A good reason to support the death penalty.

[Elphaba]

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.

Hi Hemi,

I believe you are speaking of the doctrine known as "blood atonement:” If so, the Church is explicit that blood atonement was never doctrine.

Additionally, the Church, and those who make decisions as to the types of executions available, have refused to allow the use of firing squads, with different people giving different reasons for this to be so. My impression is it seems a barbaric method of execution, but that's just me.

In 2003, The COJCOLDS responded to a commission inquiry by saying the Church had no objection to the elimination of the firing squad. Commission members said they were concerned about erroneous notions that the Mormon church condones the doctrine of blood atonement, which calls for the shedding of blood to pay for grievous sins.

As for the man who had completed a mission, I think you are talking about Mark Hacking, who shot his wife while she was in her bed. Because Utah had discontinued its use of firing squads, Hacking would not have been able to choose to shed his own blood.

Mark Hofmann is the case that has always struck me as fascinating. He is the forged documents dealer who murdered two people and then one of his bombs blew up in his car, but it was not fatal.

His father begged Hofmann to let himself be shot by the firing squad. His father believed this was the only way his son could ever be forgiven for the murders he had committed. But Hofmann refused.

The most notorious case of “blood atonement” was that of Gary Gillmore, although I think there is reason to question that he chose the firing squad specifically to ensure he had met the requirements of blood atonement.

Regarding the Church’s statement that blood atonement was never doctrine, I do not agree with this at all. In the pioneer days, Church members often heard zealous calls for blood atonement while they sat in the pews. Brigham spoke of it, prior to 1857, with oratory zeal.

And then there was Jedediah Grant, who never met a Mormon he liked!

Jedediah was fanatically convinced all members were full of sin and needed to be cleansed right there on the spot. Jedediah’s call for blood atonement was an obssession, and he was passionately fervent in his insistence the saints reaffirm their testimonies, sometimes by the shedding their own blood, if needed.

This was especially true during the “reformation,” a time of fanaticism where members were told they must be re-baptized to be cleansed of their sins, and renew their commitment to the Church.

And there are a few cases where blood atonement was forced upon some people considered deserving of it. And, of course, the obvious case is the Mountain Meadows Massacre, wherein the southern-Utah Saints were convinced they had to spill the blood of those who would wrong them as they passed through the Utah territory. A huge part of this conviction came from George A. Smith, who, on his trip down south, gave fiery exhortations not to trust anyone.

These southern Saints had no idea who they could or could not trust, as there were gentiles coming from every direction, and when Smith told them of the army coming into SLC, they danger they felt was almost palpable.

Therefore, when September 11, 1857 came, these Southern Saints were in an untenable condition, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre came to be the darkest spot in Mormon history.

Eventually, though, blood atonement has lost its luster, and you will not find a highly placed Mormon who will even admit it was ever doctrine, much less one who thinks it still is.

So, back to the present, the Church denies blood atonement was ever a doctrine. But in the midst of claims of war, it was definitely thought of as doctrine by the 19th Century saints sitting in the pews listening to the fiery orations.

But no more.

Elphaba

http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/utah.cfm

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/capital-punishment

Blood Atonement - SHIELDS

[MarginOfError]

The Bible may condone capital punishment, but it also condones slavery. Are we to assume that I can have a slave for up to seven years now too?

Point being, sometimes the laws that God gives man are laws that a limited by the capacity of the faithful to understand and accept. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that some future revelation will specifically put the Church in opposition to capital punishment.

At the same time, I personally find that unlikely. I'm not a big fan of capital punishment, but do believe that there may be some very rare instances in which it is appropriate. Also, capital punishment is a lousy deterrent of crime. Studies have shown that the only real deterrent of crime is the belief of getting caught. When people commit a crime, they don't measure the punishment as heavily as they measure the probability of getting caught, so if you want to deter crime, you need to increase the perception that if you commit one you will be caught.

