A Very Good Case For The Death Penalty!

[CrimsonKairos]

mamacat, I respect your right to hold your opinion.

I would point out, however, that when Jesus came to earth he wasn't concerned with criminal code reform or overhauling Israel's civil laws. His purpose was to institute a new covenant and teach us how to enter into it and hence, into eternal life.

The death penalty is not society saying, "We damn you to hell." It's saying, "You can no longer live among us after having taken the most valuable thing there is: an innocent life."

So you'd be opposed to war, then? As I pointed out, to let a murderer live but then approve the killing of enemy soldiers who might not have even taken life yet is contradictory.

I think the RLDS Church's declaration on the death penalty was terribly misguided.

The Amish largely live separately from our society. They don't fight in our wars (when possible). While I respect their right to live that lifestyle, I hardly think their mindset should be used as a measure of how we--who actually live in this society--should deal with the most violent crime there is.

[Guest mamacat]

"His purpose was to institute a new covenant and teach us how to enter into it and hence, into eternal life."

a new life, with an all-knowing, loving forgiving father...who told us, in no uncertain terms -- thou shalt not kill. the restoration is about the lion laying down with lamb -- and all sins will be forgiven. and we are to start with each other. i love how LDS refers to as the restoration. a socety restored from the necessity of violence and slaughter. beginning with our own hearts.

yes, i'd be opposed to war then.

i'm sure that President Faust understood who the Amish are...and he still upheld their values as a worthy example for a teaching topic in General Conference of this year.

thanks for respecting my right to my opinion Ck. i respect yours too.

[CrimsonKairos]

I think there is a difference between individuals forgiving each other, and society forgiving individuals. We will all be judged as individuals at Judgment Day. Nations and societies will not be judged and assigned a kingdom of glory as a group, and hence they have different responsibilities towards criminals than an individual citizen does.

If the goal is to save human life, the best way to do that is to deter murderers from murdering in the first place. We aren't going to stop murders by "turning the other cheek" as a society. That's what bothers me. We aren't going to stop murders by being soft on murderers. That will only encourage murderers.

How can we deter murderers? By letting them know that if they kill, they will be executed. Simple. We must take life to save life. Again, it's a seeming paradox which is 100% true.

The injunction to Israel that says, "Thou shalt not kill," does not mean, "Thou shalt not ever end human life." If it did, then God contradicted Himself when he commanded Israel under Joshua to slaughter the Canaanites as they occupied their promised land.

In addition, there are at least five separate Hebrew words that are all translated as simply, "kill," in the KJV. So citing "thou shalt not kill" as proof that God is against capital punishment isn't really conclusive.

Here are six Hebrew words that are all translated as simply "kill" in the KJV. You can click on the words and read their definitions as given in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible online.

Harag -- Genesis 12:12

Nakah -- Genesis 37:21

Shakhat -- Exodus 12:21

Muth -- Exodus 16:3

Ratsakh -- Exodus 20:13 (this word is the word used in the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," and this word is most often used in the Bible to refer to private homicide)

Tabakh -- Exodus 22:1

[Guest mamacat]

in the bible, God asks as us to stand in his name. simply to stand. so while we take measures to insure that we protect ourselves, we are asked not to retaliate. God will see to that; that is bewtween God and man. it is not a statment of anarchy; God gives us a blueprint for rules in society to live in peace with each other, and they do not include capital punishment.

He wishes life and redemption for every one of his children. it's what he sent Jesus to teach us...that he is ever merciful, that he is the way and the life, through forgiveness and love. God grants forgiveness to those repentant and grants us life on this earth to learn that. so a life is sacred in that respect. in ezekial 33:11 He says ~

"I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from their ways and live." (Ezekiel 33:11)

God has given us, esp through Jesus, myriads of ways to deter killing. the smartest of men among us will find ways to supersede the threat of deterrence and death. it is much more productive to discover ways of improving our society so that killing each other becomes obsolete through war, interpersonal relations, or law.

[CrimsonKairos]

"Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." -- Genesis 9:6

That's the pattern God gave societies for how to deal with murder.

[Guest mamacat]

but he doesn't say for man to kill man. He deals with transgressors. that is precisely the reason the death penalty is wrong. because man is made in the image of God; it is therefore not our place to take life, even in retribution.

[CrimsonKairos]

but he doesn't say for man to kill man.

