Failed execution of female murderer

[Jack]

YES!!! Take your meds Jack. We live in a fallen world, filled with corrupt people, which means our manmade institutions are corrupt to some extent. Doesn't excuse our burden to DO JUSTICE. What do you advocate? Instead of letting truth, justice and freedom ring, let evil and injustice go unanswered? What kind of children of God, who loves Justice is that?

I'm not the one preaching MURDER!

 

[Wrangler]

So you're willing to murder people for criminals?

Killing ≠ Murder

I am willing to kill criminals, either directly or through my agents, because sometimes that is what justice demands.

In case you don't know it, I recently retired and moved in with my daughter to take care of my granddaughter. When someone unexpectedly pulls into the driveway and one time when my daughter came into the house earlier than expected, she saw my granddaughter run to me. When she runs to me and I'm sitting at the kitchen table, she lies by my feet in the fetal position, making herself as small as possible. What is her instinct in coming to me?

A. I'll sing kum-by-ya, pray & read Bible verses?​

B. Use whatever force is necessary, including lethal force, to keep her safe?​

If a Christa Pike or Lancey Clancy type person should happen to find themselves entering my domain, I will not judge them but will arrange a prompt meeting with their Maker. This, I've already decided. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Nevermind the dog, beware of the owner.



Yes, it is what Jesus would do. That's why he told his friends to sell their clock and buy a sword. Or do you suppose the Bible is wrong @ Romans 13:4 in telling us "he does not bear the sword in vain?" I do not bear the sword in vain and neither do my servants, who are also God's servants. They are God's servants per Romans 13 and they are my servants per the US Constitution, doing what I hired them to do.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Sometimes I'll get it wrong. Sometimes my servants, who are also God's servants will get it wrong. However, my aim (pun intended) is to protect innocence, to do my part in letting my granddaughter see another day. So, if you think you are going to shame me out of it with CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points (!!!), think again. Here I stand. I can do nothing else. So help me God.

 

[Moonwood]

LOL. Then what purpose does the sword serve if NOT punishment being the center of justice?

It’s very important for modern Christians to embrace their Biblical burden to DO justice. Micah 6:8. Justice means balance of getting what you’ve earned, getting what you deserve. All the angst and hand wringing about the disposition of Justice doesn’t change the nature of Justice and our role as Christians to advocate for justice, to act for the sake of truth, justice, freedom.

Being feminized, our society and our churches are imbalanced toward mercy and away from justice, which God loves.

I think you're creating a false choice between justice and mercy. I've never argued against justice, nor have I argued that wrongdoing should go unpunished.

The issue is whether justice is exhausted by giving a person what they deserve, or whether Christian justice must also be concerned with repentance, restoration, and the salvation of the sinner.

You define justice as "getting what you've earned" or "getting what you deserve." Yet Christ consistently complicates that equation.

If God dealt with us strictly according to what we deserved, none of us would stand. The whole Gospel is built on the reality that God tempers justice with mercy. Not because He loves justice less, but because His justice is inseparable from His love.

And this is where I think Romans 12 and Romans 13 have to be read together.

Romans 13 acknowledges that civil authority bears the sword and has a role in restraining evil. I have never denied that.
But immediately beforehand, Romans 12 commands Christians:

• "Repay no one evil for evil."
• "Never avenge yourselves."
• "If your enemy is hungry, feed him."
• "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Paul is describing the Christian disposition toward sinners and enemies. The sword may have a purpose in maintaining civil order, but that does not make punishment the center of Christian justice.

In fact, Christ Himself makes the salvation of souls central.

That's why I keep bringing up the adulterous woman. You and others keep moving past that example, but Christ clearly did not reduce justice to:

1. Is she guilty?
2. What is the prescribed punishment?

Had He done so, the conversation would have ended there.
Instead, He exposed hypocrisy, called the accusers to self-examination, and gave the sinner the opportunity to repent:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

That doesn't abolish justice. It reveals the higher purpose of justice.

Earlier, you agreed that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done, and that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter.

If those things matter, then they cannot be "besides the point." They are part of the point.

