Does Utah Prefer "Eye for an Eye" Justice?

[frankenstein]

leaving anything to the whims of human beings - human beings being easily manipulated or being easily lead by the nostrils, a system that ends the life of another person is fundamentally flawed because because a human(s) determines guilt or innocence.

On a TV called "State v" camera were permitted into jury rooms for deliberations, what was revealed shows how terrible a our system of "justice" is. One of the jurors stated as his reasoning for guilt "Look at him [defendant], you wouldn't want to be his friend his is guilty". Another case out of Arizona, a man - with a license to carry a concealed weapon - was walking in a wooded area, all the sudden a dog (do not remember the type but enough to frightened start towards him while barking) the pulls his weapon and shots the dog, the owner sees what happens and screaming and yelling runs toward the man who shot the dog. The man who shot the weapon in hand yelled back at the other man to stop or he would shoot; he shot and killed the man charging at him. He was convicted of a crime; two jurors were interviewed and said "the defendant carried a more powerful gun than the police, so we believe he wanted to kill"

here is what a County Attorney told me once "Never trust you life to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty".

but if we are to have the death penalty, I say guillotine or lethal injection.

How accurate is it these days to extrapolate LDS practices from Utah practices?

I would say its pretty accurate.

[selek]

How accurate is it these days to extrapolate LDS practices from Utah practices?

I would say its pretty accurate.

Except that Utah has a sizeable non-Mormon population. Salt Lake City- the most populous area of the state is no longer majority Mormon (IIRC)- and many of those non-LDS support the policy.

You're also forgetting that most Mormons live outside Utah. The mindset of Mormons is no longer confined to the Wasatch Corridor.

Also- nearly all of the states surrounding Utah have similar policies and positions- without Mormon majority populations (nor anything like unto it).

Yes- Mormons tend to favor capital punishment. Yes, most of the people in Utah are Mormon- but correlation is NOT causation.

Your assumptions just don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Mortal Man]

What do you think?

"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith

[frankenstein]

Except that Utah has a sizeable non-Mormon population. Salt Lake City- the most populous area of the state is no longer majority Mormon (IIRC)- and many of those non-LDS support the policy.

You're also forgetting that most Mormons live outside Utah. The mindset of Mormons is no longer confined to the Wasatch Corridor.

Also- nearly all of the states surrounding Utah have similar policies and positions- without Mormon majority populations (nor anything like unto it).

Yes- Mormons tend to favor capital punishment. Yes, most of the people in Utah are Mormon- but correlation is NOT causation.

Your assumptions just don't stand up to scrutiny.

I addressed the direct precise question asked.

The question I address does not ask about a singular specific point, but rather the question I addressed is a general question. According to a report produced by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life the self-identified religious affiliations of Utahns over the age of 18 as of 2008 are: 58% (labeled as mormon on survey)

[Ariarates]

Many of the methods used strike us as barbaric today, but that's only because of changing standards and the dandification of a once robust society.

It's called civilization and it is indeed a progressive process.

Your great-grandfathers looked at hanging and firing squads as perfectly acceptable, but considered stoning to be barbaric. (Yes, "getting stoned" means something different to generations outside your own Cheech and Chong or Beavis and Butt-head crowd).

Part of being civilized is being courteous, a virtue that is clearly wasted on you. Maybe when you've grown up...

Being drawn and quartered, or even crucified were horrific punishments (and effective deterrents). We find them repugnant and horrific today- but they were "run of the mill" in their day.

If you think electrocution is that uniquely gruesome, you've got no concept whatever of history.

Examine for a moment (from the comfort of your plush arm chair, chilled bourbon in one hand, Wii remote in the other) the traditional punishments meted out to pirates, insurrectionists, and traitors during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.

Look for a moment at how rapists, murderers, and horse-theives were generally treated during the 19th and early 20th century.

As I said, civilization is a progressive process. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Other than exemplifying what I refer to as the "lace panty" crowd, your "outrage" adds nothing to the conversation, and does nothing to undermine the points made.

Are you insecure? Does labeling people and calling them names make you feel better about yourself?

And for the record...you know where the door is. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

You came to US, remember?

Who is "us"? Don't make the mistake of elevating yourself as the standard against which MADB-posters are measured. Luckily, there are only a few people on this board who express themselves like you do so I'm going to stick around for a while if you don't mind (and also if you do mind).

