I found your reply here, which perhaps you meant for me?
I dislike the term pro-life because it's not what I support, at all. The moment you take this stance, you're asked how can you support the death penalty if you're pro-life?
Therefore, I define what I support as anti-murder, which includes some of these important points:
No murdering of innocent babies.
Don't let murderers live.
If someone attempts to murder someone else, killing in defense of others is fine when it's the best option available.
When a baby is going to murder its mother, we can protect the mother from being murdered by killing the baby.
A baby can't "murder" it's mother. (Murder is intent.)
But I understand your point.
I don't support the death penalty for one reason - if the state murders someone who didn't murder, then they committed murder. It's a catch 22. I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons, but there have been far, far too many cases of people murdered by the state who were later exonerated. People on death row, too.
I know that's a digression. But I guess it's germane. So, at least I'm logically consistent.
Indeed, murder requires intent, but at least my stance is consistent within itself.
I can get behind not supporting the death penalty because of doubting the accuracy of the conviction. As Maimonides wrote: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”
But when you can really be certain of it?
Whoever sheds [an innocent's] man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Genesis 9:6.
A man who mortally smites another man shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 24:17.
A murderer shall be put to death. Numbers 35:16 and 17.
You should not accept an alternative for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death; he must be put to death. Numbers 35:31
I'm glad you see the moral and logical consistency of my position, though. If "murder" is wrong, then ANY state sanctioned murder is equally indefensible.
Nice quote by Maimonides, BTW. I use that one myself from time-to-time.
I agree that with the flimsy testimonial systems most states have today, that capital punishment is indefensible. Especially when combined with juries who would convict a sandwich.
But if the witnesses were thoroughly investigated and interrogated and the other evidence also fits, and we can be 100% sure that someone is a murder, then I don't see how we can avoid "You should not accept an alternative for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death; he must be put to death." If the Bible's laws are something you adhered to, then it would be incumbent upon you to apply capital punishment when you're certain.
Maimonides wrote many terrific ideas. I highly recommend most of his essays. Some of his letters even contain precursors to modern ideas. Like on NPCs, he once wrote along the lines of: Most people are dead, they don't think at all. Less than one out of a thousand truly understands anything. Entire countries are filled with dead people. There are only a few communities in the whole world where they have scholars who are truly alive.
I found your reply here, which perhaps you meant for me?
I dislike the term pro-life because it's not what I support, at all. The moment you take this stance, you're asked how can you support the death penalty if you're pro-life?
Therefore, I define what I support as anti-murder, which includes some of these important points:
A baby can't "murder" it's mother. (Murder is intent.)
But I understand your point.
I don't support the death penalty for one reason - if the state murders someone who didn't murder, then they committed murder. It's a catch 22. I'm not against the death penalty for moral reasons, but there have been far, far too many cases of people murdered by the state who were later exonerated. People on death row, too.
I know that's a digression. But I guess it's germane. So, at least I'm logically consistent.
Indeed, murder requires intent, but at least my stance is consistent within itself.
I can get behind not supporting the death penalty because of doubting the accuracy of the conviction. As Maimonides wrote: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”
But when you can really be certain of it?
That's an equivocation.
I'm glad you see the moral and logical consistency of my position, though. If "murder" is wrong, then ANY state sanctioned murder is equally indefensible.
Nice quote by Maimonides, BTW. I use that one myself from time-to-time.
I agree that with the flimsy testimonial systems most states have today, that capital punishment is indefensible. Especially when combined with juries who would convict a sandwich.
But if the witnesses were thoroughly investigated and interrogated and the other evidence also fits, and we can be 100% sure that someone is a murder, then I don't see how we can avoid "You should not accept an alternative for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death; he must be put to death." If the Bible's laws are something you adhered to, then it would be incumbent upon you to apply capital punishment when you're certain.
Maimonides wrote many terrific ideas. I highly recommend most of his essays. Some of his letters even contain precursors to modern ideas. Like on NPCs, he once wrote along the lines of: Most people are dead, they don't think at all. Less than one out of a thousand truly understands anything. Entire countries are filled with dead people. There are only a few communities in the whole world where they have scholars who are truly alive.