A good reason to support the death penalty.

[Fiannan]

"ORLANDO, Fla. -- A central Florida man has been sentenced to death for murdering his ex-girlfriend by setting her on fire.

Orange County Circuit Judge Lisa Munyon followed a jury's recommendation when she sentenced 21-year-old Dane Abdool on Monday. The jury convicted Abdool of first-degree murder in December for the 2006 death of 17-year-old Amelia Sookdeo of Winter Garden."

Newsmax.com - Fla. Man Sentenced to Die for Teen's Fire Death

More details of what this guy did to his girlfriend pictured below:

Dane Abdool | People You'll See In Hell

[DigitalShadow]

A good reason NOT to support the death penalty:

Cleared by DNA, man tries to reclaim his life - CNN.com

[Redbeard]

Newsmax.com - Fla. Man Sentenced to Die for Teen's Fire Death

More details of what this guy did to his girlfriend pictured below:

Dane Abdool | People You'll See In Hell

I STRONGLY disagree with the death penalty. It's the 1 punishment that can never be revoked no matter what. How many people have been killed only to be post-mortum released from all charges?

I have NO idea about this specific case, and for all I know he could have been found with the gas can in his hand. That's great, throw him in prison till the end of time with no option for parole ever, it's cheaper then our current methods of execution to keep them in prison for life then. I have never seen a good enough reason to support the death penalty.

Wrongful execution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death penalty as a deterance doesn't work-

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf

Why would I support it? If he is guilty his crime is horrendus, but why should we justify killing someone, because they killed someone?

[Fiannan]

Well, for starters the Bok of Mormon pretty much mandates it.

Second, the Bible never condemnds it and in fact supports it.

ALso, DigitalShadow or Redbeard, can you give me a list of people executed since 1979-ish who have later been shown to have been innocent?

[Redbeard]

Well, for starters the Bok of Mormon pretty much mandates it.

Second, the Bible never condemnds it and in fact supports it.

ALso, DigitalShadow or Redbeard, can you give me a list of people executed since 1979-ish who have later been shown to have been innocent?

Not so fast my young padawan learner (j/k of course...)

Christianity

Although some interpret that John 8:7 of the Bible condemns the death penalty, others consider Romans 13:3-4 to support it. Christian positions on this vary.[49] The sixth commandment (fifth in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches) is preached as 'Thou shalt not kill' by some denominations and as 'Thou shalt not murder' by others. As none of the denominations have a hard-line stance on the subject, Christians are free to make a personal decision.[50]

As per the BOM, but I'm not going to touch that with a 10 foot pole, feel free to debate that with your fellow members.

And as requested:

Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row

List of exonerated death row inmates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DigitalShadow]

Well, for starters the Bok of Mormon pretty much mandates it.

Second, the Bible never condemnds it and in fact supports it.

ALso, DigitalShadow or Redbeard, can you give me a list of people executed since 1979-ish who have later been shown to have been innocent?

Our judicial system is not perfect. If the death penalty were used more widely, there would be innocent people put to death. While you may be fine with shedding the blood of the innocent to satisfy your own need for vengence, I am not.

I have no idea whether the Book of Mormon mandates the death penalty or not since I am not an expert in that area, but it's times like these that make me glad that I don't live in a theocracy where scripture of a particular flavor is valued over reason in making laws.

[Fiannan]

Our judicial system is not perfect. If the death penalty were used more widely, there would be innocent people put to death. While you may be fine with shedding the blood of the innocent to satisfy your own need for vengence, I am not.

There's enough safeguards to insure that possibility will be extremely remote. Also, there is a difference between vengence and justice. If all people wanted was revenge on a guy like the article describes we'd just cook him pretty good but let him live and then put him in prison forever.

How many murderers go on to kill again? who speaks for the rights of the victims there? If you have a rabid dog you know what the best thing is to do -- and the dog is totally innocent in that case.

[DigitalShadow]

There's enough safeguards to insure that possibility will be extremely remote. Also, there is a difference between vengence and justice. If all people wanted was revenge on a guy like the article describes we'd just cook him pretty good but let him live and then put him in prison forever.

How many murderers go on to kill again? who speaks for the rights of the victims there? If you have a rabid dog you know what the best thing is to do -- and the dog is totally innocent in that case.

