re: “No, someone was already judged and punished for the specific crime committed by the specific criminal who is being executed for that precise act. That is a type of double jeopardy that is double judgment & double punishment, and is unjust, unrighteous, and immoral.”
Ok, I’m confused. Are you seriously trying to argue that because Jesus died for our sins, that this man who murdered a little girl should not face the consequences of his crime? Is that the “someone” you are referring to? Or, is there something about this case I am unaware of?
Ok, I’m confused. Are you seriously trying to argue that because Jesus died for our sins, that this man who murdered a little girl should not face the consequences of his crime? Is that the “someone” you are referring to? Or, is there something about this case I am unaware of?
Whoa! I was just getting ready to comment when you swerved that conversation over a cliff. I'm outa here if we are swinging from legal semantics of "Double Jeapordy" to "Jesus' dying for our sins." It's a "Bridge to Far" for me.
Yes, there are consequences he should face, but consequences and punishment, especially capital punishment, are not necessarily the same thing.
Capital punishment is an unjust consequence as I've mentioned. Punishment is what we all feel should happen to a guy like that. It's natural and human. But natural and human doesn't make it righteous or just. Since some else has already borne all punishment for what this guy did, we must look somewhere other than "punishment" for just and moral purposes behind the consequences and responses for his heinous acts.
Restraint (incarceration) for the protection of society is a valid purpose and response. Society should be kept safe from dangerous criminals. That is a top priority of government. "Punishment" misses the mark because the only standard is whether he's "paid his debt to society" whatever that means. So, as we see today, the priority of parole policy focuses not on safety to society but on "doing his time."
What about restitution to the victims and families of the victims? Well, you can't undo a heinous act against someone else, especially a child. The answer and healing for the victims is never vengeance, it is only found in forgiveness. Studies and actual history has shown beyond much doubt, that vengeance feels good for awhile, but don't heal the pain. The only thing shown to truly heal victims so they can move on with their lives is forgiveness. So the state isn't doing the victims any favors by killing the perp for "just" revenge.
However, what about the perp? I think there should be some sort of restitution depending on the crime that may include monetary and possibly personal service-type restitution. "Punishment" misses the mark here too because in our current set-up, the actual victim isn't not even a party in the case and is generally ignored for anything except for evidence. It's "the state" vs. whoever and again, the only standard is whether he's "paid his debt to society" (the government), not to the victims. If the victims want compensation, they have to spend their own money and time to retry the whole thing in civil court. I believe this could and should be changed.
Prison should be a pay-as-you-go deal. The whole sentencing paradigm and prison system need to be brought out of the dark ages and into the light of today. Prisoners should be productive and prison should be a productive place where prisoners not only pay their way but reasonably repay what they've taken from their victims. Again, this is not on the "punishment" agenda which is why the purpose and use of prisons are still in the dark ages in many ways.
Voluntary, solid, and verifiable rehabilitation programs should be available also. Not on the "punishment" radar screen at all.
Again, "punishment" is first and foremost unjust and immoral because it is a form of double jeopardy. And when you kick the tires, you also see how much "punishment" falls short of effective, meaningful purposes for consequences.