[Walden]

I don't believe that's what he said. What he said was that he never heard blood atonement connected to capital punishment.

A point that seems to have escaped you is that what others have stated is that it is specifically death by firing squad that seems to overlap with the blood atonement ideology, not capital punishment in general. Lethal injection, the electric chair, or hanging have nothing to do with blood atonement. Either you attended gospel doctrine and priesthood classes where this point somehow also went over everyone else's head, or you are remembering/reporting incorrectly.

Now you're veering even further from what he actually said in an effort to salvage a point. You shared your personal observations, he shared his. Why is his suddenly about the lesson manual?

Again, I see no mention of the manual in his comments, but you seem incredibly concerned about defending this conjured up point.

I have never heard it related to capital punishment, and I've had plenty of elder's quorum experiences in multiple states and countries. Are you now going to accuse me of following the GD lesson manual too Pharisaically?

With regards to, "I don't believe that's what he said. What he said was that he never heard blood atonement connected to capital punishment," that is not all that he said....he also stated that the experiences that I were BS, particularly the discussions that I witnessed and took part in. And yes, I can read that the experiences were related to the firing squad, but that was not an option in the state where I reside, yet it was still the opinion of some members that I conversed with that capital punishment is condoned in relation to blood atonement. And no, I am not remembering/reporting incorrectly as you state....why is it that everyone on this board knows my personal experiences better than I do....it must be that personal revelation thing. My argument with regards to the manual is that several posters here have called my recollections of conversations that I had with members in LDS classes BS, and therefore, I presumed that they have never conversed off-topic in their classes and heard some non-doctrinal, personal interpretation beliefs of some members....if they had, how could they classify what I heard as BS.

I apologize if I got off track, and I certainly have gotten off-topic in trying to defend my experiences. I just get riled up when posters come on here and tell me that I must be making stuff up, and that my story is BS, because they were not there.

[Vance]

Sure, you can use Bible quotes to support any point of view you want.

Do you think it is normal for people to have a favourite execution method (the electrical chair no less) or to prefer executions to be brutal rather than humane? And to express such repulsive opinions on a message board devoted to apologetics for the Church of Jesus Christ? If it is, I'm outta here faster than you can say 9/11 (be it 1857 or 2001).

The fundamental rule of "Christian" behavior is to treat others the way we want to be treated.

The actions of the murderer are implicit consent on his part to receiving the death penalty for his actions.

If that upsets your delicate sensibilities, then take it up with the Man who taught it.

[Vance]

"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." -- Adam Smith

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Then let that Man carry out the execution.

[frankenstein]

The fundamental rule of "Christian" behavior is to treat others the way we want to be treated.

That is correct you and I are to deal with everyone in the way you and I wish to be treated.

The actions of the murderer are implicit consent on his part to receiving the death penalty for his actions.

Your reasoning is severely flawed and without the foundation you suppose it has. Nowhere in the "Golden Rule" is there a qualification "Do unto others, except when you treating someone the way they have treated others"

[Vance]

Vance:

Then let that Man carry out the execution.

Maybe we should "let that Man" also do the investigation, arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing as well.

Lets all just sit back and let God take care of us.

What say you to that?

[Vance]

Your reasoning is severely flawed and without the foundation you suppose it has.

It is apparent that you don't understand the reasoning within my statement. Your lack of understanding doesn't translate to my reasoning being "flawed and without the foundation" as "you suppose".

Nowhere in the "Golden Rule" is there a qualification "Do unto others, except when you treating someone the way they have treated others"

Nor is it required for my reasoning to stand.

Here, let me repeat my point.

The actions of the murderer are implicit consent on his part to receiving the death penalty for his actions.

[selek]

It's called civilization and it is indeed a progressive process.

Uh...yeah.

In the 1950's and 60's the biggest problems in our schools was talking, passing notes, and cigarettes in the bathrooms.

Now it's guns, drugs, and rapes in the hallways.

That's REAL progress. My....how civilized we've become.

I remember a time when a woman could walk downtown alone after dark without fear of being molested. That's exceedingly rare anymore.

That's your progress.

I remember a time when you could board a commercial aircraft

in this country without undergoing a virtual strip search, filling out enough ID and paperwork to buy a small Central American country, and an IRS audit.

Such progress we've made. You should be proud.

