Justice Mocked Again!
Killer "Accepts" Life Without ParoleThe Orange County Register (Friday, June 20, 2008, Local, pg. 2) ran an article about Eloy Gonzalez, who is a former Santa Ana, CA gang member who cut a deal with authorities to avoid the death penalty? Since when are criminals granted the right to make a deal in order to avoid the death penalty? The article read, "Superior Court Judge Stephen A. Sillman, a retired judge from Monterrey Country who is sitting on assignment in Orange County, cautiously took Gonzalez's guilty plea." Huh? Cautiously? Why? Well, according to the very informative article, "Gonzalez...wants to see his two daughters, who are now 12 and 11, grow up, and felt he would have a better chance of having a relationship with the children if he was serving a life sentence as opposed to being on death row."
Daddy should have thought out that before he shot and killed Abel Charvira during a robbery. Chavira was committing the unconscionable crime of buying laundry detergent. Wrong place; wrong time. Oh, did I mention that Gonzalez murdered Chavira not merely because he disliked the brand of laundry detergent he was purchasing, but also "for the benefit of the Southside Street gang in Santa Ana." Oh, well, why didn't you say so in the first place? That is certainly a matter in extenuation and mitigation of the circumstances! For a moment, I thought Gonzalez murdered Chavira because he had a low view of Tide.
As disgusting as this is, there is more and it gets worse. Gonzalez was already serving a life term without the possibility of parole after he was convicted of the robbery-murder of Jesse Muro, a 17-year-old Century High School student. Is one of the qualifications for judge in CA today that you have to have and IQ in single digits and a commonsense quotient that is actually negative? Jude Sillman cautiously took Gonzalez's guilty plea? So now the U.S. taxpayer can foot the bill of yet another prisoner who should have been given the death penalty. Cautiously, after the man was convicted of two cold-blooded murders, Eloy Gonzalez will get to visit with his daughters.
You have to wonder what it will take before Americans have had enough of the blatant silliness and bleeding heart liberalism and will start demanding that convicted murderers be put to death? We have tried secular humanism far too long and it has left us morally bankrupt. When will we wake up?
Daddy should have thought out that before he shot and killed Abel Charvira during a robbery. Chavira was committing the unconscionable crime of buying laundry detergent. Wrong place; wrong time. Oh, did I mention that Gonzalez murdered Chavira not merely because he disliked the brand of laundry detergent he was purchasing, but also "for the benefit of the Southside Street gang in Santa Ana." Oh, well, why didn't you say so in the first place? That is certainly a matter in extenuation and mitigation of the circumstances! For a moment, I thought Gonzalez murdered Chavira because he had a low view of Tide.
As disgusting as this is, there is more and it gets worse. Gonzalez was already serving a life term without the possibility of parole after he was convicted of the robbery-murder of Jesse Muro, a 17-year-old Century High School student. Is one of the qualifications for judge in CA today that you have to have and IQ in single digits and a commonsense quotient that is actually negative? Jude Sillman cautiously took Gonzalez's guilty plea? So now the U.S. taxpayer can foot the bill of yet another prisoner who should have been given the death penalty. Cautiously, after the man was convicted of two cold-blooded murders, Eloy Gonzalez will get to visit with his daughters.
You have to wonder what it will take before Americans have had enough of the blatant silliness and bleeding heart liberalism and will start demanding that convicted murderers be put to death? We have tried secular humanism far too long and it has left us morally bankrupt. When will we wake up?
Labels: Capital Punishment
posted by Rattlesnake6 | 3:13 PM
14 Comments:
Ron....what are we to expect from a society that has "...become futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts are darkened. Claiming to be wise, they have become fools.....because they have exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever, Amen."
A recent story from the late Tim Russert is apropos here. He tells of being caught by the principal(a RC priest) after pulling a prank in his high school.
"As I was pinned against the lockers with my feet dangling in the air(that was some priest)I cried for mercy, the priest responded 'Mercy is for God, I'm here for Justice.'"
O that we could return to the days when society knew what justice was, much less respect it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
So, followers of Jesus should be known for? For killing people? For doing justice? I believe killing is addressed in the ten commandments, and justice is addressed by the biblical text... when we are reminded that justice truely belongs to God.
It certainly isn't possible to call for people to be put to death and then claim to be pro-life... is it?
Death is good, and so is life???
--Is one of the qualifications for judge in CA today that you have to have and IQ in single digits and a commonsense quotient that is actually negative?--
Well, we are talking about the left coast...
