Instead, I would view it as a practical solution to a problem.
Of course, there are many factors that play into this. You've mentioned "guilt". But that's an unclear term. Just because someone actually killed another person doesn't necessarily mean they are "guilty". Perhaps they had a very good reason for doing so. For example, an abused woman who kills her husband out of fear that he will continue to harm her and even harm her children. In fact, I'm not sure that I would even find such a woman "guilty" of murder. I might suggest that this qualifies as valid self-defense.
So the issue of "guilt" is still unclear.
Mental illness also plays a role in this. If a person truly was mentally handicapped when they committed the murder their "intent" can be questioned. In fact, insanity is a recognized defensive plea.
I personally don't have the problem with death that so many people seem to have such a deep problem with. If I murdered someone I would want to be put to death. That would actually be my choice.
If you offered me life imprisonment or death, I would choose death. Giving me death would actually be "letting me off". Unless of course, you were planning on killing me in some horrible manner. I'm not sure if I would choose the electric chair over life imprisonment for example. But a lethal injection? Absolutely! Even death by firing squad would be preferable to the electric chair.
I've been seriously electrocuted in the past. Trust me, it's no fun.
A gas chamber doesn't sound anymore inviting either.
But these have more to do with how I might be caused to die, rather than objecting to the actual death itself.
So as a person who has no fear of death the death penalty by lethal injection actually seems to me like an act of mercy.
So, no, I don't have a problem with putting people to death if it can be shown that they are a serious threat to society. I see no point in keeping them alive in a jail cell for the rest of their lives. Although I guess in some jails that might not be too bad. That's another question too. How bad is this incarceration actually going to be?
~~~~~~
On a personal note, there has been a murder in my extended family recently. My cousin was murdered by her husband. He was known to be abusive. He had horrible fights with her in the past and beat her in the past. He would also take temper tantrums and break furniture, windows, and put his fits through plaster walls venting his rage.
My cousin refused to divorce him (for whatever reasons). And everyone was hoping that he would grow out of this kind of immaturity. But at 50 years old he finally went over the edge. He beat my cousin with a car jack handle severely. So severely that he had evidently continued to beat her dead body for quite some time after she had actually died. (this is a clear sign of mental illness on his part for sure).
One of his many charges was "body mutilation".
He also took the body and hide it out along a back road. But then the next day he want back and moved the body again to another location and stripped the body of all clothes. I think this was an attempt to make it look like she had been raped or something.
He then went back home and acted like he didn't know where his wife was. He took a grinder and ground the tread off his muddy boots so the cops couldn't connect his tracks to his boots. (again another sign of mental illness). Why not just throw the boots away? Clearly he wasn't thinking sanely at all.
The cops of course questioned him first to investigate his "missing wife". I imagine that they knew immediately that he had killed her. By the way, he was not the one who reported his wife as "missing". Her workplace reported her as missing because it was so unlike her to just not show up without calling in.
In any case, he finally broke down and confessed and showed the cops where he left the body. His guilt is unquestioned.
Would I like to see him burn for his horrible deed? No. On the contrary, I actually feel sorry for him.
Do I think he should be put to death? Yes. I think that would be the best thing for everyone including him. But not because I want to see him punished.
In fact, the family is not calling for the death penalty. They all agreed that a life sentence would actually be the greater "punishment".
I would be just as happy to see him put to death. Not as a punishment, but simply as "closure" to the whole horrible nightmare. Like I say, I think putting him to death would be the best for everyone actually. Including him.
So, in this case I'm all for the death "penalty", although as I say, from my perspective this would simply be the most practical end to this whole ordeal. I wouldn't even think of it as a "penalty", as the Christians often say, this would simply be the consequence of his actions. Like it or not. No need to pass any judgement on him. In fact, if I were a religious person I would say that all we are doing is "turning him over to God".
Let God decide what to do with him after he dies. Maybe God will let him off the hook on grounds that he was clearly mentally ill? Who knows?
And if there is no God and no afterlife, then so be it. His wife's life is over due to his actions. Why not end his life too?
No judgement required. It's only fair. And to be really fair he should be beaten to death with a jack handle too, but I personally wouldn't go that far. Give him a lethal injection and just be done with it.