I disagree that the safeguards are adequate, as is evident by how many people sentenced to life in prison or even put on death row are later exonerated by newer methods of examining evidence.

Also, I really don't see how more widespread use of the death penalty would keep murderers off the streets as you seem to be implying. How many murderers that would have been eligible for the death penalty are set free and then kill more people? I would be willing to bet it is significantly less than the amount of people in prison for a murder they did not commit.

And yes, when you're talking about taking a human life, the distinction between justice and vengence is a matter of opinion that we can agree to disagree on.

[Fiannan]

How many murderers that would have been eligible for the death penalty are set free and then kill more people?

Seems like Charles Manson keeps getting parole hearings. If he wasn't so famous he'd be out there walking the streets.

In states that don't have the death penalty was exactly does "life sentence" really mean?

[Hemidakota]

Let us back up for moment here and discuss the true purpose of taking one's life for the blood taken [life] when discussing it theologically.

[Bookmeister]

In principle, I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but because it IS so final, I think that the entire notion needs to be re-examined. The biggest problem I see with it is that different jurisdictions have different concepts of how and when the death penalty should be applied.

In my line of work, the question of what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means comes up in every trial. What I tell juries, sometimes over the objections of the prosecutor, is that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that each juror is so sure that the person is guilty that they would push the button or pull the lever on the defendant themselves.

I guess where I really am is that I don't know for sure, but until I do, I think we really ought to consider all the options and possibilities before taking that final, irrevocable step.

[DigitalShadow]

Seems like Charles Manson keeps getting parole hearings. If he wasn't so famous he'd be out there walking the streets.

In states that don't have the death penalty was exactly does "life sentence" really mean?

I thought most religions believed in some concept of redemption?

[azazel420]

I oppose the death penalty for a few reasons. First and foremost I disagree with the moral implications but I think there is a strong practical case against the death penalty.

Inconclusive/suspect deterant impact:

There's very little evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterant to capital offenses.

There are 2 principal reasons why murder occurs. The first is the crime of passion, where there is generally little to no thought process. It's unlikely that punishment enters into the reasoning process (if you can call it that). Then you have premeditated crimes. Generally the amount of planning that goes into the crime leaves the murderer feeling they won't get caught.

I've yet to see any studies which observe a reasonable decrease in capital offenses due to the death penalty. If anyone has seen one I'd be interested in seeing it.

Economic costs:

Due to a lengthy appeals process in capital cases set up to minimize the frivolous usage of the penalty there's a significant cost associated with death penalty cases. Estimates range from 2-5 million dollars per case. The cost increases as well when extradition battles ensue (many countries where there is no death penalty are less willing to extradite a criminal who would face the death penalty). The death penalty process generally takes years and often takes decades, with atleast 1 case exceeding 30 years.

The lengthy process also raises questions in my mind as to the benefit to the families involved. Most families in murder cases want justice and ultimately what degree of closure they can get. Most follow the fates of the killers closely and a long drawn out process can be unsound, dragging justice out and forcing the families to relive the pain with each new appellant decision.

False convictions:

There have been a number of convictions on death row overturned as new evidence came to light. This is more of a historic point at this stage as advances in DNA testing have made the burden of proof in capital cases more difficult but it's still a danger inherit to the system.

The first 3 are sufficient in my eyes to rationally oppose the death penalty. I have my doubts as to the human rights aspect. I'm uncomfortable in supporting state sanctioned killing.

I know I'm in a minority on this point but I also see opposition to the death penalty growing as a trend.

[Fiannan]

In response to Azazel420,

1) Crimes of passion do not get the death penalty that often -- in fact, in some states if you catch your spouse in the act of sex with someone else, and you freak out and, well, you know...you cannot be charged with first degree murder. I think even Brigham Young addressed this issue.

As for the planning type of murder, you are seriously going to tell me that NO people think twice before doing something evil? And if you are addressing someone who plans out things quite intelligently, like a seriel murderer, do you really want them preserved?

2) Just because of the cost you cannot throw out the justice concept. Take a life and you forfiet your right to live -- it's that simple.