Lastly, if you want to prevent a lot of these crimes, more prevalent use of the death penalty is going to have a very low impact. The largest correlates of violent crime are poverty and low education. Tackle these problems, and you'll get a much bigger payoff in reducing violent crime. (coincidentally, legalized abortion appears to have an effect in reducing crime, albeit a very inefficient one).

[WillowTheWhisp]

I am opposed to the death penalty mainly for one very basic but very serious reason. There have been far too many cases in the UK of people who have been 'proved' to be guilty and yet later the evidence has been shown to be flawed - mother accused of murdering her children - they had a genetic disease that doctors had not identified, a man accused of rape and murder - he was impotent and it could have been proven that he was incapable of having raped the woman, 6 men who were found guilty of bombing on the 'evidence' of substances found on their hands which was later shown to have come from the back of playing cards! That's just a few. One is one too many.

The innocent man accused of rape and murder spent years in jail and when finally released he didn't live much longer.

Justice is often far too blind.

[Fiannan]

, capital punishment is a lousy deterrent of crime.

Perhaps, but how many assults, rapes and murders have been commited by Ted Bundy since he got the chair?

[Fiannan]

Commentary?

Alma 1:19 -- And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee, his blood would come upon us for vengeance; [20] Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; [21] And they have been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.

Alma 1:22 -- And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, [23] And there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death.

[MormonGirl02]

I'm for the death penalty but only for very serious cases such as first degree murders, terrorism, and mass murderers.

[prisonchaplain]

Can the death penalty be carried out in a manner that is Scriptural? Yes.

Is it required of us by Scripture? I doubt it.

Is it economical? No.

Is it a deterrent? No.

Might it prevent crimes? On a small scale, it might prevent a few murders, assaults, or rapes that take place inside of prisons.

Is sentencing skewed, based on race, education, and economics? I believe so.

Bottom line: We can do it, and perhaps, righteously so. However, we don't have to, and it might be cheaper not to--politically and economically.

[LegendadryPerc]

Is sentencing skewed, based on race, education, and economics? I believe so.

I know this sounds very "white - middle class) - I know I have been culturally ingrained with a "white - middle class" attitude - but hopefully my upbringing will be looked upon with as much mercy as I think we all deserve...

Anyway, we live on the "wrong side of the tracks" and I have learned so much because of this situation. I assume that just where we live, makes us the target of "investigations" as somebody (like a policeman or CPS) shows up about once a year. Freaked me out at first, as I thought they only showed up on "questionable" people's doorsteps. Never thought it would happen to me. But we've gotten used to it. What does scare me, is that I say one sentence - one sentence out of my mouth, and they visibly relax, and often opologize for taking up my time. Why? because I speek "correct" english (probably a good thing they can't see my spelling, lol). I don't use "explicatives" and am polite, etc. Basically, with even just one sentence, they can tell, despite our financial cirucumatances and where we live, that we are "white - middle class" or rather - educated. I don't know which turns my stomach more, or its probably the combination of both. The horror that I really don't have any rights because of where we live, etc., or the horror that those who aren't from my culture, have no rights.

If we accidentally overdraw our bank account, and write a bad check, we might get fined by the bank or the store, we might get a bad credit rating, but that's about it. If the guy down the street does, he's on probation for 6 months or policemen invading his life, because he committed "fraud". I used to think "they" must have done something else, or we weren't getting the whole story. But after living here, I think it has to do a whole lot more with not knowing how to relate to those who run the courts and make the laws. If you don't know the laws, nobody tells you. They walk all over you. I will see policemen verbally abuse somebody for doing something that I am getting away with (like homeschooling vs. truancy), and then turn around and talk to me like I'm a real person, expecting me to talk to them like they are a real person, like we are somehow different than the person they are unknowingly being prejudiced against. I honestly don't think they do it on purpose - they really think how you talk, dress, body language, where you live, matter.

I know this is only one small location, and "perhaps" the only place these kind of injustices occur - but I do not doubt that your observation here about race, education, and economics, are true.

[Hemidakota]

Again, let me correct the false perception of a few postings, who do not take the time research the necessities for murderers [LDS] who are beyond the reach of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that makes it necessary to save his/her own soul:

From President Joseph Fielding Smith....

