• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gorsuch enables the execution of Ledell Lee

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
FYI eye for an eye is not the Golden rule, it was used by the pagans surrounding Israel and was used as an example of an unjust rule.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
It is not incorrect. If Gorsuch had voted differently it would have been 5-4 against.
Why is that so difficult to see?
Tom

Why do you place this on one man, like the OP suggests?

Five people voted for it. I am bewildered by this conclusion.

Why do you not blame the other four that voted the same?

This is our legal system. Did you argue when the judges rules in favor of same sex marriage? I'm going to take a stab and say you did not.

What makes this so different from that case? Because your ideal is now on the losing side? It's the same exact system being applied. The reasoning and the new judge(s) are just arbitrary. They can speak all these fancy words and bring up pass situations, but it's a translation process of the constitution. And we know exactly how unreliable this process can be with religion and other processes that derives from old literature.

For me, if you're going to blame anything, then blame all the judges that ruled against it. Or we blame the entire system. I see no leg to stand on if we choose to focus blame on the one judge that just came to power.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
FYI eye for an eye is not the Golden rule, it was used by the pagans surrounding Israel and was used as an example of an unjust rule.

If you're going to carry a conversation with me then be direct and reply to me.

The golden rule is simple. It carries many forms but the core is the same. Do unto others what you expect in return. Don't lie to others unless you expect to be lied to. It's very simply.....
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Why do you place this on one man, like the OP suggests?

Why do you not blame the other four that voted the same?
Because they are not the subject of the OP.
If Gorsuch had voted differently the decision would have been the opposite. It was a poor decision and he made it as much as anyone. Far more so than most people, especially the 4 opposing justices.
Why do you partisans keep wanting to talk about everything and everyone except Trump?
Tom
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
The golden rule is do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU, in other words if you were unjustly accused of murder, or even guilty of murder would you want to be put to death, or would you want leniency, then so you should do unto others as well.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
But isn't the purpose of punishment the suppression of vendettas and feuds? As long as the public has confidence that the state will extract vengeance, public order is maintained. The state doesn't really care weather the convict is guilty or not. So long as the impression of state vengeance is maintained, public ire is assuaged and everyone's happy.
Yes, but nevertheless it is a very delicate issue. Truly, what difference does it really make in your daily life if the killer of a loved one is dead or behind bars? You have no contact with them either way, dwelling on the past in an emotional disaster, and nothing can really ever amend that you lost a loved one. It's not like a broken window that can have a monetary value and objectively be stated to have an equal or greater, or lesser even, value of the cost related to replacing the window to call justice and restore lost property. Such a thing is simply just impossible with someone murdered. You already lost a loved one, why wish it upon another?
I simply believe in an eye for an eye. Call it vengeance. Call it whatever you like. It's a spin on the golden rule which is my main philosophy.
Eye for and eye and the Golden Rule contradict each other. An eye for an eye is returning violence with violence, the Golden Rule is listening and attempting to understand and hearing the offender's side of the story, just as you would wish. A single mother stealing food for her children, under "eye for an eye" she likely looses her hand. Under the Golden Rule, she would be given food so that she doesn't have to steal again.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Locking one life away can be said to be one too many in the prison cell.
True, but ultimately a prison sentence can be ended, whereas an execution cannot in anyway be undone.
Let's walk back through our steps and simply suggest that criminals simply don't do their crimes and they won't face punishment no matter how severe it is.
It's not always that easy. If your choices are go hungry or steal food, many, many, many people are going to steal food. They'll rationalize their theft to themselves long before they let themselves starve to death.
You could walk back through and realize that the face of crime is a human face, and while some are cold hearted and we are better off with them away from the rest of society, there are also many unfortunate circumstances with crime providing a solution. Not many people wake up intent on intentionally breaking the law. Sometimes people "act up" because they need help.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
OK....we don't like the USSC's decision, or the death penalty.
But our dislike doesn't make it incorrect.
A judge's job is to interpret the law, which is the Constitution.
Anyone have a legal argument why the majority of justices are wrong?
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I simply believe in an eye for an eye. Call it vengeance. Call it whatever you like. It's a spin on the golden rule which is my main philosophy. If I was ever in doubt about the ethics of a situation, I always turn to the golden rule. It hasn't failed me.

If one is going to take a life, then they should have absolutely have no problem forfeiting their own.

This is my reasoning. I wouldn't call it being emotional but if you think it is, that's fine.
I'm not a fan of the golden rule. More of a platinum rule person. Involves less projecting ones value (what I would want done to me is not what other people woukd want) empathy rather than sympathy. Even still, I look at the hard core reciprocal justice systems like Hammurabi and I can only think of an old Graham quote from the Canadian parliment:
We can argue all we like, but if capital punishment is being inflicted on some man, we are inclined to say: ‘It serves him right.’ That is not the spirit, I believe, in which legislation is enacted. If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless
And I feel that is true both because eye for an eye is escalating and because it assumes an inerrancy of the system that concludes guilt, which I do not have confidence in. And I have a much greater respect for the Norwegian prison system which is focused not on retributitive justice or 'getting what's coming but focused around rehabilitation and community service.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
I do believe that the vote was 5 to 4 to allow the execution to continue; therefore was it not 5 justices that allowed the execution to go through.
Correct, the SCOTUS is conservative dominated. All 5 pro-lifers allowed the execution given the circumstances involved.
The SCOTUS has been a conservative majority for decades, that's dangerous. Never put the bible before the constitution.