My concern is that when Christians talk only about guilt and punishment, they often leave out the very things Christ emphasized most: conversion, restoration, mercy, and the salvation of the sinner.

So no, I am not opposing justice. I'm arguing that Christian justice is not merely retributive. It seeks truth, accountability, restoration, and ultimately the redemption of the person. That's why I believe Christians should desire Christina Pike's repentance and salvation rather than her death.

And frankly, I don't see that as a feminized view of justice. I see it as a Christ-centered one. Christ never opposed justice, but He consistently refused to separate it from mercy.

 

[amigo de christo]

LOL. Then what purpose does the sword serve if NOT punishment being the center of justice?

It’s very important for modern Christians to embrace their Biblical burden to DO justice. Micah 6:8. Justice means balance of getting what you’ve earned, getting what you deserve. All the angst and hand wringing about the disposition of Justice doesn’t change the nature of Justice and our role as Christians to advocate for justice, to act for the sake of truth, justice, freedom.

Being feminized, our society and our churches are imbalanced toward mercy and away from justice, which God loves.

Soon wrangler . very soon the only justice this generation gonna heed is the all inclusvie justice
that calls for the blood of all who did not conform to its all inclusive god . Just letting ya know
exactly where many are headed .

 

[Wrangler]

I think you're creating a false choice between justice and mercy.

Nope. it’s one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Either you give someone what they deserve OR you don’t.

This is why you do everting you can to divert attention away from justice, e.g., consider non-relevant facts, etc.

It’s not a false choice, it’s a choice. Every choice is this way. Yes to one option necessarily means no to all other choices. This is why we cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Jack]

Killing ≠ Murder

I am willing to kill criminals,

And send them to Hell! Good luck on Judgment Day. You'll need a lot of it.

James 2:13
13 For judgment will be without mercy toward one who doesn’t show mercy; but mercy wins out over judgment.

either directly or through my agents

Who would that be?

, because sometimes that is what justice demands.

In case you don't know it, I recently retired and moved in with my daughter to take care of my granddaughter. When someone unexpectedly pulls into the driveway and one time when my daughter came into the house earlier than expected, she saw my granddaughter run to me. When she runs to me and I'm sitting at the kitchen table, she lies by my feet in the fetal position, making herself as small as possible. What is her instinct in coming to me?

A. I'll sing kum-by-ya, pray & read Bible verses?​

B. Use whatever force is necessary, including lethal force, to keep her safe?​

If a Christa Pike or Lancey Clancy type person should happen to find themselves entering my domain, I will not judge them but will arrange a prompt meeting with their Maker. This, I've already decided. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Nevermind the dog, beware of the owner.

View attachment 91500

Yes, it is what Jesus would do. That's why he told his friends to sell their clock and buy a sword. Or do you suppose the Bible is wrong @ Romans 13:4 in telling us "he does not bear the sword in vain?" I do not bear the sword in vain and neither do my servants, who are also God's servants. They are God's servants per Romans 13 and they are my servants per the US Constitution, doing what I hired them to do.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Sometimes I'll get it wrong. Sometimes my servants, who are also God's servants will get it wrong. However, my aim (pun intended) is to protect innocence, to do my part in letting my granddaughter see another day. So, if you think you are going to shame me out of it with CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points (!!!), think again. Here I stand. I can do nothing else. So help me God.

Absolutely MURDER!

 

[Jack]

I think you're creating a false choice between justice and mercy. I've never argued against justice, nor have I argued that wrongdoing should go unpunished.

The issue is whether justice is exhausted by giving a person what they deserve, or whether Christian justice must also be concerned with repentance, restoration, and the salvation of the sinner.

You define justice as "getting what you've earned" or "getting what you deserve." Yet Christ consistently complicates that equation.

If God dealt with us strictly according to what we deserved, none of us would stand. The whole Gospel is built on the reality that God tempers justice with mercy. Not because He loves justice less, but because His justice is inseparable from His love.

And this is where I think Romans 12 and Romans 13 have to be read together.