Actually, God says exactly that man is to be the one who kills the murderer:

"Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." -- Genesis 9:6

I don't see how you read that to mean man is NOT supposed to punish the murderer by taking his/her life.

[JcDean78]

The scriptures are full of times where the Saints went to war or killed. Sometimes innocents.

Mamacat I respect your views but feel very strongly that your perspective is skewed and that the death penatly is not only ok, but also a must for any society that wants to protect and secure the people within.

[Blessed]

With regards to this specific case I would not support the death penalty. That is letting them off too easy. If it were up to me I would put them in isolation for the remainder of their lives not to have contact with another living soul except for those to bring them basic needs to live.

[Guest mamacat]

"Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

i believe He means that in terms of one's karma...same as an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth....we bring our fate upon us. so that when God says that any man who sheds another's blood, he is saying that what we reap we sow. however, there is a second part to this equation, and it is precisely what Jesus came among us to teach ~

that God is a merciful God if we repent. therefore something such as life imprisonment actually is much more in keeping with God's intention. first, it is a much more severe punishment than simply ending a life. to suffer with the knowledge of one's sins, separate from society, restricted from freedom, confers a suffering to which many would prefer death. second, it is merciful in that it gives the offender the chance of repentance and redemption, therefore eradicating and ending the cycle of karma and retribution that he/she engendered to begin with.

repentance and forgiveness eradicates our karma; it ends the cycle of retribution, which is the biggest message that Jesus instilled in his followers, in this world.

shedding blood for blood, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth....and all that ~ that is about the misery we bring upon ourselves. our laws are designed to give us respite from our own misery making.

the following underscores the part in ezekial where God states that he wishes the wicked to live ~

Does God endorse this death penalty? Again and again, God acts to overturn our self-imposed death sentence. God responds to the first sin of humans in the Garden of Eden with a promise of redemption. God responds to Cain's murder of his brother Abel by protecting Cain from vengeance. God responds to Moses' murder of the Egyptian by making Moses the leader of the Israelites. God responds to David's murder of Uriah by sending the prophet Nathan to bring David to repentance. God responds to the sins of the Israelites by again and again sending prophets to bring them to repentance.

If God were for the death penalty, God would have long ago put the entire human race to death. In the book of Ezekiel we hear God speak, and God says, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from their ways and live." (Ezekiel 33:11) This is the whole thrust of Biblical justice - God's work to bring us back from our self-imposed death sentence.

The Bible makes it clear that the fullest expression and embodiment of God's justice is Jesus Christ. Jesus' life is in complete obedience to God's will - which means Jesus' life is God's justice.

Jesus tells us that the purpose of His life is to bring us life - life to the full (John 10:10). Jesus fulfills the laws given in the Old testament in that he reveals God's intent in those laws through his words and his life. Jesus reveals the meaning of the Old Testament law of an "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as not an endorsement of vengeance but rather a rejection of vengeance.

And thus Jesus brings us to the divinely logical end point of the rejection of vengeance - namely, love of enemies. We are no longer simply to love those who love us; this does not rise to the standard of God's justice. Now Jesus tells us we are to even love our enemies, as God does. We are to forgive, as God does. We are to have mercy, as God does. We are to be generous, as God is. We are to always seek the redemption of the sinner, as God does.

Dr. Peter Gathje

[CrimsonKairos]

therefore something such as life imprisonment actually is much more in keeping with God's intention. first, it is a much more severe punishment than simply ending a life.

The point of capital punishment is not to inflict the most suffering possible. That seems a rather vengeful attitude. Capital punishment is meant to take from the murderer what he/she took from their victim: life. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not possible for a murderer to make restitution to the victim of murder. You can return a purse; you can repair a car; you cannot return a life.

repentance and forgiveness eradicates our karma; it ends the cycle of retribution, which is the biggest message that Jesus instilled in his followers, in this world.

I don't believe in karma, so that would probably explain why we're so fundamentally opposed to each other's point of view. :) I don't know that I'd say Jesus included the concept of karma in his teachings, but maybe this is semantics and not worth pursuing.

Does God endorse this death penalty? Again and again, God acts to overturn our self-imposed death sentence.

While the rest of this guy's excerpt is pretty interesting, the above sentence draws a connection between concepts which I think are incompatible.

He seems to be equating spiritual death (damnation, being cast off by God), to physical death like death by lethal injection or any other form of capital punishment. I think that's rather strange. Sin is a crime against God (not necessarily against our fellowmen) whose punishment may or may not be physical. Civil or criminal acts are usually crimes against a society, and society's only method of punishing the criminal is physical. Either they go to jail, pay a fine, or die.

