News: Will it be death?

[phenobarbara]

[Tinchihaport]

[repub1]

[simon]

Capital punishment "fits" the crime as a law. The Bible (Jesus' time) offered "shelter" cities for those who committed manslaughter; they were to remain there for all time. If they left and were killed by the dead person's avenger, tough cookies. Stoning was a common method of execution.

Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone," to a group of men who caught a woman in the act of adultry. Jesus likely knew why the man commiting adultry with that woman wasn't caught too and knew they were only try to trick Him. Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law (do away with stoning, etc.) but to fufill the Law of Moses. Followers of Jesus were stoned, sawed in half, crucified, etc. (still are). Wonder if they voted for capital punishment?

[jej1202]

We call ourselves a great nation, an advanced civilization, a Christian nation, and yet people still call for capital punishment. This woman did a terrible thing in taking a human life, but when we do it to criminals as punishment, we become no better than these killers. If you believe in the bible, it says Thou Shalt Not Kill. It doesn't say Thou Shalt Not Kill Except When People Are Convicted of a Crime That You Think They Should be Killed For. Lock her up for the rest of her life. That is punishment enough for anyone. Killing her won't bring Darlene back. Besides, the Pierre man who killed his wife did not get the death sentence. Yet he committed pre-meditated murder, enlisted his brother's aid to cover up the crime, and tried to blame the killing on the daughter. If he doesn't get capital punishment, neither should Daphne. Just another example of inequitable, racist treatment in South Dakota.

[BeefMaster]

[Tinchihaport]

[BeefMaster]

[interested reader]

I think if you go back to the old testament again and look at the laws of Moses, in addition to "Thou shalt not kill" you will also find that there were laws for punishments for different crimes, and that indeed death by stoning was one. I agree with BeefMaster, you are cherry picking your laws.

[simon]

To BeefMaster,
John 8: 6 states they were testing (trying to trick) Him in order to have grounds to accuse Him; it's not not my interpretation. They were going to execute (stone) her. Jesus did not say "don't execute her" which would have been against the Mosaic Law and what they wanted.

As far as keeping the Mosiac Law, which you imply that I should do, the New Testament is replete with similar people, called "Judiazers" by Paul. Those that accused this same woman are of your mind-set, they thought the Law was should be kept no matter what. By those that caught or witnessed this woman's adultry didn't fulfill the Law's requirement that she be stoned.

Many aspects of the Law are good, but being good doesn't get you or I into heaven; only trusting in the finished work of Jesus does that. Since I can't grow a bread, it would be hard to trim it. No person, except Jesus, could or can fulfill the Law. Think of Adam or Eve, they only had one law or commandment stating not to do something, but they couldn't keep from doing that. Cherry pick or not cherry pick, we stand accused before the Law because we could not keep it entirely and need a Savior or Advocate.

To interested reader,
Although the Gospels are not in the Old Testament of the Bible, their time, before Jesus died on the Cross (thus fulfilling the Mosiac Law), was all the same as in the Old Testament times, as Law. etc. "Thou shalt not kill", in the Hebrew/Aramaic means not to murder. A soldier doing his duty would not be breaking this commandment. Those stoning someone, who broke the Law, would not either.

[security1]

My feelings on this subject is that she should be put in solitary confinment for life and not have the right to be with the rest of the prison population. For she has taken a life a doesn't deserve to be allowed any other contact with others.

[phenobarbara]

Will she be in solitary if she's on death row?

[sweetluv721]

Regardless of religious views or views on the death penalty, The decision of death or life in prison depends on whether the prosecution can prove aggravating circumstances. With the dismemberment of the body the prosecution could produce a really good case for death. However, the defense also could have a good case for life in prison, as the dismemberment happened after the death. It is all up to the jury to decide whether there was aggravating circumstances. I can see it going either way--it all depends on how the circumstances are interpreted. According to law this is the aggravating circumstance that must be proven for the jury to give death, "The offense was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim. " Again, I agree that the offense was all of these, however, I can also see the defenses side that Darlene was dead already before the inhuman and horrible dismemberment occurred. Ummmm, I think it will be difficult for ALL 12 jurors to say Death.

[Torch]

Regardless of what the sentence that is imposed. The end result will be life in prison without parole.
The state and or the federal court system will not up hold a death penalty conviction on a deaf woman who can barely read.
(not in south dakota anyway.)

[sweetluv721]

I don't think it has anything to do with her being a women or deaf or not able to read. People in South Dakota know what is horrific regardless of these characteristics. The reason she isn't going to get the death penalty has nothing to do with her characteristics but rather with the law!