LDS Freedom Forum

ajax wrote:

mes5464 wrote: Yes, forcing a person to take a vaccine is wrong, because it is a crime.
Abortion is the murder of an unborn child, and thus it is a crime.
Same-sex marriage is a crime because all children have a right to a father & a mother. The crime is against the child and any heterosexual marriage that was destroyed to make the homosexual marriage (family).
Marriage is defined by God and thus any variation of that is a crime.
Adultery is a crime, because breach of a marriage contract is a crime.
Fornication is a crime, because all children have a right to lawfully married parents.

Societies problem is we have stopped recognizing crime for what it is and we have stopped punishing for it.

I'd be interested in your punishment schedule for the above listed.

On another thread I was explaining how, as a society, we fail to recognize crime or punish it. Ajax asked me about my thoughts on a punishment schedule. To avoid derailing the other thread I am starting this one.

I am glad to have the chance to post this thread because I have been interested in thinking this through with other people to check my logic and to challenge my ideas. So, here goes.

Crime is defined as one person denying another person of a right (life, liberty, property).
Crime must have a victim and only the victim can press charges. The state cannot press charges independent of the victim.

Theft is the stealing of one's past life.
Kidnapping/wrongful imprisonment is the stealing of one's present.
Murder is the stealing of one's future.

1) I believe that King Benjamin was revealing a valid truth when he said that he said, "Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons". I think imprisonment constitutes cruel punishment.
2) There are only two valid punishments: restitution or execution.
3) The punishment administered by government should be equal to what an individual is entitled to do having caught a criminal in the act. Examples of this idea are: you awake in the middle of the night and find a stranger standing in your bedroom. You draw a gun and kill him. Contrast that with: you awake in the middle of the night and find a stranger standing in your bedroom. He escapes out the window before you can take any action. Because of your detailed description, law enforcement is able to apprehend the criminal. Because his pockets are full of your personal property you get a jury to convict him. The appropriate punishment should be death because that is what the victim was entitled to when they caught the criminal in the act, unless the victim is willing to be merciful and accept restitution (which in this case would be to return the stolen property).
4) If a crime can be undone (paid back, rebuilt, restored) then the victim should seek this punishment.
5) If a crime cannot be undone (murder, rape, adultery, etc) then the punishment should be execution.
6) Lethal force is justified to prevent a crime. i.e. A robber approaches you and attempts to rob you. You defend yourself and kill the robber. "We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life." D&C 134:2

To conclude. There are only two punishments, restitution or execution. The victim gets to accept either of these punishments. This is a chance for the victim to be Christ like and extend mercy. Mercy can only be extended in cases where the criminal can provide restitution. Capital punishment is a part of the repentance process for a criminal guilty of murder (or other none restitution crimes).


Sources

Murder

Alma 1:18

Alma 42:17-22

D&C 134:11

mes5464 wrote:5) If a crime cannot be undone (murder, rape, adultery, etc) then the punishment should be execution.

So adulterers should be executed? What are the "etc" crimes?

mes5464 wrote: Yes, forcing a person to take a vaccine is wrong, because it is a crime.
Same-sex marriage is a crime because all children have a right to a father & a mother. The crime is against the child and any heterosexual marriage that was destroyed to make the homosexual marriage (family).
Marriage is defined by God and thus any variation of that is a crime.
Adultery is a crime, because breach of a marriage contract is a crime.
Fornication is a crime, because all children have a right to lawfully married parents.

So according to your construct, how would you punish the above crimes?

ajax wrote:

mes5464 wrote:5) If a crime cannot be undone (murder, rape, adultery, etc) then the punishment should be execution.

So adulterers should be executed? What are the "etc" crimes?

Yes. Adulterers should be executed.
Capital punishment for adultery is well established in the Old Testament.

etc are the variations of the same. Molestation, sexual assault, rape of a child, attempted murder. All of these are just an tempt to create degrees of criminality that in truth do not exist.

