Mark Fuhrman Rejects the Death Penalty

UM List | 1 Oct 03 | V. Lawrence

[hopespringseternal]

In fact the 5th commandment prohibits it.

That is just ignorant. The same law that contains the fifth commandment also commands the death penalty for many things we don't even recognize as crimes today.

[xzins]

Let's say you have a corrupt prosecutor.

Also, imagine a case where a mother and a neighbor watch someone they know murder the mother's children. In other words, it is a case where the identity of the murderer is CERTAIN, absolutely certain.

Why does that have anything to do with whether or not the prosecutor is corrupt? Why should it impact the death sentence of the murderer?

Certainty of guilt is a standard that overrides any systemic problem.

[wordsofearnest]

There are punishments worse than death. I personally believe in life terms at hard labor or thw worst forms of labor we could come up with. Make the inmate earn his keep and any left over go to the victims. The hell with prisoners rights.

[Sam Cree]

"There is a possible 3rd category requiring extensive imprisonment where it is a combination of unintentional and woefully negligent."

That is what I am asking you to define a little more closely, if you will.

Would you require the death penalty for all murders that were intentional, whether crime of passion or premeditated for personal gain, etc.?

[B Knotts]

I'm just repeating what I (vaguely) recall him saying. He mentioned something about the Oklahoma situation, where lab work was completely bungled.

I'm not strongly in either camp. I think that there are certainly people who deserve the death penalty; yet, I can see some of the other side's points, too: that a flawed system, made up of flawed people, can and will make mistakes, in an area where no mistake is acceptable.

I think he did say that he thought that the feds were capable of doing the job at present; it was the states he was worried about.

[xzins]

I always thought that crimes of "passion" were given lesser sentences because they were arguably "intentional."

Premeditated for personal gain murders seem to come into the category of intentional and, as such, would be eligible for the death penalty. Intentionally murder for personal gain would fall under the category of malicious. (Mal intent.)

Certainty then would apply to:

1) Guilt for the murder itself. You'd have to be certain.
2) Guilt for intention. You'd have to be certain it was intentional.
3) Guilt for malicious intent. You'd have to be certain the murderer did so for personal gain.

A person who is found certainly guilty of the murder, but who can sucessfully fend off accusations of intentionality and of commission of crime for personal gain, would have a sentence lesser than capital punishment.

This is getting pretty deeply into categories that have probably been well thought out through the years by those in the legal profession.

We'll just use their categories.

The only thing we'll change is the stand of "guilty within a reasonable doubt" when it comes to a capital crime. We'll replace it with a standard of "unimpeachable certainty."

[Sam Cree]

I think it is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Back later, an interesting discussion, thanks.

[xzins]

Yep, you're probably right. Also, I meant to say that crimes of passion were viewed as "unintentional."

Someday JR will put an edit button on these posts so we can go back and correct mistakes.

[southland]

#62 I am not altogether against capitol punishment but have recently mellowed because of things I have seen.
There is nothing worse than convicting a totally innocent person. But this has happened all through history... The best illustration is Christ....

I am with you in the illustration you bring to this forum.
We are just talking about different levels of perspective.

[snerkel]

Blunt and to the point.

Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man."

[xzins]

Precisely.

I like clarity when it can be found.

[Sam Cree]

"That is just ignorant. The same law that contains the fifth commandment also commands the death penalty for many things we don't even recognize as crimes today."

Hey!

You're probably right about me? But I am ready to be educated about how the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is contained in another law that specifies the death penalty. So elaborate, please, if you will.

[Tempest]

Curious? What verse(s) is that?

[snerkel]

But I am ready to be educated about how the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is contained in another law that specifies the death penalty. So elaborate, please, if you will.

Thou shalt not kill is not the best translation for the Hebrew word Ratsach. Thou shalt not murder is a closer translation, but still does not justify the meaning of the Hebrew. A closer inspection would show a premeditated, vengeance type slaying.

malakhi, would you mind offering some insight to Exodus 20:13? Thanks.

[hopespringseternal]

Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

[Sam Cree]

"Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

Does that seem a little strong? Although, these days, it's almost refreshing.

[malakhi]

malakhi, would you mind offering some insight to Exodus 20:13?

You are basically correct. Ratsach can signify premeditated murder, as well what we might call "manslaughter" or "2nd degree murder" -- crimes of passion rather than of premeditation.

This commandment in no way forbids capital punishment.

[2timothy3.16]

Well, let me start by suggesting you read the Torah, the first five books of the Bible with particular study going into the last three.

The verses referring to death for an action are way to numerous to mention.