ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's why when I engage in this conversation I always deal with the specific case of the two 10-year-olds who planned and carried out the murder of 2 year old James Bulger.
Religious Zealotry
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
If they're raised right I agree with you, but if they're raised wrong (through no fault of their own), then I think it is possible. I mean raised wrong like, they had horrific parents. That's not their fault, but they can still I think provide informed consent to a murder, if and only if they were raised wrong by horrific parents. These parents would have to be legendary in their bad parenting, not just "helicopter parents".
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
This is why I prefer to deal with specific cases instead of in the abstract. With a specific case you can specifically answer the questions as to whether it qualifies as a murder, whether the child in question understands the consequences of their action, whether the child in question acted willfully and with the intention of causing the death. In the Bulger case there is a preponderance of evidence that supports the conviction of murder.
Right Divider
Body part
I was going to ask the same question. Seems that some people like to create emotional hypotheticals.
Exactly!
If a 5 year old commits a capital crime, he should be put to death.
If a 105 year old commits a capital crime, he should be put to death.
Age makes no difference in matters of justice.
Not a five year old. I don't see it. They're barely old enough to understand that a toy belongs to them at that age, never mind what it would take to end someone's life on purpose. If it's possible at all, it would so rare as to not be worth talking about and the parents of any such child would themselves be guilty of a capital crime.
Those are gigantic IFs though. So gigantic as to be practically meaningless.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
How about a mentally retarded adult with a developmental age of 5 years old?
How about an otherwise normal adult who has blunted his own mental ability with the voluntary use of illegal drugs?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You would definitely have to prove that they did it with intention and understanding. Absent those two elements, it wouldn't qualify as murder.
Well, that's just the whole point. Murder is an intentional act. If a person is not capable of understanding what murder is then he can't commit the crime.
There is an argument that can be made that it isn't up to us to make such determinations and that someone who takes another person's life by some non-accidental means, forfeits his own life - period. Then God can deal with the person in the here-after and we who are left to live on Earth learn the value of a person's life.
I'm not sure I buy that argument because it is an abomination to kill an innocent person as much as it is to allow the guilty to live so its a tough one. I can see both sides. It makes me wish Bob was still around so I could ask him about it.
Clete
That's pretty much my point.
The law is universally applicable. It covers the "gigantic 'IF's" that are practically meaningless, but if they happened, people would be wondering what to do.
If there was such a five year old who committed a capital crime, then he should be put to death.
There doesn't need to be a law that says "If a person is between X and Y ages, he is incapable of committing a (capital) crime."
The law simply needs to say: "If a person commits X (X being some capital crime), he should be put to death."
"If a child as young as five commits a capital crime, he should be put to death" isn't saying "Five year olds are capable of capital crimes." It's saying "If there was a five year old capable, and he committed a capital crime, God's law covers that: He should be put to death, because those who commit capital crimes should be put to death."
Something which a certain someone in this thread seems completely incapable of grasping.
"Non-accidental"?
There are still so many things I wanted to ask Him.
Our best option is to search and study the Scriptures, but after that, who do we talk to?
Will Duffy maybe? Doug McBurney?
Scenario 1: Mentally retarded adult with a mental age of 5 lunges at his caretaker in a 3rd floor room to hug her after not seeing her all day, but accidentally knocks her through the window behind her where she falls to her death...
VS
Scenario 2: Mentally retarded adult with a mental age of 5 lunges at his caretaker in a 3rd floor room because he hasn't seen her all day, and in anger pushes her backwards into the window, which breaks, and she falls to her death...
---
Scenario 1 is rightly considered an accident.
Scenario 2 is rightly considered murder. Or at the very least, homicide.
(@Clete Is scenario 2 what you would consider "non-accidental"?)
Last edited:
An otherwise normal adult who has blunted his own mental ability with the voluntary use of illegal drugs is, by definition, already a criminal, and should be punished accordingly.
If he kills an innocent person as a result of his use of those drugs, even accidentally, he should be executed. And yes, the Bible is explicit on this.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Unfortunately our current just-a-system (tip of the hat to Bob) minimizes the illegality of recreational use of psychotropic drugs and in far too many circumstances minimizes illegal actions engaged in while under the effects of those drugs.
Yes, accidental murder is a contradiction.
God did not command the death penalty when someone died because of an accident. Where there is no intent, there is no guilt. (Deuteronomy 19 and Numbers 35).
There is also the issue of self-defense where someone dies and there is no blood guilt. (Exodus 22)
Maybe I'll listen through the Criminal Justice System study again.
Either of them or both.
No, it would be an accident. It is not a crime for a child to shove someone across a bedroom and a person with sever retardation would not be able to think through the possible consequences of his actions in a manner where it would be reasonable to think he had any idea that such consequences were even a possibility.
In short, I doubt it would be possible for any five year old, whether biological age or mental age, is capable of committing the act of murder. Such people are to be pitied not executed.
Oops, you're right. It would not be murder.
Hmm. I was trying to recall how it was worded, but I'm unable to sit down and type it out right now, so I'll come back later and see if I can remember how it was worded that DOES make it murder.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Things like, informed consent, lying in wait, malice aforethought. Things that convince a jury.
IF we're talking about a biblically based criminal justice system (i.e God's criminal justice system) then there would be no jury, just a judge who would held responsible for his judgments. Regardless, your point holds. There are certain "ingredients", if you will, to the crime of murder.
Did you know Mary cannot do anything to help you?