It is not society's job to mete out spiritual punishments; it is not society's job to monitor spiritual acts of rebellion against God; it is not society's job to police the spirituality of its citizens.

Society's sole responsibility is in dealing with peoples' actions as they effect other people for good or ill.

Now, we don't impose a death sentence on ourselves. Adam's transgression does that. By our actions we might move towards a spiritual death, but becoming spiritually unclean is entirely different from raping and murdering another human being, and the consequences should be entirely different as well.

God responds to the first sin of humans in the Garden of Eden with a promise of redemption.

Here's where we're getting our signals crossed. It seems that your arguments, mamacat, assign to society the responsibility to forgive sins. That's not society's job or duty. Condemning a murderer to death is not a commentary on the state of his spirit before God or anything else other than a declaration that the murderer has acted in the most inappropriate manner by taking another life and must therefore forfeit their own.

God responds to Moses' murder of the Egyptian by making Moses the leader of the Israelites.

This guy thinks Moses murdered the Egyptian? Whoa, now I definitely know we're not on the same page. Murder implies premeditation and malice. Moses saving a slave from excessive beating by a merciless Egyptian slavedriver hardly qualifies as murder.

If God were for the death penalty, God would have long ago put the entire human race to death.

Really? Most people agree that the death penalty should be reserved for murderers. So this guy equates personal sins to murdering another human being? Wow. Now that's a stretch I can't make without ripping sinew and reason simultaneously.

We are no longer simply to love those who love us...we are to even love our enemies, as God does. We are to forgive, as God does. We are to have mercy, as God does.

Here's the problem. The victim of murder can't show mercy to the murderer. Why? Because they're dead!

[Guest mamacat]

to illustrate ~

as Jesus suffered on the cross, he did not say, those who killed him shall be killed...

he said ~

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.

[Guest mamacat]

by karma i mean the phrase in the bible ~ as ye reap so shall ye sow.

the dictionary defines karma in one sense as fate or destiny.

we create our fate and destiny through free will. in the same fashion may we overcome the destiny we create for ourselves by repenting and seeking forgiveness, and life in Christ.

i'm not suggesting that it is society's place to forgive sins. i am saying that it is not society's place to take a life for a life. as man is made in the image of God, so are we not to take a life in retribution -- by so doing, society is condoning that which God asks us not to do.

[prisonchaplain]

My two reasons to be reticent about the death penalty. While the % may be small, innocents have been executed. Second, my guess is that the majority of those wrongly convicted were minorities and not people of means. I do not say the latter because I'm convinced there is intentional racism or classism. Rather, some minority groups are, by their nature, more "aggressive" (or gregorious, if you prefer). To a jury, such "loud confidence" can come across as aggressive, 'unrepentent' etc., leading to bias against. Additionally, those without money, obviously cannot afford an aggressive defense.

My one argument for the death penalty: For vicious murder, the only punishment that recognizes the value of life is execution. Anything short deminishes the life lost. If we cannot, as a society, find the righteous anger appropriate to execute heinous murderers, then we've lost the will to prosper.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for explaining the karma thing. So you mean the law of the harvest...we reap what we sow. Gotcha. I can hang with that. B)

i'm not suggesting that it is society's place to forgive sins. i am saying that it is not society's place to take a life for a life. as man is made in the image of God, so are we not to take a life in retribution, by so doing, society is condoning that which God asks us not to do.

Hmmm, now I'm confused. Bear with me. You say that capital punishment is retribution and that God asks us not to be retributive or vengeful. Okay. But then you said instead of executing murderers we should confine them to prison for life. Why? You said that such a course would cause more suffering and be a worse punishment for the murderer than just executing him.

It seems to me that your preferred method of punishing murderers is more about retribution than capital punishment would be.

What I'm saying is that if you oppose capital punishment because it is retribution, you cannot in the same breath advocate life in prison based on the reasoning that prison causes worse suffering than death. If we are selecting punishments for murder based on which one would inflict the most suffering, wouldn't that be retribution-centric thinking? Do you see where I'm confused by your views?

[Guest mamacat]

yes i do. your reasoning for the death penalty is for the purpose of deterrence. in light of this, my suggestion is that there are alternatives to death as punishment/deterrence for crime.

