Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

Actually, it is, as we have a principle of equality in justice (in fact...a principle that is fundamental to the very concept of justice itself). Nevertheless, it's not the relative authority of a dead president that might give rise to a differing sentence for an identical crime.

Where is that principle found? If it’s not his authority then what is it?

Bzzzzt. They -are- mutually exclusive. Our system does not assign weight to a crime by appraising the level of authority of the victim. We maintain a principle of equality under law. You will receive the same justice for the same crime as any other. It is -the crime- that determines the punitive measure. It doesn't always pan out that way - our system is fallible..surprise surprise.

Yes, the severity of the crime determines the severity of the punishment, but the severity of the crime is determined by mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the authority of the victim is often taken into account at that point of sentencing.

You mean miscarriages of justice?

If you believe any of those examples are a miscarriage of justice you must now appeal to a concept of justice that is outside of the US Justice System to compare them to (since none of them are viewed as a miscarriage by our system). So now what’s your new standard and why does it take precedence over the US Justice System?

Ah, I see, when your god cannot match the fallible earthly systems lowered bar - that we struggle to maintain - the fault lies with our system?

[Emphasis added by SW]

Yes, when a fallible system does not measure up to an infallible system, the fault always lies with the fallible system- pretty basic reasoning really.

It's not, we have two people of differing levels of authority - the crime is identical. We could go with your example as well. Thank you very much - for at least having the sack to advocate for the uneven application of justice -thereby eradicating the foundation of the very principle itself...all so you can defend an unfortunate belief dearly held.

In law they are called mitigating and aggravating circumstances; they have nothing to do with an uneven application of justice; please learn what you are talking about for once.

(would you mind doing it just one more time for me...come up with another situation in which two perpetrators of an identical crime deserve lesser or greater punishment for that identical crime due to the relative difference of authority their victims hold?)

Sure, I’ll do it all day long.

A man kills a Police Officer in a traffic stop in Arkansas and receives the death penalty for the murder of the Officer (the Jury openly admits they took into account the fact he killed a Police Officer when recommending the death penalty).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29...15799.html

A man breaks into the house of a news anchor, rapes her, and kills her; he is convicted of Capital Murder but only receives a life sentence in Arkansas.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/arka...hor.slain/

Crimes against a higher authority necessitate a higher punishment.

You are probably right that I couldn't construct a valid proof. Without more knowledge and study of primitive cultures and how their systems of religion and law developed, all I would be doing is speculation built on guesses. "I think it could have developed this way" isn't a proof, and might not even be on the right track.

You may be able to demonstrate all of that, but that’s not the logical problem I think you’ll run into. The problem is that it’s not valid to argue from the way things are to the way things ought to be, but when you try to derive your morality from Nature that’s exactly what you are doing. Does that make sense?