I remember a time when the law was a deterrent to crime as opposed to an obstacle to justice...but lawyers, endless appeals, and procedural delays are the forces of virtue and civilization, right?

Part of being civilized is being courteous, a virtue that is clearly wasted on you. Maybe when you've grown up...

Courteous is as courteous does, Singing Rat. YOU'RE the one making blanket denunciations of an entire people just because they don't agree with you.

As I said, civilization is a progressive process. Thank you for illustrating my point.

The only way I illustrated your point was by sketching on the top of your head.

Who is "us"?

That would be "us" Mormons- against whom you issued a blanket judgement in your earlier "my petticoats are in a twist" rant to Vance.

Or had you forgotten? (More likely, you hoped we'd forgotten).

Don't make the mistake of elevating yourself as the standard against which MADB-posters are measured.

I do not. I am unique and the genuine article of my kind- accept no substitutions, exchanges, or refunds.

I, on the other hand, do not issue blanket condemnations against an entire people simply because they disagree with my pious pronouncements.

Luckily, there are only a few people on this board who express themselves like you do so I'm going to stick around for a while if you don't mind (and also if you do mind).

I hate to bring this up (okay, I actually enjoy bringing it up), but you're the one who threatened to "take his ball and go home".

It's not my fault that no thinking member of the board considers that a serious threat or loss.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

That's fine with me.

IF he would do it. There would be no question of guilt or innocence now would there?

Or maybe a theocracy isn't all that great when administered by us lowly mortals. We tend to make plenty of mistakes, have plenty of biases, prejudgments, and a host of other less than Godlike qualities don't we?

[frankenstein]

Nor is it required for my reasoning to stand.

Here, let me repeat my point.

The actions of the murderer are implicit consent on his part to receiving the death penalty for his actions.

you do not understand. By you reasoning you have created a never ending string of retribution

Do unto others. Please explain, show, prove, where we (the people or individuals) are completely excused in how we are to treat others for how they treated us?

FY....what you espouse is what the a main tenant of Satanism....treat others how they treat you.

Do unto others, MUST be read and applied along with Turn the Other Cheek.

[selek]

Nor is it required for my reasoning to stand.

Here, let me repeat my point.

The actions of the murderer are implicit consent on his part to receiving the death penalty for his actions.

you do not understand. By you reasoning you have created a never ending string of retribution

Do unto others. Please explain, show, prove, where we (the people or individuals) are completely excused in how we are to treat others for how they treated us?

FY....what you espouse is what the a main tenant of Satanism....treat others how they treat you.

Do unto others, MUST be read and applied along with Turn the Other Cheek.

I think you miss the mark with this one, Frankie.

No one is talking about vigilantism or people taking justice into their own hands.

We are talking about the STATE upholding that particular aspect of our common social contract.

No one is talking about an endless cycle of revenge and retribution- by removing these actions from the indivdual and imputng these powers to the State, we break the cycle of personal judgement and retribution.

It is no longer an individual act or judgement, but a collective one.

In that sense, our laws (the fabric of our social contract) are (generally) quite clear: if you do thus, you receive thus. If you violate thus, you are punished thus.

Speeding in an area where the fines are $50, is "implicit consent" to be fined $50 dollars when you are caught speeding.

Committing murder in a society where the penalty for murder is death is "implicit consent" to be put to death for your crime- not by the victim or his nearest kin, but by the voice and consent of the people.

[frankenstein]

It is no longer an individual act or judgement, but a collective one.

I tried to make it clear that I my comments were address a "collective" as well.

Do unto others. Please explain, show, prove, where we (the people or individuals) are completely excused in how we are to treat others for how they treated us?

Do unto others is not justification for the death penalty.

There are plenty of scriptural references for the death penalty, particularly JST Gen 9, or section 98 of the D&C, the BoM "ignominious death". But to claim Do Unto Others justifies the death penalty is akin to saying walking more than 20 steps on the sabbath is capital offense.

[selek]

I tried to make it clear that I my comments were address a "collective" as well.

Do unto others. Please explain, show, prove, where we (the people or individuals) are completely excused in how we are to treat others for how they treated us?

Do unto others is not justification for the death penalty.

There are plenty of scriptural references for the death penalty, particularly JST Gen 9, or section 98 of the D&C, the BoM "ignominious death". But to claim Do Unto Others justifies the death penalty is akin to saying walking more than 20 steps on the sabbath is capital offense.