Like I say, he's probably going to get far worse. Life imprisonment, knowing full well what he did for the rest of his life.
I would be "letting him off easy" with the lethal injection. But I would still vote for that end to this situation. Put him out of his misery and let's get on with life.
You've proposed a scenario where there can be no doubt of the guilt of the person. That's a big factor, because without the "omniscience of certainty" it makes it far more difficult.
Having said the above I reject the very term "Death Penalty". Or "Capital Punishment"
From my perspective, putting someone to death in this situation should not be thought of as a penalty or a punishment. Instead, I would view it as a practical solution to a problem.
Of course, there are many factors that play into this. You've mentioned "guilt". But that's an unclear term. Just because someone actually killed another person doesn't necessarily mean they are "guilty". Perhaps they had a very good reason for doing so. For example, an abused woman who kills her husband out of fear that he will continue to harm her and even harm her children. In fact, I'm not sure that I would even find such a woman "guilty" of murder. I might suggest that this qualifies as valid self-defense.
So the issue of "guilt" is still unclear.
Mental illness also plays a role in this. If a person truly was mentally handicapped when they committed the murder their "intent" can be questioned. In fact, insanity is a recognized defensive plea.
I personally don't have the problem with death that so many people seem to have such a deep problem with. If I murdered someone I would want to be put to death. That would actually be my choice.
If you offered me life imprisonment or death, I would choose death. Giving me death would actually be "letting me off". Unless of course, you were planning on killing me in some horrible manner. I'm not sure if I would choose the electric chair over life imprisonment for example. But a lethal injection? Absolutely! Even death by firing squad would be preferable to the electric chair.
I've been seriously electrocuted in the past. Trust me, it's no fun.
A gas chamber doesn't sound anymore inviting either.
But these have more to do with how I might be caused to die, rather than objecting to the actual death itself.
So as a person who has no fear of death the death penalty by lethal injection actually seems to me like an act of mercy.
So, no, I don't have a problem with putting people to death if it can be shown that they are a serious threat to society. I see no point in keeping them alive in a jail cell for the rest of their lives. Although I guess in some jails that might not be too bad. That's another question too. How bad is this incarceration actually going to be?
~~~~~~
On a personal note, there has been a murder in my extended family recently. My cousin was murdered by her husband. He was known to be abusive. He had horrible fights with her in the past and beat her in the past. He would also take temper tantrums and break furniture, windows, and put his fits through plaster walls venting his rage.
My cousin refused to divorce him (for whatever reasons). And everyone was hoping that he would grow out of this kind of immaturity. But at 50 years old he finally went over the edge. He beat my cousin with a car jack handle severely. So severely that he had evidently continued to beat her dead body for quite some time after she had actually died. (this is a clear sign of mental illness on his part for sure).
One of his many charges was "body mutilation".
He also took the body and hide it out along a back road. But then the next day he want back and moved the body again to another location and stripped the body of all clothes. I think this was an attempt to make it look like she had been raped or something.
He then went back home and acted like he didn't know where his wife was. He took a grinder and ground the tread off his muddy boots so the cops couldn't connect his tracks to his boots. (again another sign of mental illness). Why not just throw the boots away? Clearly he wasn't thinking sanely at all.
The cops of course questioned him first to investigate his "missing wife". I imagine that they knew immediately that he had killed her. By the way, he was not the one who reported his wife as "missing". Her workplace reported her as missing because it was so unlike her to just not show up without calling in.
In any case, he finally broke down and confessed and showed the cops where he left the body. His guilt is unquestioned.
Would I like to see him burn for his horrible deed? No. On the contrary, I actually feel sorry for him.
Do I think he should be put to death? Yes. I think that would be the best thing for everyone including him. But not because I want to see him punished.
In fact, the family is not calling for the death penalty. They all agreed that a life sentence would actually be the greater "punishment".
I would be just as happy to see him put to death. Not as a punishment, but simply as "closure" to the whole horrible nightmare. Like I say, I think putting him to death would be the best for everyone actually. Including him.
So, in this case I'm all for the death "penalty", although as I say, from my perspective this would simply be the most practical end to this whole ordeal. I wouldn't even think of it as a "penalty", as the Christians often say, this would simply be the consequence of his actions. Like it or not. No need to pass any judgement on him. In fact, if I were a religious person I would say that all we are doing is "turning him over to God".
