Susan Smith

[CardinalBacker]

14 minutes ago, baddog said:

No, this is a woman. She should be strapped in the back seat of a car (facing backwards) and rolled slowly into a lake so that she can experience what her two beautiful, innocent boys viewed just before the water rose above their heads while screaming her name. (punishment fit the crime). How terrible of me.

All murders don’t meet the criteria for a “capital” offense. Extenuating circumstances are always in the mix. I’d say she met the criteria but somehow got it reduced to life (where’s the without parole). TVC can enlighten you much better than myself.

Which one of the Ten Commandments tells us not to incarcerate a person for their crimes?  Which one tells us not to kill? 

[baddog]

28 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Which one of the Ten Commandments tells us not to incarcerate a person for their crimes?  Which one tells us not to kill? 

Well, you’re asking the wrong person. You know how I feel. These laws weren’t enacted by just a “bunch of old white guys”. Liberals groupings are comical because they always lay blame. Someone else is always responsible. Now, you’re against incarceration.
 

Hey, if she was in California, they’d probably say she had a bad day, someone had offended her, or she forgot to take her meds……let her bond out and be on her way. Everybody is a winner except for the 3 year old and 14 month old boys. This is where we differ. You think about the punishment for her and I think about the kids.

[CardinalBacker]

5 hours ago, baddog said:

Well, you’re asking the wrong person. You know how I feel. These laws weren’t enacted by just a “bunch of old white guys”. Liberals groupings are comical because they always lay blame. Someone else is always responsible. Now, you’re against incarceration.
 

Hey, if she was in California, they’d probably say she had a bad day, someone had offended her, or she forgot to take her meds……let her bond out and be on her way. Everybody is a winner except for the 3 year old and 14 month old boys. This is where we differ. You think about the punishment for her and I think about the kids.

You misunderstood what I said- I’m in favor of incarceration. My point was that murder is specifically forbidden while incarceration is not even mentioned as being sinful. 

[tvc184]

20 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

So  “thou shall not kill” applies to helpless unborns, but not to men handcuffed to gurneys decades after whatever crime they committed. 
 

Makes sense to me.  
 

 

Are you now wanting the Holy Bible to set our laws?

I believe that most people believe that the correct translation should be…..  Thou shall not murder 

In any case of your new conversion….

Genesis 9:6

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

I don’t think unborn children have shed a man’s blood.

 

 I am also assuming by your response that self-defense is a sin.

Good to know. 

[CardinalBacker]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Are you now wanting the Holy Bible to set our laws?

I believe that most people believe that the correct translation should be…..  Thou shall not murder 

In any case of your new conversion….

Genesis 9:6

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

I don’t think unborn children have shed a man’s blood.

 

 I am also assuming by your response that self-defense is a sin.

Good to know. 

Injecting a man with life ending drugs while he’s strapped to a gurney isn’t self defense. It’s murder. 
 

State sanctioning doesn’t change that fact in God’s eyes, IMO. 
 

Jesus also said to let “he who is without sin cast the first stone.” 
 

My point is that two wrong don’t make a right. Capital punishment might appeal to the public’s thirst for blood, but that doesn’t make it right. 

[baddog]

5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Are you now wanting the Holy Bible to set our laws?

I believe that most people believe that the correct translation should be…..  Thou shall not murder 

In any case of your new conversion….

Genesis 9:6

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

I don’t think unborn children have shed a man’s blood.

 

 I am also assuming by your response that self-defense is a sin.

Good to know. 

Man, don’t thump the Ten Commandments at people unless you follow all ten. All liberals do is “bear false witness”. Read Proverbs 19:9.

Try Leviticus 24:17 for death penalty.

 

[TxHoops]

On 11/21/2024 at 8:41 AM, CardinalBacker said:

Hypocritical is crying that abortion stops a beating heart while demanding the murder of another human being. 

 

And vice versa.

Me?  I'm pro-life... unborn children AND convicted criminals.  The part no one wants to recognize is that it cost a lot less money to house/clothe/feed Susan Smith for 40 years that it would cost to fund her appeals of a death sentence.  I'm also anti-wasteful spending.  

 

This is all correct. 

[TxHoops]

I believe God should bring us into the world and take us out of the world. When man decides to play God, problems arise. Some just choose when they believe they should decide and when they shouldn’t. That’s at least one thing I won’t have to answer for.  
 

Oh, and we’ve also executed plenty of innocent people in this country.  So there’s that…

[LumRaiderFan]

32 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I believe God should bring us into the world and take us out of the world. When man decides to play God, problems arise. Some just choose when they believe they should decide and when they shouldn’t. That’s at least one thing I won’t have to answer for.  
 

Oh, and we’ve also executed plenty of innocent people in this country.  So there’s that…

So no abortion, even in cases of incest or rape?

[TxHoops]

3 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So no abortion, even in cases of incest or rape?

My personal belief is that God can do great things even with lives that begin with rape or incest and there is anecdotal proof of that in both instances.  It’s also not me who has to carry that daily reminder to term so I get the argument in those instances.  The argument that someone who is 18 and was able to fill out a voter registration form should decide whether someone gets to continue to live is an easier argument for me.  But again, that’s just me.  I’m not cool with a system where we potentially kill innocent people because they couldn’t afford a decent lawyer just because it makes us feel better.  Especially when we have life without parole and it’s a less expensive option in the vast majority of cases. 

