Author Topic: The Scarlet Letter Redux  (Read 1111 times)

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2006, 04:54:15 PM »
Hoopy,

what exactly is the point this reductio ad absurdium whereby scripture is revised, decontexutalized and made to war against itself? Personally, I don't understand the point of it except perhaps as another example of the aeons old "Hath God Said?" approach.  

Regardless of what it says or means, you don't accept its authority or the origin, sufficiency, or design it claims for itself (John 20:31, 2 Tim 3:15-17, etc.) unless of course one counts the atomistic use of individual passages that can be made to say what you already believe.

I much prefer the guys who come to scripture and rather than doing a Jeffersonian cut and paste job on the Word, simply take it to mean what it says and criticize it on that basis. For instance, Stephen J. Gould, a renowned atheist who never accepted one iota of the bible's teaching at least criticized for what it said and for instance criticized Christ for his exclusivism in Matt. 7:13-15.  

I say that as someone who originally came to scripture as a skeptic with a worldview 180 degrees removed from that of both the New and Old Testament. Today rather than hammering the bible into a shape I'd prefer, I let it do the hammering and shaping on me.

And no, lexically speaking Lo Ratsach (lo is the negative, it means no or not) does not mean "killing" in the broadest sense, the word Rasah is never for instance used for the killing of an enemy or the slaying of an animal.

I doubt a full discussion of the semantic range of the word Rasah in Hebrew would be of much use, but perhaps a more layman oriented examination of "murder" in the old testament, from the Dictionary of Theology might -

Quote
Murder.  The Old Testament. Although the Israelites did not have a term that precisely fits our present-day idea of murder, they differentiated among killing, manslaughter, and murder in their legal terminology.

The Term for Murder in the Sixth Commandment. The sixth commandment (“you shall not murder”; Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17) has been misunderstood because of an ambiguity in terminology. The Hebrew word that was used in this case for “kill” (or murder) was the somewhat rare term rāṣah (derivatives can be found with the meaning of shatter [Ps. 42:11] or slaughter [Ezek. 21:27]). Although its exact meaning has defied explanation, in other contexts it could refer to killing that was inherently evil (Judg. 20:4; Job 24:14; Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:21; Hos. 6:9). It was also listed in abuses of the covenant community (Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2) and in lists of curses (Deut. 27:24–25). Jezebel committed murder (rāṣah) against the prophets (1 Kings 18:13), as did Ahab against Naboth (1 Kings 21:19) and Simeon and Levi against the Shechemites (Gen. 34:26). However, the same term could also have applied to unintentional manslaughter (Deut. 4:41; 19:3–6; Josh. 20:3), blood vengeance (Num. 35:27, 30), the legal execution of a criminal (Num. 35:30), attempted assassination (2 Kings 6:32), and on one occasion it was used for the figurative killing of humans by animals (Prov. 22:13).

Discernment in Homicide Cases. The death penalty was posed for one who killed with premeditation, but not for accidental manslaughter (Exod. 21:12–13; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 27:24). In fact, premeditated murder did not require a trial (Exod. 21:14; Num. 35:19; Deut. 19:11–13). Thus, the Old Testament saw a fundamental difference between the two types of homicide (Deut. 19:1–13; Josh. 20:1–7), providing two levels of meaning for rāṣ. One who killed out of enmity was not allowed sanctuary in the city of refuge. The victim’s clan could demand that the killer be delivered up to the blood avenger (2 Sam. 14:7–11), who presented the evidence against the individual. Guilt was determined either by the intention of the killer or by the type of object used in the apparent manslaughter (Num. 35:16–21; some iron, stone, or wooden objects were considered likely to cause death). However, there had to be at least two witnesses to convict a murderer (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 1 Sam. 21:4). The blood avenger, who was responsible for the execution, was not allowed to pity the murderer or else the land would be defiled (Num. 35:34; David put himself in the hands of God because of this—2 Sam. 12:13). No ransom was allowed since this would have signified consent with the crime, undermining the value of human life and breaking the covenant with God. There was also no substitutionary punishment (Deut. 24:16; although Saul’s sons were demanded as ransom after his own death because he had murdered the Gibeonites—2 Sam. 21:1–9).

The Meaning of Rāṣah. Rāṣah probably had a specialized meaning, possibly in connection with the killing (whether premeditated or accidental) of anyone in the covenant community, especially that which brought illegal violence. The sixth commandment therefore protected the individual Israelite within the community from any danger. Only God had the right to terminate life; murder was an abrogation of his power that ignored humanity’s created nature and value in the sight of God. God had to be propitiated since the covenant relationship had been broken (Num. 35:33). Murder deprived God of his property (the blood of the victim; Lev. 17:11, 14), which apparently passed to the control of the murderer (2 Sam. 4:11). Thus, the murderer’s life was ransomed. Underlying this was the dictum in Genesis 9:6 concerning the sanctity of life. The murderer had to receive a penalty consistent with this law (lex talionis) to purge the evil from their midst (Gen. 4:10–11; Deut. 21:8) and to deter others (Deut. 13:11; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21). Rāṣah did not cover the subject of killing in war or capital punishment, which were done only at the command of God; thus, they were not in the same category as murder.