Let God decide what to do with him after he dies. Maybe God will let him off the hook on grounds that he was clearly mentally ill? Who knows?
And if there is no God and no afterlife, then so be it. His wife's life is over due to his actions. Why not end his life too?
No judgement required. It's only fair. And to be really fair he should be beaten to death with a jack handle too, but I personally wouldn't go that far. Give him a lethal injection and just be done with it.
Like I say, he's probably going to get far worse. Life imprisonment, knowing full well what he did for the rest of his life.
I would be "letting him off easy" with the lethal injection. But I would still vote for that end to this situation. Put him out of his misery and let's get on with life.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
jgh7
Post #3
[Replying to Divine Insight]
You seem to care more about what resolves the situation the quickest, which is a swift death. You also seem to suggest that life improsonment is actually a worse punishment for him. Do you care how bad of a punishment he gets?
You also seemed to suggest an eye for an eye would be fair. Since she got beaten to death, it would be fair for him to be beaten to death too. Does that mean you would not be opposed to this sort of action taken for him?
You seem to care more about what resolves the situation the quickest, which is a swift death. You also seem to suggest that life improsonment is actually a worse punishment for him. Do you care how bad of a punishment he gets?
You also seemed to suggest an eye for an eye would be fair. Since she got beaten to death, it would be fair for him to be beaten to death too. Does that mean you would not be opposed to this sort of action taken for him?
-
puddleglum
- Sage
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #4
I am a Christian so I believe in the death penalty because God commanded it for certain crimes. However the penalty must be used only when there is absolute certainty of guilt. In the Bible the testimony of two or three witnesses was required. With our modern technology photographic or DNA evidence can serve as a witness in cases where no one actually saw the crime being committed.
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV
Romans 1:20 ESV
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #5
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.jgh7 wrote: You seem to care more about what resolves the situation the quickest, which is a swift death.
I don't support the mentality of punishment. What good comes of it?jgh7 wrote: You also seem to suggest that life improsonment is actually a worse punishment for him. Do you care how bad of a punishment he gets?
Who is going to benefit from punishing this person?
That does seem to be the most "logical" reaction in terms of "fairness".jgh7 wrote: You also seemed to suggest an eye for an eye would be fair. Since she got beaten to death, it would be fair for him to be beaten to death too.
No, I stated clearly that I would not personally support that. The eye for an eye mentality is ignorant. If there exists a God who supports an eye for an eye then that God is ignorant. I might point out that Jesus rejected the eye for an eye mentality directly. He specifically refuted that mentality, which, IMHO brings into question the claims that Jesus supported the God described in the Old Testament.jgh7 wrote: Does that mean you would not be opposed to this sort of action taken for him?
What do you think Jesus would do in this situation? Would he do like he did for the woman at the well and just let my cousin's murdering husband go free and simply say to him, "Sin no more"?
We can't have people running around in our society thinking that they can just beat people to death with a jack handle and their uncontrolled rage will be vindicated. And the reason we can't have this is for the protection of the innocent people who would end up being beaten to death with a jack handle.
So my choice to put this man to death has absolutely nothing to do with him or any judgements on him. I would put him to death in the same way that I would kill a rabid bear. No judgement required. We don't even need to think in terms of "evil". Is a rabid bear "evil"?
No moral judgements are even required in this situation. No need to "punish" anyone. Just remove the threat, and let the cards fall where they may.
Like I say, if there is no God and no afterlife then this problem is over with the death of this man.
On the other hand, if there is a God and an afterlife, then all we've done is hand this man over to God.
It's a win-win situation for us.
And why should we care what happens to a man who can't even control his own actions? It's not our responsibility either way.
If there is no God, no afterlife, and life is just a materialistic accident, then all we did was put an end to a bad accident. What's wrong with that?
On the other hand if there is a Creator God who created this man then that God is responsible for having created this man. So when we put him to death all we are doing is sending him back to the factory. Let the owner of the factory decide what he wants to do with his poorly designed defective creations.
I have no respect for any God who would have created this man in the first place.