3) You make a good case now FOR the death penalty. Yes, advances in forensic investigations as well as in the use of DNA analysis makes false convictions much more rare. Thank you for making that point.

Also, if you have reservations about giving the state the right to kill murderers then what about the state having the right to make people take the lives of totally innocent people -- which is the purpose of the military? Yes, I know that when you serve you are protecting your nation but when you go into any war you are killing soldiers who have done you no harm and civilians ultimately die as well. So yes, we do assume the sate can take life in extreme circumstances.

[azazel420]

I'm unconvinced of the idea of the death penalty is a deterant. The difference between life imprisonment and death isn't that complelling as a deterant. I'd wager there are many who'd prefer death to life imprisonment. Those who wouldn't likely don't draw enough distinction that they'd commit the crime with the risk of life imprisonment but wouldn't with the risk of death. Until I see some more or less unambiguous evidence that the death penalty has deterant value I hold that it most likely doesn't.

Is the economic drain worth the added feeling of justice a few families would feel (not all families would even seek the death penalty and those who do would generally be happy seeing the person locked away) by seeing their agressor put to death vs. rotting in a prison cell? I don't feel it is.

[LuckOfTheIrish]

I oppose the death penalty, but for different reasons. I oppose the American style of execution. It is a joke. Everyone on death row is guilty. That is made sure of through extensive trials, appeals, reappeals, and so forth. The average time it takes to execute someone is 18 years. 90% of people on death row die of natural causes, drug overdose, or suicide before they ever get close to execution. I work behind the walls of a prison. Whoever said it costs more to execute someone than to house them for life is absolutely right. The actual cost is millions. The cost of housing one for life is +/- $40,000 per year. The amount of money we pay as taxpayers for appeals, special attorneys, and actual executions is enormous. Prison is rough. A lifetime there is punishment enough.

[LegendadryPerc]

Is oposition to the death penalty realy a minority, or is it just assumed to be on a mormon board?

Does the Book of Mormon really "require" the death penalty, or does it simply state that the law and culture at that time required it?

I know Utah seems to think it morally required, but once again, is this LDS doctrine or mormon culture?

What are the actual scriptural (past and modern) quotes on the death penalty, including conference talks ect.

Is "justice" ever our responsibility?

[Hemidakota]

It is not justice that is seeked but saving that person savlvation. You are looking it all wrong and let me tell you, it has nothing to do with revenge but more of love for that individual.

[LegendadryPerc]

Can something done to somebody against their will, help with their salvation?

[Hemidakota]

No...they must chose that path. Wasn't it years ago in Utah, when a Return Missionary murdered another person seeked the death penalty by the firing squad?

[Hemidakota]

This is old Improvement Era, 1901, talked about this very subject:

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT—VIEWED FROM A SCRIPTURAL STANDPOINT.

BY ELDER JOSEPH E. TAYLOR, OF THE STAKE PRESIDENCY OF THE SALT LAKE STAKE OF ZION.

That some of the states of our Union have repealed the law making murder in the first degree punishable by death, and substituted therefor imprisonment for life at hard labor; also that there was introduced in our State Legislature, in 1897, a bill known as "House Bill No. 2. An act in relation to capital crimes and punishments," containing similar provisions to those above named, (which, however, failed of passage); and that there are many persons in our community who entertain views favorable to substituting imprisonment for life at hard labor in place of death for murder in the first degree, is my apology for presenting this article for insertion in the ERA.

In the earliest periods of the world's history, we read of nothing pertaining to what is termed civil government. The only government of which we have any record, at this time, is that of a patriarchal character. If any other form of government existed, we are in ignorance concerning it. As the patriarchs were Godfearing men, and were the subjects of his special favors, and lived in close communion with him, it was not difficult for them to obtain the mind of the Lord upon all subjects of interest. And unquestionably, all laws of equity between man and man, suited to his fallen condition, were made known by God himself. Reasoning from this standpoint, we conclude that the penalties to be inflicted upon the transgressor proceeded from the same source.

This being the case, a perfect confidence in God allowed no misgivings or questionings in regard to the justice of the Eternal One. Consequently, man was satisfied to abide by the word of the Lord. When the first murder had been committed, it appears that God dealt personally with the transgressor; questioned him in regard thereto; and gave him the opportunity to defend himself. After this, he pronounced the sentence upon guilty Cain; the nature of which is not recorded; but a sentence so severe, that he exclaimed, "My punishment is greater than I can bear."

