Good question. I doubt anyone would agree with the KKK, except racist people. The Klan is always marching… IF they can get a permit to do so. Many cities won’t let them and sometimes they do anyway. That said, there is always someone arranging a protest about something, whether we agree with it or not. BLM is one that arranges protests and not everyone agrees with them and if there is agreement, people don’t necessarily agree with everything they protest- ie the police defunding/reallocating funds. I’m on the fence on that one, because I can see both sides and haven’t made a decision either way yet.
My viewpoints. Progressive values knows no party.
Jesus was setting up a progress system by using what had worked the best in the past. And that was King David’s system in the Preexilic Period. This is not just a few bible scholars’ viewpoints. This period has been intensively studied for its ancient Israel laws of individual laws and the formation of the legal corpus. The key here is that Israel was unique because it was a community whose political and religious thinking was based on a legal contract between the Israelites and God (rules of laws). It is this system that Jesus was wanting to reintroduce that had the interest of the latter scholars. And after many changes in Europe ended up being the base for our constitution.
That said, what Jesus wanted kind of ended up being the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jefferson claimed that laws and institutions must evolve with the “progress of the human mind.” In other words, the laws must not change, for they are cut in the stone of time. But the understanding requires us to keep the laws alive and apply constitutional Amendments to new situations and knowledge.
The progressive’s chore is to keep equality, liberty, and justice working in the political institutions. Thus, the two viewpoints, the conservatives wanting the original rules of the Constitution and progressives wanting to evolve the institutions along Jefferson’s line of thinking.
To say something is to the right or to the left. Republican or Democratic is not the test to see if it is progressive. The test should be. What has worked in the past and meets all the requirements of a good civilization. We have 7,000 years of history. Why do we need to keep making the same mistakes?
Me too. We need cops, but not head cases or upper caste lords.
I agree. Sometimes the police have to play social worker and they can’t always just draw their guns at a whim or because they are just plain scared of someone whose skin colour is not white. Sometimes white people are more dangerous than Black people. DWB is not a crime. That said though, if one spouse is getting the hell beat out of them by their spouse or a woman is being raped or a store/bank is being robbed then we need the police.
[quote=“write4u, post:33, topic:5221, full:true”]
Sounds like you’re in favor of torture.
It is better to execute them and be done with it rather that keep them alive so you can make them “uncomfortable”.
[quote=“thatoneguy, post:45, topic:5221”]
It is better to execute them and be done with it rather that keep them alive so you can make them “uncomfortable”.
Some people are not afraid to die. The death penalty is no deterrent to them.
Lots of studies have confirmed the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent.
But being alone and without communication for the rest of your life is feared by all.
No one wants to go mad slowly, day by day , an endless stream of days spent in solitude, entombed between 4 stark walls. No torture, just emptiness, total emptiness.
A living burial where the dead man is kept alive until the end of his days.
The point of this is that it would be effective as a deterrent and solves the moral dilemma of state sanctioned murder.
C. Arnholt Smith stole million from the United States National Bank. He got eight months. The newspaper said he had to serve time in the county work furlough center. Not true. At the time I was riding to work and back in an airplane. We parked the plane just outside of the airport apartments. Smith could leave at 6 am and had to be back at the apartment a 9 pm. And a guard sat outside of the airport apartment. Also, a guy I know had to do his time on an Air Force military base.
The justice system of punishment can very a lot. An example. California law say you get 20 years for bank robbery. In reality, for aggravated robbery it is 44 months. But in real life it is only 25 months. And non-aggravated robbery is 24 months, which is really only 14.3 months.
Sirhan Sirhan got life in prison for killing Robert F. Kennedy. And Sirhan Sirhan is granted parole. This was his 16th appearance before the parole board. Newsom isn’t saying if he will release Sirhan. It is all political. If released Sirhan will most likely hit the TV and radio circuit. Sirhan was not even a U.S. citizen.
I bet a lot of people thought life in prison was better punishment for Sirhan than death. I wonder if they feel the same today.
Point being there is trend to keep lowering the time in jail. The same for life in prison. Life in prison does not mean “life in prison”.
A couple years back a group of terrorists killed a bunch of Brits on London Bridge. Khan, one of the London Bridge terrorists was originally given a 16-year prison term for trying to blow up the London Stock Exchange and the U.S. Embassy. But was released early “on license,” meaning he had to meet certain conditions or face being locked up again.
I am always saying we should try and follow history when we can. So, what does history tell us to do? Mainly two pathways. Life in prison was rarely used. Mainly because the prisoner had to be guarded. If the guard lost the prisoner then the guard had to do the prisoner’s time. Another was to pay for the crime with cash. Still done today with certain crimes.
Here’s an idea. Let’s take Khan. 16-year sentence. Khan does eight years. Let’s require Khan to do the full sentence. Unless, after 8 years Khan can find twelve people who will vouch for him. If Khan defaults, then all twelve people will have to each do the 8 years in prison. How this was done in history is that if a person did a really bad crime. Then all his blood line was killed. If a family did not trust a member they would kick them out of the family.
As far as a murder sentence. I am for execution. The reason we have wars is because morals. The U.S. has been in 93 wars. Murder is part of war. To say you are just as guilty as the murder for allowing execution is a false idea. You are saying you know better than the bible on morals. I will agree that some things in the bible are outdated. But morals is still and will always be the key to a great society.
A society is no better than its Rules of Laws. The Rules of Laws are no better than the morals of the people. The trick is, the better the morals the better the civilization. That’s why Jesus ended up in thirteen religions. Jesus was good at teaching morals. The bible - A murderer must be put to death, as it says “He shall be avenged” (Exodus 21:20, see Leviticus 24:17,21); it is forbidden to accept compensation from him instead, as it says "You shall not take redemption for the life of a murderer…; and there shall be no atonement for the blood that was spilled…
An example. Trumps border wall. Was morally correct. Biden’s open border policy. A moral disaster. Now if you say people who allow executions are guilty of murder. Then the people who stopped the border wall are guilty of over 227 deaths so far this year alone. They knew the wall would have stopped these deaths. So, are they any better than the people who are for executions? The people who are for executions are trying to do the morally correct thing. Most believe it will stop other deaths from happening. What is the reasoning for allowing the border crossing murders?
Prisons can’t even treat convicts this way so it’s irrelevant.
[quote=“thatoneguy, post:48, topic:5221”]
Prisons can’t even treat convicts this way so it’s irrelevant.
They used to have dungeons which are exactly as I described. There must be some still around…hehe.