April 16, 2018 12:50 PM
State of Georgia Sets Date to Murder Robert Earl Butts
The legal murder of Robert Earl Butts by the State of Georgia has been set for May 3, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. The State of Georgia states that Mr. Butts “has concluded his direct appeal proceedings and his state and federal habeas corpus proceedings.” Mr. Butts was convicted of the 1996 murder of Donovan Corey Parks.
A rundown of the case, the trial, and subsequent appeals and proceedings can be seen here.
About Author
lawtonsack
Lawton is a graduate of Georgia Southern University (the GSU) with a degree in Information Technology. He has held numerous positions within the Georgia Republican Party throughout the years.
20 Comments
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m a little confused about this piece. The state of Georgia cannot commit murder. Was he lawfully tried and convicted? Yes!
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
For some, including me and some dictionaries, murder is defined as the taking of a life. It has nothing to do with the “legal” definition of murder.
Hence, I have always, and will likely always, believe that state sponsored execution is legal murder by another name.
Well, Lea, must that definition also apply to abortion?! It ain’t state sponsored but… Do tell …
Not sure what you are getting at or what your question is.
Do you consider abortion murder?
It depends on when it occurs. A zygote or embryo is not life for instance.
But even given that, abortion is not a choice I would ever make. It is an intensely personal decision and one that I do not remotely have the hubris to try to make for someone else.
As is a baby with a fetal heartbeat.
I don’t often go to the Talmud, but when once I did, the baseline view was that the life of the fetus was, up until birth, subservient to the health of the mother. Not too unlike some scientific breakdowns I’ve read of how a fetus interacts with the mom, the fetus was generally considered a thief of the mother’s resources.
Actually there is no scripture in the canonical Christian Bible that supports life beginning with conception. If you believe in a God and consider conception the start of life then God is the greatest abortionist of all time since more than half of naturally fertilized eggs are flushed. Since we are not a theocracy it is a moot point anyway.
I am curious- does that perspective on killing/murder allow for self-defense that results in an offender’s death?
This is like the “marriage” debate. There is a legal definition and a common usage, and they aren’t necessarily the same.
To Balance, You obviously aren’t asking a serious question. But to pick up on that ludicrous comment, I’ll bet that developing zygote wishes he or she had a method of self defence against that vacuum hose.
There are many levels of nuance that make it a serious question. Self-defense is possible without killing, but the extent of the burden on the defender could be debated. Those lines of logic could even be applied to law enforcement issues.
Allow in what way? For me, there is a difference in legal definition and moral/religious definition of many societal mores (for lack of better wording). Often times there is nuance that has the legal and moral/religious diverging. Often times that divergence is minor and almost imperceptible. Other times it is a Grand Canyon sized gap.
I live my life by a set of moral and religious codes. But that does not mean that others do (or have to).
If words can mean anything we want them to mean then:
1) Should we arrest and try all the soldiers who have committed “murder” under government sanction?
2) Should we go after doctors who perform abortions since they have “murdered” fetuses?
3) What about people who “murder” other people in self defense?
4) What about states that allow end of life directives that result in the “murder” of a old sick person?
I could go on but words mean something and there is a reason that we have “killing” distinguished from “murder” in the bible, the dictionary and the law.
I take from this post that the poster disagrees with the decision to execute Butts. Why not just make the case for why this isn’t the right thing to do without changing the meaning of murder?
Words mean different things in different places and to different people. Words often have multiple accepted definitions. Dictionaries define murder differently. Religious texts define them differently. You see murder as the more narrow definition. I assume the original poster does not and as such felt the need to add that it is legally sanction taking of life/legal murder. I see nothing wrong with that.
You can murder language all you want but what you are arguing for results in a tower of babel where no one knows what anything means.
I’m not arguing for anything. This is how society and culture works. Language evolves and differs. As does societal morals.
Are you really trying to tell me that different dictionaries and societies dont have different definitions for words? Religions dont have differing views? If so, that is down right disingenuous.
I murdered five minutes of my life reading these inane comments … and another two making sure “inane” meant what I thought it meant.
Surely you follow the site enough to know that most any political subject, including limiting the public to machine guns below 20mm cannons and especially capital punishment are countered with “but, but… abortion.”