Other Terms for Murder. The most common Hebrew word for killing (hārag) could also be used for murder. Pharaoh viewed Moses’ killing of an Egyptian as a crime (Exod. 2:14–15). Joab’s spilling of the blood of Abner was condemned (2 Sam. 3:30; 1 Kings 2:5). David was responsible for the death of Uriah, although he did not physically kill him (2 Sam. 12:9). Judicial murder was also condemned (Exod. 23:7; Pss. 10:8; 94:6). Hārag was the term used for Cain’s crime against Abel (Gen. 4:8), and for the murderers of Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 4:11–12). Striking a parent (possibly with the intent to murder; Exod. 21:15), inducing death by miscarriage (Exod. 21:22–23), and sacrificing children to a foreign god (Lev. 20:2–3) were apparently considered murder and were capital crimes. If a man beat a slave to death, he was probably punished (or better avenged) by being put to death by the covenant community (Exod. 21:20). There was no legislation outlawing suicide, as it must have been very rare. Those who committed suicide in Scripture had been placed in a situation of certain death (Judg. 9:54; 16:30; 1 Sam. 31:4; 2 Sam. 17:23; 1 Kings 16:18).
...


If there is any interested I can also, give you the entry for murder in the New Testament and/or some other theological examinations of the concept of Murder and Killing in the Old and New Testaments. I'm currently awash in stuff dealing with the civil law in the Bible as I'm working on a bibliography for  my ThD. The subject is the doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church, or why the church's proper domain is not the political arena, and vice versa.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2006, 04:56:48 PM by Seagoon »
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

storch

  • Guest
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2006, 06:37:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
My brother in law is a deputy sheriff in San Diego and works as a watch officer in the jail down there.   They normally place those that have been convicted of child rape and molestation in solitary to keep them from the general population otherwise they would be killed.  In the prison hiearchy, rapists and child molesters are down at the bottom of the pecking order.


ack-ack
I've heard that but could it be that it is a case of a celebrity type of inmate as much as the type of crime commited?  as an example the scott peterson guy is doing fairly well, I thought for sure he would be whacked the first day in. the same thing applies to charles manson.  I mean they have to interact with the general population at some point don't they?

Offline x0847Marine

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1412
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2006, 06:11:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
Why? Because they released photos that the public SHOULD see?

You see my friends..our Government and our laws/policies are just as bad as this rapist/killer..in fact I'd go as far to say that the US Goverment and most state governments are the biggest rapists/killers on the planet.


Only problem is it's against the code of ethics, and policy, for guards release that stuff... unless they allege a criminal "cover up", then they have whistle blower status.

They screwed up by not sending it to a reporter, they'll go to jail before revealing their sources.... bloggers?, not so gung ho apparently.

I'm sure it would have been released eventually.

In prison they tattoo the wacko bananas, in congress they protect them.. I used to think convicts and congressmen were of the same ilk, but the inmates have the moral advantage here.

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2006, 10:09:48 AM »
Some scholars claim that the Hebrew verb rasah  has a more restrictive meaning than the English verb ‘to kill’; that it refers only to the deliberate or intentional taking of human life. Those who take this view, like the translators of the New Revised Standard Version, render the commandment, ‘You shall not murder.’ Likewise the author of the article on the Ten Commandments in a recent multivolume Bible dictionary says, ‘The commandment forbids the illegal and wilful killing of the innocent, but does not ban capital punishment nor forbid the killing of Israel’s enemies during war.’ (Raymond F. Collins, ‘Ten Commandments’, in David N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York & London, Doubleday, 1992], Vol VI, p. 386).

The appeal of this translation is that it allows for capital punishment and the taking of life in self-defence, as when a country is attacked in war. But there is a basic difficulty with it. The verb also occurs in the Old Testament in contexts where unintentional killing is clearly being referred to (Deuteronomy 4:41-42, Joshua 20:3). Both Moses and Joshua provided for the establishment of cities of refuge, where a person who had killed someone by accident could flee for protection from reprisal until a proper court case could be held to settle the issue fairly. In the light of these passages a leading Old Testament scholar, Brevard Childs, observes that ‘the basic distinction between murder and killing, namely the factor of intentionality, cannot be sustained for the verb rasah.’ (Exodus [London, SCM Press, 1974], p. 420). The sixth commandment refers to all forms of killing, and means, quite simply, ‘You shall not kill’. It challenges us to preserve the basic sanctity of human life.
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2006, 10:34:19 AM »
hoopie... I believe that it is very merciful to execute a child molester and release him from the hell that is his life...