[TxHoops]

On 11/21/2024 at 11:11 AM, 5GallonBucket said:

It really doesn’t have to cost that much….we ve complicated things.

21 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Doesn’t have to be

The answer to let’s try not to execute innocent people isn’t let’s give them less due process.  That’s the way of thinking in countries where women aren’t allowed to show their faces. 

[LumRaiderFan]

34 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

My personal belief is that God can do great things even with lives that begin with rape or incest and there is anecdotal proof of that in both instances.  It’s also not me who has to carry that daily reminder to term so I get the argument in those instances.  The argument that someone who is 18 and was able to fill out a voter registration form should decide whether someone gets to continue to live is an easier argument for me.  But again, that’s just me.  I’m not cool with a system where we potentially kill innocent people because they couldn’t afford a decent lawyer just because it makes us feel better.  Especially when we have life without parole and it’s a less expensive option in the vast majority of cases. 

Agree 100% with the bold.

Also agree that there have been innocent folks put to death and have served lengthy sentences.  I think that is happening less and less with DNA evidence.

I, personally, have no problem with the death penalty but understand those that do, but to equate the killing of an innocent unborn with a convicted  murderer is simply wrong, as has been done here.

There is justified killing, but never justified murder.

 

 

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Agree 100% with the bold.

Also agree that there have been innocent folks put to death and have served lengthy sentences.  I think that is happening less and less with DNA evidence.

I, personally, have no problem with the death penalty but understand those that do, but to equate the killing of an innocent unborn with a convicted  murderer is simply wrong, as has been done here.

There is justified killing, but never justified murder.

 

 

I agree.  Murder is never justified, whether done by a criminal or by the State.  We should never take an innocent life if it can be avoided.  And there is only one way to do that.  Don’t kill someone if it can be avoided. 
 

(And to save a potential rabbit hole, I have no issue with self-defense or defense of others killings, whether by law enforcement or citizen.)

[baddog]

I think we have come a long way from Biblical death penalties to where we are now. In the days of Jesus, one could still be stoned to death for prostitution, blasphemy, or even thievery. Not so long ago in our country, a man could get the death sentence for being a horse thief. Nowadays, they bond out to steal again. Don’t forget Salem witch trials. Back then you only had to be accused of being a witch.

To take the life of innocent children or to bludgeon an innocent woman beyond recognition just to do it, is a mindset that cannot be rehabilitated and they should suffer the same fate. These are my interpretations and can be debatable. It doesn’t make me wrong.

The Bible spoke for and against the death penalty and I believe it’s about the punishment fitting the crime, as I mentioned above. It’s why Jesus tried to save the prostitute because what she had done didn’t deserve the death penalty.

I don’t claim to be perfect but to me, Ibarra and Smith don’t deserve to breathe another breath of life for what they did. God, and only God, should judge me.

[CardinalBacker]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Don’t forget Salem witch trials. Back then you only had to be accused of being a witch.

 

That was my Halloween costume this year. I dressed up like a Pilgrim. Buckles on my shoes and everything. Then I pointed and screamed “WITCH!!!!” every time I saw a chick dressed up like a witch. 5 years old? “WITCH!!!!”  Waitress at the bar? “WITCH!!!!”

 

It killed. 

[baddog]

22 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

That was my Halloween costume this year. I dressed up like a Pilgrim. Buckles on my shoes and everything. Then I pointed and screamed “WITCH!!!!” every time I saw a chick dressed up like a witch. 5 years old? “WITCH!!!!”  Waitress at the bar? “WITCH!!!!”

 

It killed. 

In passing, I’ve read a little on the subject. The punishments were insane. 

[TxHoops]

26 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

That was my Halloween costume this year. I dressed up like a Pilgrim. Buckles on my shoes and everything. Then I pointed and screamed “WITCH!!!!” every time I saw a chick dressed up like a witch. 5 years old? “WITCH!!!!”  Waitress at the bar? “WITCH!!!!”

 

It killed. 

I may do this next year and not leave the house.  My wife couldn’t be more sick of my BS anyway…

[5GallonBucket]

On 11/23/2024 at 8:08 AM, TxHoops said:

The answer to let’s try not to execute innocent people isn’t let’s give them less due process.  That’s the way of thinking in countries where women aren’t allowed to show their faces. 

Never stated they shouldn’t have due process.

but can you really say we haven’t complicated it….i know your area is law so you benefit from it

[TxHoops]

22 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Never stated they shouldn’t have due process.

but can you really say we haven’t complicated it….i know your area is law so you benefit from it

I don’t benefit from it, that’s not my area.  But the average cost to imprison someone is around $15k per year (on average in the US) and capital cases cost somewhere between $1.5-$3M with over half being overturned or reduced to life in prison anyway.  These numbers may be inflated since the last report I read but I’m sure it would be on both sides and higher on the DP side if anything.

So what’s the point?  We feel better because we got to return the favor on someone (hopefully) who committed a heinous crime?  And I don’t know I can say we have “complicated” it. Which appeal should we cut out?  Our justice system has a pecking order and we have higher courts for a reason. When we are about to impose the ultimate judgment, should we cut steps that other cases have to save a buck?  Or do we not pay for an indigent person’s experts at the trial court level because it’s too expensive?

Or do we just lock them up and throw away the key (unless we later find out they weren’t actually guilty, in which case we have a key and a life we haven’t unjustly ended) and save a ton of money?  Seems to me to be an obvious solution but I’m more of a pragmatist.