It is not my position that "Do unto others" justfies the death penalty any more than it is my position that "Do unto others before they do unto you" is wise social policy.

Both scripture and law (as well as common morality) have long decreed that the penalty for murder is death (or at least it has been for most of recorded history).

Both scripture and law also draw a distinction between "lawful killing" and "unlawful killing". Murder is the latter.

Capital punishment is the former, as are the lawful actions of a soldier in wartime.

That is the difference and the distinction.

"Do unto others" is a red-herring. "Do unto others" is the rule of men, and the rule of might, of emotion, and of mobocracy rather than of reason.

By subjecting the accused to the full rigor and protection of the law- of the codified and understood social contract to which we all adhere and submit- and adjudicated by those invested by the people with the authority to judge, we remove the actions from the realm of mob justice to the realm of reason.

In doing so, we transition from the "rule of men" to "the rule of law". That, too, is part of the understood and accepted arrangement.

Most of the law is predicated on either punishment or restitution, or both. Having stolen from another, you are punished- often with jail time, but more often (and insofar as it is possible) by paying restitution- your own goods are forfeit toward the end of repaying the harm you have done and the loss you have caused.

Having killed another- and rendering restitution impossible, your own life is forfeit turn. Whether you agree or not, that HAS been a bedrock of jurisprudence and law for most of recorded history. It has been an implicit or explicit coda of our social contract for as long as human society has existed.

That you disagree with capital punishment on philosophical grounds does not make the policy invalid, nor does it undermine the historical precedent behind it. That you feel there is another, better, way does not undermine the precedent, nor invalidate the judgement of those who came before and will come after you.

You have chosen to remain a part of this society- and that includes the tacit acceptance of those rules. If you don't like the rules, there are legitimate nad lawful means by which you may attempt to change them. But until then- agree or not- you are bound to obey them.

By choosing to become (or remain) part of that society- to partake of its delights and its benefits, you implicitly accept the covenant to be bound by the rules of that society. That- almost by definition- includes the precept that if the penalty for murder is death, you consent to be killed in punishment of your debt.

Should you fail to adhere to the rules, you will be punished according to the rules- including the death penalty- or be cast out.

In many respects, that's what the modern prison system has become- prisoners and malefactors are outcasts, exiled from normal society- and with little hope of ever reintegrating into it.

[Nathair/|\]

It is not my position that "Do unto others" justfies the death penalty any more than it is my position that "Do unto others before they do unto you" is wise social policy.

Both scripture and law (as well as common morality) have long decreed that the penalty for murder is death (or at least it has been for most of recorded history).

Both scripture and law also draw a distinction between "lawful killing" and "unlawful killing". Murder is the latter.

Capital punishment is the former, as are the lawful actions of a soldier in wartime.

That is the difference and the distinction.

"Do unto others" is a red-herring. "Do unto others" is the rule of men, and the rule of might, of emotion, and of mobocracy rather than of reason.

By subjecting the accused to the full rigor and protection of the law- of the codified and understood social contract to which we all adhere and submit- and adjudicated by those invested by the people with the authority to judge, we remove the actions from the realm of mob justice to the realm of reason.

In doing so, we transition from the "rule of men" to "the rule of law". That, too, is part of the understood and accepted arrangement.

Most of the law is predicated on either punishment or restitution, or both. Having stolen from another, you are punished- often with jail time, but more often (and insofar as it is possible) by paying restitution- your own goods are forfeit toward the end of repaying the harm you have done and the loss you have caused.

Having killed another- and rendering restitution impossible, your own life is forfeit turn. Whether you agree or not, that HAS been a bedrock of jurisprudence and law for most of recorded history. It has been an implicit or explicit coda of our social contract for as long as human society has existed.

That you disagree with capital punishment on philosophical grounds does not make the policy invalid, nor does it undermine the historical precedent behind it. That you feel there is another, better, way does not undermine the precedent, nor invalidate the judgement of those who came before and will come after you.

You have chosen to remain a part of this society- and that includes the tacit acceptance of those rules. If you don't like the rules, there are legitimate nad lawful means by which you may attempt to change them. But until then- agree or not- you are bound to obey them.