Romans 13 acknowledges that civil authority bears the sword and has a role in restraining evil. I have never denied that.
But immediately beforehand, Romans 12 commands Christians:

• "Repay no one evil for evil."
• "Never avenge yourselves."
• "If your enemy is hungry, feed him."
• "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Paul is describing the Christian disposition toward sinners and enemies. The sword may have a purpose in maintaining civil order, but that does not make punishment the center of Christian justice.

In fact, Christ Himself makes the salvation of souls central.

That's why I keep bringing up the adulterous woman. You and others keep moving past that example, but Christ clearly did not reduce justice to:

1. Is she guilty?
2. What is the prescribed punishment?

Had He done so, the conversation would have ended there.
Instead, He exposed hypocrisy, called the accusers to self-examination, and gave the sinner the opportunity to repent:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

That doesn't abolish justice. It reveals the higher purpose of justice.

Earlier, you agreed that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done, and that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter.

If those things matter, then they cannot be "besides the point." They are part of the point.

My concern is that when Christians talk only about guilt and punishment, they often leave out the very things Christ emphasized most: conversion, restoration, mercy, and the salvation of the sinner.

So no, I am not opposing justice. I'm arguing that Christian justice is not merely retributive. It seeks truth, accountability, restoration, and ultimately the redemption of the person. That's why I believe Christians should desire Christina Pike's repentance and salvation rather than her death.

And frankly, I don't see that as a feminized view of justice. I see it as a Christ-centered one. Christ never opposed justice, but He consistently refused to separate it from mercy.

Excellent!!!

 

[Marvelloustime]

Soon wrangler . very soon the only justice this generation gonna heed is the all inclusvie justice
that calls for the blood of all who did not conform to its all inclusive god . Just letting ya know
exactly where many are headed .

@amigo de christo

 

[amigo de christo]

Nope. it’s one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Either you give someone what they deserve OR you don’t.

This is why you do everting you can to divert attention away from justice, e.g., consider non-relevant facts, etc.

It’s not a false choice, it’s a choice. Every choice is this way. Yes to one option necessarily means no to all other choices. This is why we cannot have your cake and eat it too.

OH i see , you give them what they deserve .
WELL T HANK GOD HE DIDNT GIVE ME What I DESERVE .
Rather HE d rew me TO JESUS CHRIST .
SOON wrangler and very soon the merger will be complete .
And the law of anti christ the all inclusive god will be enforced by the digital system .
YOU gonna b e cheering it all on too . UNLESS YOU flee anything ecumeincal incluisive intefaith NOW .
Many have already bought the lie . many more soon will .

 

[Jack]

OH i see , you give them what they deserve .
WELL T HANK GOD HE DIDNT GIVE ME What I DESERVE .

Amen! Same here.

Rather HE d rew me TO JESUS CHRIST .
SOON wrangler and very soon the merger will be complete .
And the law of anti christ the all inclusive god will be enforced by the digital system .
YOU gonna b e cheering it all on too . UNLESS YOU flee anything ecumeincal incluisive intefaith NOW .
Many have already bought the lie . many more soon will .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So you approve of Stalin MURDERING MILLIONS of people !

No. But remember this. Stalin did not rise to power without Gods approval and god knew in advance that Stalin and Hitler would kill over 100,000,000 people.

You don't like the parts that COMMAND you to kill your family??? Gays? Weekend workers?

As we are not under teh MOsaic law- those questions are moot.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I don't think Romans 13 means what many people assume it means when it's quoted by itself.
Romans 13 follows immediately after Romans 12, where Paul instructs Christians:

• "Bless those who persecute you."
• "Repay no one evil for evil."
• "Never avenge yourselves."
• "If your enemy is hungry, feed him."
• "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Paul is describing the Christian disposition toward others: mercy, self-sacrifice, charity, forgiveness, and the overcoming of evil through love.

Then, in Romans 13, Paul acknowledges that civil authorities exist and have a role in maintaining order in a fallen world. The text says the ruler "does not bear the sword in vain," but it does not command Christians to desire punishment, delight in punishment, or make punishment the center of justice.