An example is differentiating between murder and attempted murder. In truth, there is not difference between these two crimes except the degree of success. If I shot you and you die I committed murder. If I shot you but a good doctor saves your life, I am still a murder, my goal was just thwarted.

ajax wrote:

mes5464 wrote: Yes, forcing a person to take a vaccine is wrong, because it is a crime.
Same-sex marriage is a crime because all children have a right to a father & a mother. The crime is against the child and any heterosexual marriage that was destroyed to make the homosexual marriage (family).
Marriage is defined by God and thus any variation of that is a crime.
Adultery is a crime, because breach of a marriage contract is a crime.
Fornication is a crime, because all children have a right to lawfully married parents.

So according to your construct, how would you punish the above crimes?

All of the above crimes are capital crimes.

mes5464 wrote:

ajax wrote:

mes5464 wrote:5) If a crime cannot be undone (murder, rape, adultery, etc) then the punishment should be execution.

So adulterers should be executed? What are the "etc" crimes?

Yes. Adulterers should be executed.
Capital punishment for adultery is well established in the Old Testament.

How about the NT? I seem to remember a story about those who were about to exact OT justice on a woman.

mes5464 wrote:

ajax wrote:

mes5464 wrote: Yes, forcing a person to take a vaccine is wrong, because it is a crime.
Same-sex marriage is a crime because all children have a right to a father & a mother. The crime is against the child and any heterosexual marriage that was destroyed to make the homosexual marriage (family).
Marriage is defined by God and thus any variation of that is a crime.
Adultery is a crime, because breach of a marriage contract is a crime.
Fornication is a crime, because all children have a right to lawfully married parents.

So according to your construct, how would you punish the above crimes?

All of the above crimes are capital crimes.

Wow, there's a lot of death to be handed out, especially at local college campuses (fornication). So law abiding peace loving lesbians ought to be strung up as well? What about male masturbators? Since you could say the potential child from the seed was wasted.

-delete-

I shudder to think that we are going to use Nazi Germany as the example of safety and security. Sure the woman on the street might have been safe but what about the Jew? The Gypsy? The homosexual? Sure wan't safe for them now was it? Suggesting that we should somehow emulate one of the most brutal mass murders of all time seems, shall we say, unwise at the very least.

I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of people are in jail or prison for committing a non crime where there is no victim?
How many hundreds of millions of dollars are paid each year for traffic infractions in which there was no victim?

We no longer have the right to be faced by our accuser in order for anonymous witnesses to allege a crime was committed and receive a reward for the information.

The death penalty seemed a little harsh at first, until I realized that most crime is committed by the government.

What should be the punishment for minor provoked assault, as in say, punching someone for insulting your wife?

The general rule for punishment of a crime is what ever damage committed is repaid. Property stolen is replaced or repaied. Wreck your car into someone else's you repair or replace it. Punch someone in the face for no reason which somehow caused a loss in income or medical bills the person who assaulted them pays for the loss of income and medical bills.

It's all about makeing what ever loss righted. Life lost= Death.
But also you have to factor in the intent. If there was no intent to murder or to cause pain or loss. The judgment of crime changes. It's no longer murder but an accident where the person who caused it still might be guilty and punished by death or might just have to pay back the defined damages. But that decisions would be decided in a court by the jouney. Not the judge.

We were never supposed to have a judge in our court systems. Or pay homage to him like he's some god to bow down too. We were to have a common law court which is a jury of peers.

braingrunt wrote:What should be the punishment for minor provoked assault, as in say, punching someone for insulting your wife?

Don't involve the police. Or, the law says there is no crime unless there is permanent injury.

If you think back, there was a time when people were reluctant to involve another person is a personal squabble, much less the police.

Ezra wrote:The general rule for punishment of a crime is what ever damage committed is repaid. Property stolen is replaced or repaied. Wreck your car into someone else's you repair or replace it. Punch someone in the face for no reason which somehow caused a loss in income or medical bills the person who assaulted them pays for the loss of income and medical bills.

It's all about makeing what ever loss righted. Life lost= Death.
But also you have to factor in the intent. If there was no intent to murder or to cause pain or loss. The judgment of crime changes. It's no longer murder but an accident where the person who caused it still might be guilty and punished by death or might just have to pay back the defined damages. But that decisions would be decided in a court by the jouney. Not the judge.

We were never supposed to have a judge in our court systems. Or pay homage to him like he's some god to bow down too. We were to have a common law court which is a jury of peers.

Amen!