--When will we wake up?--
If we haven't by now, I fear it will not be until after the point of no return.
--I believe killing is addressed in the ten commandments--
Murder is, randy. Or did God command His people to break His commandments when He told them to kill people in wars and in justice?
--when we are reminded that justice truely belongs to God--
I suppose by this, you want all people in jails and prisons set free to do as they please, because we cannot take them to courts and judge them because "justice truly belonds to God"? Let all people do what they without fear of any law enforcement or authority?
--It certainly isn't possible to call for people to be put to death and then claim to be pro-life... is it?--
Where is there a contradiction between calling for the death penalty against murders, and calling for the life of the innocent unborn to be spared? Those are two different cases, and your trying to lump them together is as much nonsense as gays trying to equate their situation to that of racial minorities.
Seriously, randy, your arguments here are nonsense.
Randy,
What do you believe to be the just recompense for murderers?
So Randy,
When Romans 13 talks about the state bearing the sword, just what pray do you think the state used said sword for? Administering spankings?
You really need to get over your confusion, and soon.
Let me help you just a little. It is not "anti-life" to be in favor of the death penalty. Pro-life, as defined, refers to abortion and the taking of INNOCENT human life. There are some who try to shoehorn capital punishment in there, but it won't wash. Innocent human life vs. criminals meriting the punishment of the God-ordained state for heinous crimes.
Got it now? It's really not that hard.
I deleted my comment with the link to the electric chair photo. The link is now broken for some reason.
Randy,
Does the Bible make any distinction whatsoever between killing and murder? God killed a lot of godless nations in the Flood and in the wars with Israel. Was that loving? Was God unjust in doing what he did?
How do you interpret the Hebrew word in Ex. 20:13? Did God forbid murder or killing?
Is it just--looking at Scripture--to put people to death? Was God wrong for prescribing the death penalty for kidnapping, rape, and murder? I'd like to hear your rationale for this.
Ron,
You claim it is the govts role to create laws and order. You are fine with our country going to war to keep the world from going into chaos.
Yet, when you don't like the outcome of a judge, you go to the lowest common demominator and say that he is stupid.
You talk to be about my arguements, about the biblical text, and you simply say...
"He's stupid. His i.q. is in the single digits.'
For all of your supporters, your agruement goes something like: I'm smarter than you are, and I am right... I'm always right."
Talking about a rational arguement?
Duuuh.
It's also interesting how you argue that people today have no respect for authority, and you proved yourself right...
While I hate many decisions by people, I don't recall saying they are 'stupid.' ... especially a sitting judge in our U.S. govt. It seems that teaches a lack of respect for authority...
Or is authority only legitimate when it is instituted by Ron & the Republican party & the...
What gives?
--You talk to be about my arguements, about the biblical text,--
Yes, I have. And so have others.
-- and you simply say...
"He's stupid. His i.q. is in the single digits.'--
Well, in regards to case being cited, I think that, yes, we are dealing with a rather large amount of stupidity on the judges part.
Is that disrespectful of his and dishonoring?
No. His position is honored by me. His decision is open to being scrutinized and criticized.
Or have you forgotten that the same Jesus who told the people to honor the positions the Pharisees and Sadducees were in, being in the seat of Moses, was also the same Jesus who called them such things as "fools and blind", "blind guides", "hypocrites", and it was Jesus or the Baptist (maybe both) who called them a "brood of vipers".
--For all of your supporters, your agruement goes something like: I'm smarter than you are, and I am right... I'm always right."--
I think you misunderstand what is going on here. But that's to be expected.
Randy,
I also note that you didn't try to answer anyone's questions or to cogently defend your position. You just tossed back with a "nyah-nyah." Or should I say "neener neener" in modern parlance?
Try again and deal with the issue in logical, Scriptural fashion.
Randy,
Stop spinning and just answer my questions that I raised about Ex. 20:13.
Randy,
As a West Michigan brother, let me refer you back to what the Heidelberg Catechism says about murder. "Prevention of murder is why the government is armed with the sword." This is why the Apostle Paul asks, "Do you think he bears the sword for nothing?"
Frankly, the way the death penalty is being whittled down to nothing by the SCOTUS, our governments are bearing the sword for nothing.
Oh wait, here in Michigan, as long as I'm not murdering a mailman (opr other Federal Employee at work), or murdering someone on Federal land, I can't face the death penalty.
That has to go over well in Detroit. (Not to mention in Holland, when a police officer confessed to planning to murder his wife.) For a premeditated murder, there is only ONE just recompense! And evolving standards of morality have nothing to do with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home