Bo Raxo wrote:
wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:

I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.

Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.


Bo Raxo



I used to be for the death penalty, but as I've gotten older I've
changed my mind because (in descending order):
1) I don't trust our justice system to deliver the right verdict
100% of the time. 99% of the time is not nearly good enough. (do a
search sometime on "The Innocence Project")
2) Being in favor of the death penalty weakens my argument being
pro-life.
3) I am a fiscal conservative, and death penalties are much more
costly to execute than are LWOP.

Since you are invoking a moral argument, I'm gonna quote from the Bible;
the New Testament just to make sure you don't think I'm quoting ancient
Jewish law that might not be relevant. In Romans chapter 13:4, Paul
says, "For he [the ruler] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do
wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is
God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer."
The sword here is a reference to the death penalty, and God grants
authority to the government to take the life of a criminal as
punishment. (my personal issue is whether the government can always
determine correctly who is the criminal.)

Machain and Deleon forfeited their own rights to life when they murdered
the Hawks. Whether they are punished by death or by LWOP is an
important technicality, but that's all it is -- a technicality. The
state has no obligation to offer them a chance at redemption.

This case is also a good cautionary tale about why the Captain and Mate
on a sea vessel should always carry a sidearm.

Best regards,
Bob

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:00:41 -0600, zxcvbob wrote:

snip
Since you are invoking a moral argument, I'm gonna quote from the Bible;
the New Testament just to make sure you don't think I'm quoting ancient
Jewish law that might not be relevant.

Since when has ancient Jewish law become any less relevant than ancient
Christian law?
--

L8r,
Uncle Clover

************************************************

In my experience, one's degree of wisdom tends
to bear an exponentially inverse relationship
to one's outpouring of words.

Clearly, I've a _long_ way to go... ;-)

************************************************

The true mark of a civilized society is that its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.

************************************************

Uncle Clover wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:00:41 -0600, zxcvbob wrote:

snip
Since you are invoking a moral argument, I'm gonna quote from the Bible;
the New Testament just to make sure you don't think I'm quoting ancient
Jewish law that might not be relevant.

Since when has ancient Jewish law become any less relevant than ancient
Christian law?
--

L8r,
Uncle Clover


Good point. It made sense in my head, but doesn't make sense so much
when I read it out loud. I probably should have left out that comment
starting with the semicolon, then maybe given a reference or two from
Leviticus (not necessarily quoted though; to much scripture would come
across as being preachy). Thanks for the critique.

Bob