In fact, the larger context points in the opposite direction. The Christian is called to conquer evil through love, not vengeance. As Romans 12 says, judgment ultimately belongs to God.
That's why I think there is an important distinction between what the state may be permitted to do and what Christians should desire in their hearts.

It emphasizes that all authority, whether religious or civil, must be guided by both justice and charity. It even warns that those in authority who act without love and mercy will themselves answer to God. Authority is not given so that the powerful can become a torment to others. It is meant to be exercised according to love, justice, and concern for souls.

That's also why I keep returning to Christ's example in John 8. When confronted with a guilty sinner facing death, Jesus did not begin with punishment. He exposed hypocrisy, called for self-examination, and opened the door to repentance:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

To me, that reveals the heart of God more clearly than any appeal to the sword.

So when I read Romans 13, I see Paul recognizing the reality of civil authority. When I read Romans 12 and the Gospels, I see what Christians are supposed to become: people whose justice is always governed by love, whose concern extends beyond the crime to the soul of the person who committed it, and who desire repentance and restoration whenever possible.

That's why I can acknowledge the state's authority while still believing that God's deepest desire is what Scripture itself says: "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Justice matters. But for Christians, justice can never be separated from mercy, because "love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10).

Well what A believer is called to do and what teh governments of this world are called to do are different so you are comparing apples and oranges.

Civil authorities are called to keep order and are appointed by God. Nowhere is the criminal penalties ever condemned in Scripture. And the example of Jesus in JOhn was not about a crime, but sin.

So it appears you desire that civil authorities and Christians oppose each other and that Christians should condemn based on your reading of Romans 12 the penal authorities of civil government inspired in romans 13.

 

[Wrangler]

And send them to Hell! Good luck on Judgment Day. You'll need a lot of it.

You flatter me. No human has such power.

Theres eternal Judgment and temporal justice we humans are commanded to you. You no like justice, me thinks. You no like following God’s commands. Good luck on Judgment Day. You'll need a lot of it. How does that shoe fit?

 

[bdavidc]

After reading through this discussion, I believe some are overlooking an important distinction Scripture makes between personal vengeance, God's mercy, and the responsibility of civil government to administer justice.

Romans 12:19 says, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”

But immediately afterward, Romans 13:4 describes governing authority as “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Paul also says, “he beareth not the sword in vain.”

There is no contradiction here! God forbids personal vengeance, but He also establishes civil authority to punish wrongdoing. We cannot use the command to show mercy as an excuse to ignore justice, nor should we use justice as an excuse to abandon mercy.

Consider the criminal crucified beside Jesus. He acknowledged in Luke 23:41, “And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds.” Yet when he turned to Christ, Jesus promised him paradise.

That man received God's mercy without escaping the earthly consequences of his crimes.

And Ezekiel 33:11 reminds us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but calls the wicked to turn from their evil ways and live.

We should never celebrate someone's destruction or forget that even a convicted murderer needs the saving grace of Jesus Christ. But neither should we pretend that repentance automatically removes the responsibility to answer for a crime.

The Bible teaches both justice and mercy. One does not cancel the other.

The real question should not be whether we prefer punishment or forgiveness. It should be whether we are willing to accept everything God has said about both.

God's justice must never be confused with personal revenge, and God's mercy must never be twisted into an excuse for wrongdoing.

Let Scripture determine our understanding rather than allowing personal feelings or opinions to decide what justice and mercy should mean.

 

[Wrangler]

After reading through this discussion, I believe some are overlooking an important distinction Scripture makes between personal vengeance, God's mercy, and the responsibility of civil government to administer justice.

Excellent point of discernment!

 

[Wrangler]

You and others keep moving past that example, but Christ clearly did not reduce justice to:

1. Is she guilty?
2. What is the prescribed punishment?

And you keep glossing over the lynch mob Jesus faced from a judicial court who has the burden to decide such things.

 

[Moonwood]

Nope. it’s one or the other. They are mutually exclusive. Either you give someone what they deserve OR you don’t.