I think that life in prison is cruel but... this type of man must be kept away from the rest of society.  I believe that a man can execute him and be considered merciful..

as for people being executed unfairly.. well... I would welcome an example of one modern case of someone being executed for a crime he did not commit.  I do not believe that it is the case and.... I would much rather be executed for a crime I did not commit than be imprisoned for the rest of my life for the same thing.

I have never been able to figure out how some people... those so afraid of death... can even function.

lazs

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2006, 11:24:18 AM »
I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me. -Marquis de Lafayette

As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

Since 1973, 123 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004, two in 2005 and one so far in 2006. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2006, 11:25:35 AM »
There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some cases with strong evidence of innocence include:

Ruben Cantu   Texas   Convicted 1985   Executed 1993
A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle casts serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993.  Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case.   Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man.

Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer. "The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there," Moreno told the Chronicle.

In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."

Sam D. Millsap, Jr., the Bexar County District Attorney who charged Cantu with capital murder, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three seperate times.

Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the jury's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial. She noted, "With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that."
(Houston Chronicle, November 20 & 21, 2005 and Associated Press, November 21, 2005). See Innocence.

Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction 1981 Executed 1995
A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the state of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man. The report notes that a man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer. Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders. Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she has reopened the investigation and will conduct a comprehensive review of the case over the next few months. "There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case, if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down," stated University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, who supervised the investigation into Griffin's case. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 11, 2005). Read the NAACP report on Larry Griffin's case.

Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction 1986 Executed 1997
New DNA blood evidence has thrown considerable doubt on the murder and rape conviction of O'Dell. In reviewing his case in 1991, three Supreme Court Justices, said they had doubts about O'Dell's guilt and whether he should have been allowed to represent himself. Without the blood evidence, there is little linking O'Dell to the crime. In September, 1996, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated his death sentence and upheld his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review O'Dell's claims of innocence and held that its decision regarding juries being told about the alternative sentence of life-without-parole was not retroactive to his case. O'Dell asked the state to conduct DNA tests on other pieces of evidence to demonstrate his innocence but was refused. He was executed on July 23rd.

David Spence Texas Conviction 1984 Executed 1997
Spence was charged with murdering three teenagers in 1982. He was allegedly hired by a convenience store owner to kill another girl, and killed these victims by mistake. The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return for testimony.

Leo Jones Florida Convicted 1981 Executed 1998
Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida. Jones signed a confession after several hours of police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a fellow officer as an "enforcer" who had used torture. Many witnesses came forward pointing to another suspect in the case.

Gary Graham Texas Convicted 1981 Executed 2000
On June 23, 2000, Gary Graham was executed in Texas, despite claims that he was innocent. Graham was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston supermarket. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she saw the killer's face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a distance of 30 -40 feet away. Two other witnesses, both who worked at the grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the killer but were never interviewed by Graham's court appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would have voted differently had all of the evidence been available.

Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted 1992 Executed 2004
After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed earlier this year in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire.

Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, "[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation.... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."

Willingham was convicted of capital murder after arson investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerent had been used to set three separate fires inside his home. Among the only other evidence presented by prosecutors during the the trial was testimony from jailhouse snitch Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict on psychiatric medication, who claimed Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail.

Some of the jurors who convicted Willingham were troubled when told of the new case review. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky asked, "Did anybody know about this prior to his execution? Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent." Prior to the execution, Willingham's defense attorneys presented expert testimony regarding the new arson investigation to the state's highest court, as well as to Texas Governor Rick Perry. No relief was granted and Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004. Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham's execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham's case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas's death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis. (Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2004).
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2006, 04:43:37 PM »
Do you endeavor to keep the other 9 commandments as well Hoopy?

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2006, 08:59:50 AM »
hoopy... not one of those examples says the man executed was proven innocent.

surely you can find one proven case of an innocent executed in all of the executions in recent times?

lazs

Offline AKH

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 514
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2006, 01:37:49 PM »
And how is somebody proven to be innocent?
AKHoopy Arabian Knights
google koan: "Your assumptions about the lives of others are in direct relation to your naïve pomposity."

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2006, 02:34:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKH
And how is somebody proven to be innocent?


If they weigh more than a duck? ;)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The Scarlet Letter Redux
« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2006, 02:39:24 PM »
hoopy...  they can be proven not guilty.  It is done all the time.  people who have been imprisoned for years have been released with absolute proof of innocence.

I assume that the info you got was off some anti death penalty site and that the examples cited are the best they can come up with.

None of them have proven that anyone was executed unfairly even tho they had thousands of examples to choose from and most have been investigated with a fine tooth comb.

no matter what...  the evidence is that all the people executed were more than deserving of such a death.  

lazs