Some writers, and others who advocate the abolishment of the death penalty, point to the fact that as God did not inflict death upon Cain in expiation of his crime, that this is strong evidence that he does not approve of the death penalty for murder. It appears to me that the Almighty wished to make an example of his divine displeasure in so marked a manner for this crime of murder that he inflicted a punishment upon the first murderer many times more severe than death itself. I am of the opinion that this first murderer would have readily and gladly accepted of death, rather than the penalty which was inflicted; which led him to exclaim, "My punishment is greater than I can bear."

According to Bible chronology and Bible history, sixteen hundred years had passed away before God delegated to man the authority to execute judgment upon the murderer; which he did in this wise: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Gen. 9:5, 6.)

The reason for the death penalty is here given. Because man is made in the image of God. I submit: is man less in the image of God today, than at the time that I have named? If he is not, why should not the death penalty follow the crime of murder now, as well as in the day when the law with its penalty was revealed to Noah?

Further: who knows the value of human life more than he who gave that life, and who has stamped his own image thereupon? And still further: who so capable of deciding what penalty shall be inflicted upon the individual who wilfully destroys that life which God alone can give?

There may be still another reason why God at this time delegated to man the right to execute the law against the murderer, and so clearly defined the penalty. The time had come or was approaching when national existence would take the place of patriarchal rule and government, at least with some of the peoples of the earth, and that portions would gradually merge into these changed conditions, making necessary the revealing of the very highest type of earthly government which the Almighty would give—as well as a pattern for future ages. For, strange as it may appear, the Lord always did and always will give first, the higher law. Inferior law follows as the result of disobedience to, or the rejection of, the higher.

In the days of Moses, Israel having so entirely failed to observe the higher law—the law of the gospel—God gave to them the lesser law; the law of carnal commandments. He had, however, introduced into that law the death penalty for the crime of murder; which was strongly emphasized through Moses several times during his life, culminating in this solemn charge in regard to the murderer:

"Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee." (Deut. 19:13.) Thus plainly intimating that the whole nation would be held responsible for failing to execute the law. God had declared through Moses, previous to this time, "Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death." (Num. 35:31.) In other words, there shall be no commutation of the sentence, but in every instance, he shall suffer death. More than one prophet accused Israel of failing to execute the law. Isaiah declared: "Your hands are full of blood." Again, "They haste to shed innocent blood." Would the hands of Israel have been full of blood if execution had followed the crime? I answer, No; they would not. Neither would they have hasted to shed innocent blood, if execution had swiftly followed the crime.

Some who have contended against capital punishment have argued that, admitting the law was in full force up to the time that David committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and afterwards planned the death of Uriah, in order to hide his crime, no action was taken to inflict the punishment upon David, although he acknowledged his guilt to Nathan the prophet; but on the contrary, that Nathan said to David, "The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die," is a very strong evidence of the modification of the penalty. And further, would the Lord be justified in making an exception in David's case? To which I reply: The Lord had a perfect right to make such an exception, if he saw fit to do so, and that too without changing the general applicability of the law. But let us follow David's subsequent history. It will be remembered that it was said of him, he was "a man after God's own heart." Also, "In nothing did he sin, save in the case of Uriah and his wife."

That the Almighty had some wise purpose in view in preserving David's life, need not be questioned; but did he altogether escape punishment? Read the twelfth chapter of second Samuel, and there you will find what calamities were to follow him in consequence of his transgression; which were fulfilled to the very letter, as is recorded in Bible history.

David himself realized the enormity of his offense, and exclaimed at one time, "I remember my sin, and my transgression is ever before me." In contemplating his condition after this life, he seemed to fully understand that his sin would follow him even there. Hence the hope he expressed in these words: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell."

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph, the Lord has confirmed the declarations of the Prophet Nathan in regard to David, for in speaking concerning the grave wrong which he did to Uriah and his wife, he says, "Therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them (wives) out of the world, for I have given them unto another, saith the Lord."