This is why you do everting you can to divert attention away from justice, e.g., consider non-relevant facts, etc.

It’s not a false choice, it’s a choice. Every choice is this way. Yes to one option necessarily means no to all other choices. This is why we cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I don't think that's a Christian understanding of justice.

If justice and mercy are mutually exclusive, then God cannot be both just and merciful. Yet Scripture repeatedly affirms that He is both.

In fact, Christianity is founded on the reality that God does not give us everything we deserve.

"The wages of sin is death."

If God dealt with us strictly according to what we deserve, none of us would be saved. The entire Gospel is the story of justice and mercy meeting in Christ. God's justice is not abolished, but neither is it exercised apart from mercy.

That's why I don't accept the claim that mercy and justice are opposites. Scripture doesn't present them that way.

Moreover, earlier you agreed that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter. If those things matter, then they are relevant facts. They cannot suddenly become irrelevant simply because guilt has been established.

And this is precisely why I keep returning to the adulterous woman.

If justice is nothing more than:

1. Did she do it?
2. What does the law prescribe?

then Christ should have stopped there.

But He didn't.

He introduced considerations that, under your framework, would be "non-relevant facts": the condition of the accusers' hearts, hypocrisy, self-examination, repentance, and the future of the sinner.

Christ clearly did not view the situation as exhausted once guilt had been identified.

That's the point I've been trying to make from the beginning.

I'm not denying guilt. I'm not denying accountability. I'm not denying that justice requires consequences.

I'm denying that Christian justice ends there.

The reason I bring up repentance, restoration, suffering, and salvation is because Christ brought up repentance, restoration, suffering, and salvation. He consistently looked beyond the offense to the person.

So when you say, "It's either justice or mercy," I don't see that reflected in the Gospel.

At Calvary, justice and mercy were not enemies. They met.

And that's why I believe Christians should desire what God Himself says He desires:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." (Ezekiel 33:11)

Justice matters. But Christian justice is not merely about giving someone what they deserve. If it were, none of us would have any hope. The heart of Christianity is that God's justice is fulfilled through a mercy that seeks the conversion and salvation of sinners.

 

[Moonwood]

Well what A believer is called to do and what teh governments of this world are called to do are different so you are comparing apples and oranges.

Civil authorities are called to keep order and are appointed by God. Nowhere is the criminal penalties ever condemned in Scripture. And the example of Jesus in JOhn was not about a crime, but sin.

So it appears you desire that civil authorities and Christians oppose each other and that Christians should condemn based on your reading of Romans 12 the penal authorities of civil government inspired in romans 13.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of my position.

I'm not arguing that Christians should oppose civil authority, nor am I condemning every criminal penalty. I've repeatedly acknowledged that Scripture recognizes the legitimacy of civil government and its role in maintaining order.

My point is that Romans 13 cannot be read apart from Romans 12, where Paul describes the Christian disposition toward enemies, sinners, and wrongdoers: blessing rather than cursing, overcoming evil with good, refusing personal vengeance, and acting in love.

So the question I'm asking is not whether government has authority. The question is what should guide the exercise of that authority and the desires of Christians who participate in it.

You say John 8 was about sin, not crime. But that distinction doesn't really resolve the issue. The woman was accused of an act that carried a legal penalty under the Law. Jesus knew whether she was guilty or not. Yet when confronted with a sinner facing death, His focus was repentance and restoration rather than execution.

He never says, "Carry on with the execution."

Instead, He exposes hypocrisy, calls for self-examination, and leaves the door open for conversion:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

That doesn't abolish authority. It reveals the heart of God toward a guilty person.

What I find interesting is that no one has really engaged that point. The responses keep returning to what governments are allowed to do. I'm asking what Christ's example teaches Christians to desire.
Scripture says:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." (Ezekiel 33:11)

If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and desires repentance, then surely Christians should desire the same.

That doesn't mean abandoning justice. It means understanding that justice, in Christianity, is not merely about punishment. It is also about the restoration of persons made in the image of God.