What I find strange is why this vote is divided along party lines?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Correct, the SCOTUS is conservative dominated. All 5 pro-lifers allowed the execution given the circumstances involved.
The SCOTUS has been a conservative majority for decades, that's dangerous. Never put the bible before the constitution.

What I find strange is why this vote is divided along party lines?
What else would you expect from politicians in robes.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Yes, but nevertheless it is a very delicate issue. Truly, what difference does it really make in your daily life if the killer of a loved one is dead or behind bars? You have no contact with them either way, dwelling on the past in an emotional disaster, and nothing can really ever amend that you lost a loved one. It's not like a broken window that can have a monetary value and objectively be stated to have an equal or greater, or lesser even, value of the cost related to replacing the window to call justice and restore lost property. Such a thing is simply just impossible with someone murdered. You already lost a loved one, why wish it upon another?

Because your sense of justice keeps telling you that the current situation is unjust.
On one hand you have a dead victim and on the other a criminal that is being punished in a less severe way than what the victim had to go through. It is only natural that you would feel that justice hasn't been served.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Because they are not the subject of the OP.
If Gorsuch had voted differently the decision would have been the opposite. It was a poor decision and he made it as much as anyone. Far more so than most people, especially the 4 opposing justices.
Why do you partisans keep wanting to talk about everything and everyone except Trump?
Tom

This thread has very little basis for a valid argument to begin with. It won't fix anything. Blaming this on one man will do little to actually fix the real problem. We can say that the constitution is ambiguous given how our judges votes almost 50% to conclude on issues. Votes that amount to one vote decisions should not be allowed, IMO. It just shows a different system of political power in play and not an actual review of the of the legal process.

Not sure if you're identifying me as a partisan. I actually identify as a liberal but rather base my ideals on simple logic than party favoritism. I've already denounced many mainstream liberalism if I find it illogical.
 
Last edited:

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
I'm not a fan of the golden rule. More of a platinum rule person. Involves less projecting ones value (what I would want done to me is not what other people woukd want) empathy rather than sympathy. Even still, I look at the hard core reciprocal justice systems like Hammurabi and I can only think of an old Graham quote from the Canadian parliment:

And I feel that is true both because eye for an eye is escalating and because it assumes an inerrancy of the system that concludes guilt, which I do not have confidence in. And I have a much greater respect for the Norwegian prison system which is focused not on retributitive justice or 'getting what's coming but focused around rehabilitation and community service.

Fair enough, if your beliefs has worked for you then good.

The only thing we should agree on is that criminals should not be criminals in the first place. This will resolve any after discussions. After that point, it's all subjective in my book.
I'm fine if we incarcerate criminals for life, if that decision was made because the main point is to punish the criminal. I'm also fine in taking that person's life if they took the life of another person. I see no wrong in either decision.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
The golden rule is do unto others AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU, in other words if you were unjustly accused of murder, or even guilty of murder would you want to be put to death, or would you want leniency, then so you should do unto others as well.

Not talking to you any more until you actually reply to my comments. Otherwise, I find it a bit rude. If you're going to place someone on your ignore list, then do it the right way. Just saying...
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Yes, but nevertheless it is a very delicate issue. Truly, what difference does it really make in your daily life if the killer of a loved one is dead or behind bars? You have no contact with them either way, dwelling on the past in an emotional disaster, and nothing can really ever amend that you lost a loved one. It's not like a broken window that can have a monetary value and objectively be stated to have an equal or greater, or lesser even, value of the cost related to replacing the window to call justice and restore lost property. Such a thing is simply just impossible with someone murdered. You already lost a loved one, why wish it upon another?

Eye for and eye and the Golden Rule contradict each other. An eye for an eye is returning violence with violence, the Golden Rule is listening and attempting to understand and hearing the offender's side of the story, just as you would wish. A single mother stealing food for her children, under "eye for an eye" she likely looses her hand. Under the Golden Rule, she would be given food so that she doesn't have to steal again.

We can go on and on about the definition but here it is from Wikipedia:

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

* One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).[1]
* One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).[1]
* What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).[1]

If someone is willing to kill, then that someone should accept being killed.

Again, you're using vengeance in place of justice to suite your views. Justice and vengeance are not that much different. It's all perspective. I'm repeating this again.

Every time a criminal is punish, that is vengeance as much as it is justice. For it not to be vengeance or justice, the criminal would walk away.

Please, lets move away from this semantics debate.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Not talking to you any more until you actually reply to my comments. Otherwise, I find it a bit rude. If you're going to place someone on your ignore list, then do it the right way. Just saying...

I don't use the quote format because your comments are so ill informed, they don't stand repeating, case in point!!
 
Top