We need not follow this one seeming exception any further; for it would be hard indeed to make choice as to which of the punishments would be the most preferable, David's, or the death penalty. With this one exception, in all the Old Testament record, there is naught to be found but a continuous confirmation of the law given to Noah: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Come we now to the New Testament, and we will consider a few of the arguments used by some modern divines, as well as many others, based mainly upon the sayings of the lowly Nazarene, in that great and grand Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in the fifth chapter of Matthew's Gospel.

It is very evident that Jesus addressed himself, upon this occasion, to his disciples, and that he taught them the advanced doctrines of the gospel which he had come to establish. Doctrines which were suited to those only who had embraced the gospel.

Upon this occasion he stated: "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time: Thou shalt not kill." Did he say that this law was not now in force? On the contrary, he sustained the law, and added to it: "That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment," etc. Thus emphasizing the law against murder.

Previous to the words just quoted, he had said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."—Matt. 5:17, 18.

The question arisen, Has the law been fulfilled? That Jesus himself observed and sustained the law in every act of his life and in all of his teachings, none will deny. In his endeavor to establish a higher law, or the law of the gospel, he was successful only to a very limited extent. Instance the act of Peter, a man who had sat constantly under the teachings of Jesus. When an attempt was made to arrest Jesus, Peter drew his sword and smote off the ear of the high priest's servant. "Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." It is the same sentiment, expressed in other words, as given to Noah: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

All the ceremonies which were typical of the Savior, his death, etc., were no longer needed, but the fundamental principles of the law still remained and were of full force. They were in no sense abrogated by his coming, his death, or his resurrection.

We repeat, God gave a law in the early periods of the earth's history suited to man's fallen condition, which was the highest type of earthly government, and he designed that it should remain in force at least until man should pass to a higher plane than the one he now occupies.

I have heard individuals who are strongly in favor of abolishing capital punishment quote exultingly the words of the Savior, and wrongly interpret them by saying, an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, is no longer demanded: they generally omit what follows:

"But I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. If any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, give him thy cloak also," etc.

I maintain that humanity has signally failed to observe the higher law that Jesus taught, but have retained the eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth provision, with great tenacity up to the present time.

In proof of this, I would call for the records of courts throughout the civilized world, from the courts of the justice of the peace to the highest tribunal of the land, and see if the complaints, the evidence, the arguments, the findings, the rulings, and the decisions have not always been in keeping with the eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth provision with damages added thereto, which latter is altogether at variance with Jesus' teachings.

Yet these same persons are loud in their demands that the penalty shall be abolished, which God himself declared should be inflicted upon the individual who was guilty of the highest crime known to the law; namely, that of shedding innocent blood. What is offered in lieu thereof? In some instances, imprisonment with solitary confinement for life; in others imprisonment with hard labor for life, with certain commutations in certain specified cases, and under certain circumstances. What is the object sought to be gained by this change? It seems to me that imprisonment with solitary confinement for life would be worse than death. Also, that imprisonment with hard labor for life would beget a strong desire to die, to end such misery.

The most feasible answer I have heard given to this question is, "To give the murderer a chance to repent and not force him into the presence of his maker with his hands dripping with blood."

I will ask, what atonement or reparation can ever be made by one who has shed innocent blood, that will be at all acceptable to God, or in any way relieve him from the awful responsibility? I answer emphatically, all—and the only thing—he can do, is to give his life—life for life.

The murderer may sincerely regret his wicked act: but it is out of his power to give back the life he has taken. And as God alone possess the power to give life, it is a sin directly against God; consequently, man is powerless to condone this offense. If the murderer could only realize the awful consequences of his crime, he would willingly give his life, rather than seek to retain it. To deprive him of life under these circumstances is a merciful act rather than otherwise. For none knew better than God himself what penalty should be inflicted for this crime.

Let the murderer confess upon the scaffold that he believes in Jesus; of what avail now, is such belief to him? It does not relieve him in the least. God forbade him even our pity. For, said he, "Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel." John, the beloved disciple who echoed in his utterances the sentiments of the Savior, said, "Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."