That's why I keep emphasizing repentance, transformation, and salvation. Not because they erase guilt, but because Christ repeatedly treated them as relevant. If they mattered to Him, I don't see how they can be dismissed as "apples and oranges" or "besides the point" by Christians.

The fact that government may possess the sword does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for. Christ consistently hoped for the sinner's conversion, and I believe Christians should too.

 

[Moonwood]

After reading through this discussion, I believe some are overlooking an important distinction Scripture makes between personal vengeance, God's mercy, and the responsibility of civil government to administer justice.

Romans 12:19 says, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”

But immediately afterward, Romans 13:4 describes governing authority as “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Paul also says, “he beareth not the sword in vain.”

There is no contradiction here! God forbids personal vengeance, but He also establishes civil authority to punish wrongdoing. We cannot use the command to show mercy as an excuse to ignore justice, nor should we use justice as an excuse to abandon mercy.

Consider the criminal crucified beside Jesus. He acknowledged in Luke 23:41, “And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds.” Yet when he turned to Christ, Jesus promised him paradise.

That man received God's mercy without escaping the earthly consequences of his crimes.

And Ezekiel 33:11 reminds us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but calls the wicked to turn from their evil ways and live.

We should never celebrate someone's destruction or forget that even a convicted murderer needs the saving grace of Jesus Christ. But neither should we pretend that repentance automatically removes the responsibility to answer for a crime.

The Bible teaches both justice and mercy. One does not cancel the other.

The real question should not be whether we prefer punishment or forgiveness. It should be whether we are willing to accept everything God has said about both.

God's justice must never be confused with personal revenge, and God's mercy must never be twisted into an excuse for wrongdoing.

Let Scripture determine our understanding rather than allowing personal feelings or opinions to decide what justice and mercy should mean.

I actually agree with much of what you've written.

I've never argued that repentance automatically removes earthly consequences, nor have I argued that civil authority is illegitimate. In fact, I've repeatedly acknowledged that Romans 13 recognizes the authority of government to punish wrongdoing.

Where I think we're talking past each other is that my focus has never been on whether authority exists. My focus has been on what Christians should desire and what Christ reveals about the heart of God toward sinners.
You mention the thief on the cross, and I think that's actually a very helpful example. The thief admits:

"We receive the due reward of our deeds."

Yet Christ's immediate concern is not his punishment but his salvation:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

The focus of heaven is the conversion of the sinner.
Likewise, Ezekiel 33:11 says:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."

That tells us something important about God's desires.

So while I agree that justice and mercy do not cancel one another, I would also say that justice is not the highest revelation of God's heart. Christ is.
This is why I keep returning to John 8. The woman was guilty. Jesus never denied that. Yet His concern was repentance and restoration:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

No one has really addressed why Christ's response there should not heavily shape how Christians think about guilty people.

My point has never been that guilt doesn't matter. It's that Christianity teaches that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done. If repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter, then they cannot be treated as irrelevant or "besides the point."

So when I look at Christina Pike, I can acknowledge her guilt, acknowledge the legitimacy of punishment, and still believe that what Christians should ultimately hope for is exactly what God Himself says He desires: repentance, healing, and salvation.

The fact that government may possess the sword does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for. Christ consistently hoped for the sinner's conversion, and I believe Christians should too.

 

[Wrangler]

I don't think that's a Christian understanding of justice.

There is only one kind of understanding of justice, just as there is only one kind of understanding of door knob.

Mercy is not a primary concept; it only has application AFTER justice has been rendered, a person has been found guilty AND the sentence for that guilt pronounced, if not identified; THEN AND ONLY THEN do mitigating factors that may be taken into account play a role for mercy.

For instance, if 10 years is the sentence for a crime and the defendant is given 9 years, they were shown mercy. If another defendent who was found guilty received only 12 months, they too were shown mercy.

Every post you make side steps the establishment of justice as a primary over and providing context to mercy. Why is that? Said differently, it is illogical to consider mercy UNTIL one knows what they deserve. In the above example, if a defendant guilty of a crime where the sentence was 6 months, the judge ordering 12 months of incarceration would NOT be an act of mercy. You must know this is true.