That would be a creator who is an extremely poor designer.
If secular materialism is true, then this man was nothing more than a "bad accident".
Take your choice. An inept creator, or a bad accident. Apparently humans are nothing more than puppets of fate in either case.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
jgh7
Post #6
[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]
If I was in a similar situation, I would want the problem completely resolved as you do. Either the death penalty or life in prison- either way the threat of the murderer is nullified.
But I'm not necessarily against punishment. I don't know if punishment is bad. I don't know if it's bad to think that someone should get the death penalty as primarily a punishment: that they should get the death penalty because they no longer deserve to live.
I think for you, deserve's got nothin' to do with it (to quote Clint Eastwood). By that I mean the very concept of deserving punishment for a bad action seems illogical to you. You don't believe in the concept of punishment, and thus you don't believe that bad actions ultimately deserve punishment. I think it must logically follow from this that bad action deserving mercy is also illogical. Bad actions are strictly to be dealt with in a way which resolves them.
But I may be straw-manning you in my attempt to understand your views. But would you go so far as to say that good action therefore don't deserve praise or reward? If bad people don't deserve to be punished and suffer for their bad deeds, then do good people not deserve to be rewarded and given happiness for their good deeds?
If I was in a similar situation, I would want the problem completely resolved as you do. Either the death penalty or life in prison- either way the threat of the murderer is nullified.
But I'm not necessarily against punishment. I don't know if punishment is bad. I don't know if it's bad to think that someone should get the death penalty as primarily a punishment: that they should get the death penalty because they no longer deserve to live.
I think for you, deserve's got nothin' to do with it (to quote Clint Eastwood). By that I mean the very concept of deserving punishment for a bad action seems illogical to you. You don't believe in the concept of punishment, and thus you don't believe that bad actions ultimately deserve punishment. I think it must logically follow from this that bad action deserving mercy is also illogical. Bad actions are strictly to be dealt with in a way which resolves them.
But I may be straw-manning you in my attempt to understand your views. But would you go so far as to say that good action therefore don't deserve praise or reward? If bad people don't deserve to be punished and suffer for their bad deeds, then do good people not deserve to be rewarded and given happiness for their good deeds?
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #7
I do not believe in government run prisons, because it penalizes innocent third parties. I believe in civil solutions, with due process provided for the accused. In the case of murder, society as a whole is the victim. Therefore, the death penalty resolves the threat and the whole community should be involved in the process of the execution. Otherwise, it is easy to deny responsibility for the execution.
In cases of involuntary manslaughter, a safe zone for the guilty, secured by the victims directs the necessary actions to the responsible parties.
In all other cases, civil penalties should be imposed to provide restitution to the victims.
There of course are factors in some cases that require some crossover. However, that is an overview of what I consider to be a workable system of sentencing.
In cases of involuntary manslaughter, a safe zone for the guilty, secured by the victims directs the necessary actions to the responsible parties.
In all other cases, civil penalties should be imposed to provide restitution to the victims.
There of course are factors in some cases that require some crossover. However, that is an overview of what I consider to be a workable system of sentencing.
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #8
This whole concept is way too complex and deep to be resolved by a simple dichotomy of whether or not someone "deserves" something.jgh7 wrote: But I may be straw-manning you in my attempt to understand your views. But would you go so far as to say that good action therefore don't deserve praise or reward? If bad people don't deserve to be punished and suffer for their bad deeds, then do good people not deserve to be rewarded and given happiness for their good deeds?
I just now came in from cutting firewood all day. I'm totally beat and I'm preparing to take a nice hot bath. I just told myself, "Man, you really deserve this nice hot bath tonight". This would be in comparison with perhaps a day where I didn't do much of anything constructive at all.
So, sure, I think in term of being 'rewarded' for having done something constructive and productive, etc.
Of course, getting firewood has nothing at all to do with morality. My real "reward" for getting the firewood will be the heat that I will enjoy this winter.
But, yes, I even think of it in terms of having "earned" a nice hot bath tonight. Especially since I heat my bath water with wood too.
But let's not get lost in how humans think. The bigger question has to do with the reality of the human condition.
Are all humans responsible for their actions and choices?
I would say, no. Clearly they aren't.