THE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT

CLEANSING POWER OF BLOOD OF CHRIST. The Latter-day Saints believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ. They believe that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel they obtain a remission of sins; but this could not be if Christ had not died for them.

If you did believe in blood atonement, I might ask you why the blood of Christ was shed, and in whose stead was it shed? I might ask you to explain the words of Paul, "Without shedding of blood is no remission."

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon? And is not this further reason why you should discard the book as well as the name? Is it not safe for us to rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of this kind?

TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General-that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ-and, Individual-that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

But man may commit certain grievous sins-according to his light and knowledge-that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone-so far as in his power lies-for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

MURDERERS AND THE ATONEMENT. Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ. This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of Brighamism." This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it.

In whose stead did Christ die? I wish your church members could be fair enough to discuss this subject on its merits.

I again recommend you to a careful reading of the quotations in my open letter. You will find them as follows: Book of Mormon-2 Nephi 9:35; Alma 1:13-14 and 42:19. Bible-Inspired Version, Genesis 9:12-13; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 9:22 and 10:26-29; 1 John 3:15 and 5:16. Doctrine and Covenants 42:18-19, 79; 87:7; 101:80.

To these I will add: "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to deathÂ…. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood it defileth the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it."

ANCIENT MEN SLAIN TO ATONE FOR SINS. Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? Of Zemnarihah and his followers? What about Er and Onan, whom the Lord slew? Of Nadab and Abihu? And the death of Achan?

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you misquote. He tells us so, in the same discourse in the portion which you did not quote. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would save them."

ATONEMENT AND SINS UNTO DEATH. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man."

This was the law among the Nephites: "Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die."

John says: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that ye shall pray for it."

[Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1 Chapter 8]

[RachelleDrew]

I'm really iffy on the subject of the death penalty.

But this guy seriously needs to never see the light of day again, whatever way the court deems fit to accommodate that.

Poor girl, that's terrible.

[LegendadryPerc]

Hemidakota, did he say that talking as a mouthpiece for the Lord, or on his own? (from the pulpit in conference, etc?)

[Islander]

This is a very interesting topic. In fact, several years ago I was involved in a research project that attempted to design protocols aimed at reducing the impact of bias in decision making processes and critical thinking matrix for problem solving. It had nothing to do with the death penalty but I doubt there is any other government administration function seen with more suspicion that that.

Bias is unavoidable because it is inherent to the core of the process which is given by the history, education, experience, social exposure, emotional response and cognitive awareness of the individual embeded in the process. The best we can hope is a fully aware (of the bias) systems of checks and balances that allows for formulaic ways to administer the process with feedback loops built in for verification.

Death is a radical measure when is applied by governments. The prosecutor has unlimited resources to pursue, incarcerate, and build a case against anyone it choses as a target. That is just an awful amount of power. It is a proven fact that thousands of convictions have been overturned because tainted evidence, false testimony and prosecutor's misconduct. I am not necessarily opposed to the death penalty but I would caution against seeking a death sentence for "political" reasons. I think the state will gain a level of confidence if they would provide for means (most death penalty cases are against indigents) defendants to have a top level defense. We would save money on appeals and the lag time between the conviction and the execution.

It is a very delicate issue and I would not be too quick to make up my mind on it.

[ampat777]

Throughout the Hebrew Testament and the New Testament, there is overwhelming biblical support for the divinely instituted punishment of death in cases of murder, such punishment to be carried out by the governing authority. There appears to be no biblical text which withdraws or condemns the punishment or that authority. Indeed, all evidence is quite to the contrary.