The prayer of Jesus, while upon the cross, is quoted as evidence of divine forgiveness, even for the murderer. For Jesus said, "Father: forgive them, for they know not what they do." This was the highest exhibition of that divine compassion which characterized our Lord and Savior. That this prayer will be answered in bringing their children out from "under the curse," I do not doubt; but I assume the position that it is not yet answered, at least, to the extent of relieving them from the consequences of their fathers' wicked act.

When Pilate washed his hands and said, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it," the Jews assumed all responsibility, and exclaimed, "His blood be on us and our children."

Let us enquire what it has cost the children of Judah whose fathers assumed this terrible responsibility? Their national existence become, in a few years subsequent to this, a thing of the past. Their temple, the pride of the world, was so entirely destroyed that not one stone was left upon another. Their land was made desolate. Their immense wealth, the accumulation of centuries of time, was confiscated. Their banishment to other lands and among other peoples followed. Nor is this all. Eighteen centuries of ostracism, cruelty and oppression, unparalleled in the history of the world, followed. They were not even recognized as citizens anywhere, until a few years ago. In short, they became as the prophet had said, "An astonishment, a proverb, a hiss, and a byword among all nations." And the end is not yet. Nor will it be, until Jesus stands upon Mount Olivet. Then shall the mountain cleave in twain, for he comes now to deliver the Jews who have gathered to the land of their fathers, the nations having united together for their entire destruction.

The Savior of the world now stands revealed before them, and they shall ask, "What are these wounds in thy hands?" He will answer: "Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." The result of this discovery will be a literal fulfillment of Zechariah's prediction, for now the Savior himself who suffered shall turn the key: "And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace, and of supplication, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall morn as one mourneth for his only son; and shall be in bitterness as one that is in bitterness for his first born. And the land shall mourn; every family apart, and their wives apart," etc. Speaking of Jerusalem, the prophet says, "Men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; and Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited."

Then, and not till then, will the key be turned for their forgiveness, and that, too, by the very being whose life's blood their fathers demanded, and for which they held themselves and their children responsible.

In the language of our late venerated president, Wilford Woodruff: "It costs something to shed the blood of prophets, and holy men of God: whether the crime is committed by an individual, a community, or a nation."

We have quoted the law against murder and the penalty to be inflicted therefor, commencing with Noah, and following the same, many times repeated, down to the days of Jesus; and will only add in confirmation one more testimony, given in the past, that of John the Revelator; when upon the Isle of Patmos, and while under the powerful influence of the Spirit, he declared, "He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword."

Has the Lord given, in our day, anything to confirm the law given in the past? As early as February 9, 1831, the Lord said, "Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come. And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die."—(Doctrine and Covenants, Section 42:18, 19.) Thus the first declaration is emphasized. In the same section, verse 79, he defines the manner in which the law shall be executed against the murderer, in these words: "And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proven according to the laws of the land."

At this time, 1831, the death penalty for murder was according to law, and was almost universally applied. God recognized the law as a just one, both as to the arraignment of the guilty, the evidences of his or her guilt, and the execution of the law upon proof of such guilt. Instead of its being, as some claim, a relic of barbarism, at no time or in no place has our Father ever suggested a change or a substitute for the law as originally given.

With the Latter-day Saints, this should be the end of all controversy upon this subject; and no maudlin sympathy such as is, by many, indulged in, should be exhibited towards the righteously condemned murderer, for heaven alone can determine his future.

[LegendadryPerc]

So, you are saying that the death penalty doesn't necisarily help the person put to death, (unless that person submits to it willingly), but that it helps those who are answerable to God for the judgement they give on the case. Basically, you are saying, that the death penalty is for OUR (as we make the laws) redemption, as it shows whether we condone murder or not.

(am I understanding that right?)

[Hemidakota]

"I will ask, what atonement or reparation can ever be made by one who has shed innocent blood, that will be at all acceptable to God, or in any way relieve him from the awful responsibility? I answer emphatically, all—and the only thing—he can do, is to give his life—life for life."

[LegendadryPerc]

Sorry, I'm not so good at reading between the lines sometimes...

So is the death penalty only spiritually benificial for those who have sinned and seek it - or is it spiritually benificial for those who make the laws?

[Hemidakota]

Sorry....

Yes...you must make that choice to repent as with King David or the missionary in Utah who murdered another person who seeked the Firing Squad.