Let's keep with the example of my cousin's murderous husband. He had a history of taking temper tantrums and punching holes in plaster walls, and breaking furniture and throwing things around. Is this the behavior of a sane person who is in total control of their own behavior?
Clearly not. This is insane behavior, and therefore anyone who is behaving in this way is obviously insane.
Question: Does an insane person deserve to be punished for being insane?
If we think of insanity as a "cancer" of the brain, then this question is the same as asking if someone who has cancer deserves to be punished for having cancer.
I view my cousin's murdering husband as simply someone who is insane. To blame him for being insane, or attempt to hold him accountable for being insane would be no different from blaming someone who has cancer for the fact that they have cancer.
Should we throw people who have cancer in jail for having cancer?
Moving On to a Creator God
If a God created my cousin's murdering husband, then God creates people who are insane. And therefore my cousin's husband never had a "sane" choice in the matter.
Also consider the following:
I am a sane person. I would never lose control of my temper and beat someone to death with a jack handle in a fit of uncontrolled rage. Moreover, I claim that if I ever actually did that I will have indeed gone "insane".
It's simply not a sane thing to do. Period.
So who's responsible for my "sanity"? Am I sane because I freely chose to be sane? Or did I just happen to turn out to be sane by the luck of the draw (or by the design of my creator)?
Did a God design me to be sane, and design my cousin's husband to be insane?
Who's responsible for their own sanity?
Moreover, if sanity is the condition for 'heaven', there where would there be any need for a judgmental God? A person is either sane or they aren't. No judgements required.
And far more importantly, when it comes to Christianity, every person is proclaimed to be "insane" (i.e. a sinner) and it's supposedly impossible for them to even cure their own insanity. All they can do is ask God for "forgiveness" for having been created insane, and if they do this they will be given amnesty via "grace" for having requested to be saved from a condition they had no responsibility for having contracted in the first place.
~~~~~
By the way, when it comes to putting this man to death, this is merely what I would personally suggest. If the man himself objected passionately to being put to death, but fine, let him live in incarceration if that's his choice.
We can't let him loose on the streets where we might beat other people to death in his uncontrolled insane rages.
So I supposed my actual answer to your question on the "Death Pentaty". Yes I'm totally for the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt who done it. And, IMHO, that might actually be an inviting relief for some people. As I had pointed out, if I killed someone in an insane fit of rage, I would want to be put out of my misery. But this is the thinking of someone who is actually sane.
If I was insane, who knows how I might feel about things?
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
puddleglum
- Sage
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #9
[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person without intent may flee there. The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment. And the cities that you give shall be your six cities of refuge. You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan, and three cities in the land of Canaan, to be cities of refuge. These six cities shall be for refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills any person without intent may flee there.
“But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. And if he struck him down with a stone tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. Or if he struck him down with a wooden tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. And if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled something at him, lying in wait, so that he died, or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
“But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait or used a stone that could cause death, and without seeing him dropped it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these rules. And the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he had fled, and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil."
(Numbers 35:9-25 ESV)
This sounds a lot like the cities of refuge that were part of the Mosaic Law.In cases of involuntary manslaughter, a safe zone for the guilty, secured by the victims directs the necessary actions to the responsible parties.
And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall select cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer who kills any person without intent may flee there. The cities shall be for you a refuge from the avenger, that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment. And the cities that you give shall be your six cities of refuge. You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan, and three cities in the land of Canaan, to be cities of refuge. These six cities shall be for refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills any person without intent may flee there.
“But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. And if he struck him down with a stone tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. Or if he struck him down with a wooden tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. And if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled something at him, lying in wait, so that he died, or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
“But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait or used a stone that could cause death, and without seeing him dropped it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these rules. And the congregation shall rescue the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he had fled, and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil."
(Numbers 35:9-25 ESV)
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV
Romans 1:20 ESV
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #10
Yes, that sounds like a better solution than our present system of warehousing people at public expense.puddleglum wrote: [Replying to post 7 by bluethread]
This sounds a lot like the cities of refuge that were part of the Mosaic Law.In cases of involuntary manslaughter, a safe zone for the guilty, secured by the victims directs the necessary actions to the responsible parties.
