So…I’m reading this article today about capital punishment. Several things popped out at me. It seems the guy is guilty of a brutal murder. There doesn’t seem to be any disputing that. Texas sure knows how to put folks to death, that’s for sure. That’s probably why Texas had a lower murder rate than California, some folks might say, seems Texans prefer raping of persons and property, but the numbers do show a lower crime rate than California, overall, for Texas.

The different philosophical approaches, both conservative and liberal, of judges in deciding capital offense cases was interesting to think about, and who can argue with this: "There is no greater burden than falls on a member of the judiciary than to sit in judgment on whether an individual shall live or die, and no greater responsibility than to make certain that every capital defendant receives the full protection to which he is entitled to under our Constitution and our laws," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt…?

In 1981, Belmontes broke in the home of 19-year old Steacy McConnell and beat her to death with a bar bell. He stole a stereo and sold it for $100.

In two earlier rulings, Reinhart and Paez overturned the death sentence for Belmontes on the grounds jurors may have thought they could not consider his conversion to Christianity in prison as a reason for leniency.

Now, why on earth would the jury not see that as grounds for leniency? That should go without saying…?

Police and prosecutors said Belmontes had shot and killed a man two years earlier, but this evidence was kept from the jury.

Just FYI, I am opposed to the death penalty, just on general principal, but I think these Los Angeles judges are looney over this Christian stuff. But this makes more sense: In a 2-1 decision last year, Reinhart and Judge Richard Paez, also of Los Angeles, ruled the lawyer for Belmontes provided "ineffective assistance of counsel" because he failed to tell the jury of the "traumas that Belmontes faced as a youth." Given this evidence, the jury might have spared his life, they said.

Yes, that may have done it. Especially if he said he was really, really regretful, and promised never to do it again.

No one wants to die.

His conversion to Christianity should not hold up his appointment with death at the hands of the state, on the on the contrary, his conversion to Christianity should ease the burden placed on the judiciary.

Belmontes now believes he is going to a better place.

Well done, members of the jury.

There are a lot of supposed converts to Christianity on Death Row. And they should therefore look forward to a joyous reunion in Heaven. Using conversion to weasel out of your crime seems like serious chutzpah.

What most concerns me is that some people had second thoughts about killing a guy who breaks into a home and murders the occupants by whapping them about the head with a barbell. Open and shut, I'd have thought.

See verse 13.

how people think that maybe the state, who you personally won't trust to collect taxes or run healthcare, shouldn't be entrusted to only ever kill the right people. Just how do you reconcile your belief that the government is run by stupid people and your belief that those stupid people should get to decide whether to pull the switch on people or not. Or are you only in favor of the death penalty in red states?

Read the rest of Exodus, and get back to me with a biblical verdict on the death penalty.

to death row where the potentially democratic/stupid governor gets to decide on pardons. In a country filled with people stupid enough (according to you and your ilk) to vote in such overwhelming numbers for Obama are you really contending that jury trials are infallible? Or do only republicans serve on juries?

I may misremember, but I don't think we sent Obama to the White House with universal acclaim.

Juries are unanimous, however.

can agree on all sorts of things. Like that it's relatively easy to figure out a 3 digit code on a 10 digit keypad. Or that if you take partial DNA that has a 1 in a million chance of randomly matching someone and troll it though a database with 3 million people in it that the person who gets picked out must be guilty. Or that first person identification or suspects is almost always right. (Hint: All of these things are false beliefs juries have been acting on for a really long time.)

They can unanimously agree on the obvious truth, for example.

Um, you think that someone on trial for murder is being convicted instead of the two other guys? I mean, c'mon. There's a reason this guy is on trial and the two other guys aren't. It's not like a DNA profiler just picks one of the three at random. The guy was connected to the crime before the DNA was ever examined.

Urquhart:

Read the rest of Exodus, and get back to me with a biblical verdict on the death penalty.

U: That's Weak

No kidding...

Now, let me expand on why I have an issue with the “Christianity” in this statement: In two earlier rulings, Reinhart and Paez overturned the death sentence for Belmontes on the grounds jurors may have thought they could not consider his conversion to Christianity in prison as a reason for leniency.

If you follow this link to Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents and substitute any other “religion” on that list (number two would be a picnic, in this thought exercise), do you honestly believe one could make the same sort of statement, and have the same outcome expectancy?

(Disclaimer: Judaism might help a bit, maybe… no-one is too pissed off at the Unitarian’s – you might pass as a Christian, in a crunch - and Scientology does have some star power.)

I would word the sentence this way: In two earlier rulings, Reinhart and Paez overturned the death sentence for Belmontes on the grounds jurors may have thought they could not consider his rehabilitation in prison as a reason for leniency.

That is much more inclusive, and worth considering, I think, in a society that is not barbaric. As I stated before, I am opposed to the death penalty, just on general principal.

if you go to islamic state penitentiary for abandoning their faith, they show you leniency if you convert back (to islam) after solitary confinenment and minimal food rations

they're very humane that way

If you killed a bunch of people, it doesn't matter if you've been "rehabilitated", however that may be determined. You must pay for your crimes, in any civilization worth its salt. Which means death. You killed people in their beds. You die. A society that shirks that responsibility, well, shirks its responsibilities.

I don't care what the survivor of his own killing spree says. The dead can't speak for themselves, and the murderer isn't worth hearing. Your biblical interpretation is utterly shallow and complete bollocks, since you didn't bother to read it.

Kill him.

there's only one guy who matches? Well then, the innumerate jury concludes, he must be guilty! And yes, police go looking for DNA matches before they have suspects. That's how they get suspects in the first place.