By choosing to become (or remain) part of that society- to partake of its delights and its benefits, you implicitly accept the covenant to be bound by the rules of that society. That- almost by definition- includes the precept that if the penalty for murder is death, you consent to be killed in punishment of your debt.

Should you fail to adhere to the rules, you will be punished according to the rules- including the death penalty- or be cast out.

In many respects, that's what the modern prison system has become- prisoners and malefactors are outcasts, exiled from normal society- and with little hope of ever reintegrating into it.

Thank you, I never managed to word it this well, but I thought about this a lot when I was a corrections officer. I never understood how my inmates could not realize it was their own fault they were locked up.

[selek]

Thank you, I never managed to word it this well, but I thought about this a lot when I was a corrections officer. I never understood how my inmates could not realize it was their own fault they were locked up.

I ride the bus to work nearly everyday, and that route runs between a half-way house and a job force/parole center.

I'm amazed how many of them STILL don't get it- or how clueless they can be.

A couple of months back, I (in full public safety/law enforcement uniform- badge and all) had a pair of young men sitting next to me discuss how they were going to go after the member of their trio who'd escaped jail time for their collective indiscretion.

They named the dates, times, and place of their previous crime, specified the unconvicted partner's participation and action in the earlier crime, and speculated about where he'd hidden the loot.

I was aghast and flabbergasted, and finally couldn't help myself.

I leaned over and asked, "How long do you two morons expect to remain on the street when you casually plan to commit a felony on a bus crowded with thirty other people?"

They simply had no grasp whatever of cause and effect, or of the idea that their decisions and choices had consequences.

They did not understand that if they did X, society would respond with Y.

Our shared social contract does not dictate our choices- but it DOES specify the consequences of our actions.

For most of recorded history (and even today in most places) that includes forfeiting one's own life in payment for unlawfully taking the life of another.

Of course, confronting two convicted felons while in the midst of planning another crime probably wasn't the brightest way of handling it, either.

[USU78]

Maybe we should "let that Man" also do the investigation, arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing as well.

Lets all just sit back and let God take care of us.

What say you to that?

Naw, tss wants to lock 'em up for decades and decades and then do compassionate release when they finally go insane on the eve of what would have been the 40th birthday of the dead twins . . . and the 65th birthday of their dead mother.

[Vance]

Naw, tss wants to lock 'em up for decades and decades and then do compassionate release when they finally go insane on the eve of what would have been the 40th birthday of the dead twins . . . and the 65th birthday of their dead mother.

Oh, I see now.

I was thinking that he was wanting to insist that they just receive counseling instead of incarceration. You know that warm fuzzy attitude that, the bad that people do, is the result of some passed event that psychologically hurt said perpetrator, and that counseling can "cure" the antisocial behavior, where as punishment only exacerbates it.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

What?

Where have I ever said that someone/anyone should not pay to the uttermost farthing for the crimes they commit?

What I have said is that we should treat everyone with respect and dignity. No one deserves to be mistreated, and to do so makes me less.

Heck I even support the death penalty in rare cases. Torture murder, or the ordering of torture that results in death; murder of a peace officer when in the performance of their duties. Most murder is a crime of passion, and killing the killer is nonsensical.

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

Actually what I am in favor of is keeping them safe, keeping them secure, just keep them. One can argue what is the appropriate length of incarceration. I favor the minimum time necessary to convince them that crime is counterproductive to legitimate goals. Depending on severity of the crime that may well take a long time to do.

Also since nearly all prisoners will at some point be released into our communities it makes perfect sense, and cents, to equip them with the educational and emotional resources to stay out of prison.

[USU78]

USU78:

Actually what I am in favor of is keeping them safe, keeping them secure, just keep them. One can argue what is the appropriate length of incarceration. I favor the minimum time necessary to convince them that crime is counterproductive to legitimate goals. Depending on severity of the crime that may well take a long time to do.

Also since nearly all prisoners will at some point be released into our communities it makes perfect sense, and cents, to equip them with the educational and emotional resources to stay out of prison.

It wasn't all that long ago that the robber was outlawed permanently, unless he could petition and show cause why he should ever be let back into civilization. The risk that the robber puts others' lives to was deemed so outrageous and insupportable that this was considered a decent remedy with little cost to the community.

Once again, squishy liberalism/progressivism chooses to bankrupt civilization on the demonstrably false hope that recidivism can be fixed by the good intentions of the civilized.