Opponents and advocates of capital punishment often make fundamental errors in citing biblical text. Those errors are usually found within the following categories:

(1) Confusing the obligations of individuals with those of the government. Example: Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." Strangely, opponents cite this as proof of Jesus’ abandonment of capital punishment. If one were to assume that this text referenced the actions of the governing authority and not individual obligations, then one would clearly find that government could not enforce any law which sought to protect the lives and property of its law abiding citizens. There is no reference to capital punishment in the text. Therefore, all wrongdoers, be that robbers, rapists or murderers could act repeatedly, with impunity, if the text was an obligation on the governing authority. This text is directed at individuals and has no application to the governing authority or its right and duty to execute. ( Carey, ibid F.18, pg. 122)

(2) Isolating specific biblical text from the broader context of the discussion. Example: Ezekiel 33:11: "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?" Let’s review Dr. Bailey’s analysis: "To some readers, that may be seem clear enough! God not only takes no "pleasure" in the death (execution?) of the wicked (criminal?), but prefers that they "turn back" (be rehabilitated?). Such understanding might indeed be justified if one could read the Bible atomistically, that is, one verse at a time, with the understanding that the verse has a self contained eternal truth. However, if the prophet is speaking to a specific audience about a particular problem, and if his response covers several verses (or even a chapter), then the modern interpreter must hear him out and look for the central idea. That is, what a verse says may not be what the context (and thus the prophet) means. . . .the words are addressed to the ‘house of Israel’ (specifically the Judean exiles of Babylonia), in response to their lament. (And) Who are the wicked? The exiles whose betrayal of the covenant has led to exile. What is meant by their "death"? Both their political situation ("we waste away") and their dwindling faith in the ancient concept of election. God takes no "pleasure" in the death of the wicked (i.e., does not see it as necessary that the exiles have this attitude and forever remain in Babylonia). The Deity desires repentance, change of priorities, renewal of ancient values, life as it was intended by this community {"turn back"} . . . and return to the promised land. Thus, the text is not concerned with the fate of anyone who has been sentenced to death by the judiciary (or even per se with individuals who face death), and it does not therefore suggest what the religious persons response should be in that case." Bailey, ibid F.31,pg. 42-43. "It is a faulty exegesis to take a verse of Scripture out of context and interpret it without regard to its qualifying words."See Vallenga, ibid F.26, pg. 65.

(3) Believing that Christ abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament and instituted a new ethic in the New Testament, based solely on mercy. There are 20 chapters, within the 28 chapters of Matthew, which discuss destruction, hell, unquenchable fire, and/or differing forms of punishment and exclusion by God (see Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:22, 29-30; 8:12; 11:23-24; 12:30-32; 13:41-42, 49-50; 18:8-9; 22:2-14; 23:33, 25:40-46) and/or honor the Law of the Hebrew Testament (see specific references Matthew 5 and 15). "For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Ephesians 5:5. "When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power." 2 Thessalonians 1:7b-9. And so it is throughout the New Testament. See also Mark 3:29; Luke 13:24-28; John 5:24-29, 15:6; 2 Peter 2:4-9; Jude 1:5-15: Revelation 13:10. NAS, 1978

copyright, JUSTICE FOR ALL © Copying permission granted

[Fiannan]

Yet a couple more reasons to support the death penalty!

MyFox Dallas | Teens Admit to Garland Killings, Robberies

Two teens charged with murdering two men outside a Christian music studio in Garland on Thursday admitted to killing and robbing Matthew Butler and Stephen Swan.

The suspects' jailhouse interviews on Monday revealed shocking details of the crime and included cussing aimed directly at the victims' families.

James Broadnax and his cousin Demarius Cummings are each charged with capital murder.

Broadnax on Monday said he and Cummings smoked marijuana and took a bus to Garland in order to commit a robbery.

"One of the best spots is Garland because that's where all the rich, white people stay at," Broadnax said.

[Hemidakota]

Hemidakota, did he say that talking as a mouthpiece for the Lord, or on his own? (from the pulpit in conference, etc?)

As a Prophet....I did not understand the whole purpose of shedding ones own blood to at least seeking repent of murder until latter part of life. :)

[NeuroTypical]

Here is the story of a guy who managed to avoid the issue altogether. He killed the bad guys before the police showed up. When it comes down to it, given similar circumstances, I think I'm willing to do what he did.

Interview With Billy Jackson

LM

Edited June 25, 2008 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[NeuroTypical]

Man, I guess nothing kills a debate about capital punishment faster than bringing up our right to defend ourselves.