[Traveler]

My two reasons to be reticent about the death penalty. While the % may be small, innocents have been executed. Second, my guess is that the majority of those wrongly convicted were minorities and not people of means. I do not say the latter because I'm convinced there is intentional racism or classism. Rather, some minority groups are, by their nature, more "aggressive" (or gregorious, if you prefer). To a jury, such "loud confidence" can come across as aggressive, 'unrepentent' etc., leading to bias against. Additionally, those without money, obviously cannot afford an aggressive defense.

My one argument for the death penalty: For vicious murder, the only punishment that recognizes the value of life is execution. Anything short deminishes the life lost. If we cannot, as a society, find the righteous anger appropriate to execute heinous murderers, then we've lost the will to prosper.

I do not always agree with your posts - but I have learned to respect and value them. I think I agree with you on every point if I understand you. That is that our justice system has flaws. Though I know it is flawed - I cannot point to a better system - and it would seem that efforts to imporve our system leave us wondering if we have made an improvement.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

yes i do. your reasoning for the death penalty is for the purpose of deterrence. in light of this, my suggestion is that there are alternatives to death as punishment/deterrence for crime.

I do not believe this to be true. I do not believe there are any historical examples. There have been societies that did not have peace officers, judges, jails that had very little crime - one society I studied was so free of crime that there was in the language no word for murder. They had no weapons of war or defense. Their society had lasted for well over a thousand years - till the Christians discovered them.

But they were not interested in the Christian religion and in one generation the entire society is gone. DNA research has found no trace that any of them survived. Not one Christian living at the time questioned their murder because their religion was considered inferior. For a few hundred years the Christians continued to refer to this society as savage and Satanic. Even today few study how they lived in peace - but I will give you a hint. No one of that society would ever talk again to someone that refused to live by their law. The law was a matter of honor. But when someone had a gun they would have to live by the power of that gun or die - but they died free. Some perfer to live free.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't endorse capital punishment just for its deterrent factor. The murderer must forfeit their own life if he/she chooses to make someone else forfeit theirs through murder. The fact that it might deter future murderers is a bonus.

Traveler, which culture/society are you talking about? Not sure I've ever heard of them.

[Dr T]

I wonder how much of a deterrent it really is?

[Guest mamacat]

I don't endorse capital punishment just for its deterrent factor. The murderer must forfeit their own life if he/she chooses to make someone else forfeit theirs through murder. The fact that it might deter future murderers is a bonus.

what you said previously ~

If the goal is to save human life, the best way to do that is to deter murderers from murdering in the first place. We aren't going to stop murders by "turning the other cheek" as a society. That's what bothers me. We aren't going to stop murders by being soft on murderers. That will only encourage murderers.

How can we deter murderers? By letting them know that if they kill, they will be executed. Simple. We must take life to save life. Again, it's a seeming paradox which is 100% true.

"The murderer must forfeit their own life if he/she chooses to make someone else forfeit theirs through murder. "

why? it's simply retribution. this is not what Jesus taught. He taught the opposite.

[Guest mamacat]

@ Dr. T : your wondering isn't in vain. deterrence, at the end of the day, isn't really a successful measure. there will always be those who will, or who will think that they can, evade 'consequences,' whatever they may be. society must find other ways to instill the value of life. taking life does not convey that message. most people would rather live. what's that about "give me liberty or give me death"...and that state whose motto is "live free or die"...etc etc....

re: prison chaplain ~

"the only punishment that recognizes the value of life is execution."

that's a contradiction in terms. it's like hitting a child as punishment for hitting. the child only learns that hitting is appropriate for communicating displeasure. he doesn't learn the reason for not hitting....he doesn't learn values or respect for others. he learns fear, and dissimulation.

Some of the first countries to abolish capital punishment included Venezuela (1863), San Marino (1865), and Costa Rica (1877). Today, over half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty either by law or through practice. Since 2000, Chile, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey have joined the list of abolitionist countries. Most executions occur in a handful of countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States. In Great Britain, it was abolished (except for cases of treason) in 1971; France abolished it in 1981. Canada abolished it in 1976.

the U.S. is in the company of Iran, China and Saudi Arabia in this practice?? scary...barbaric...uncivilized.

[CrimsonKairos]

We must take life to save life.

Capital punishment is society's affirmation of the sanctity of human life.

I do not believe Jesus would want America to abolish capital punishment. I think Jesus would want to abolish murderers.

[Guest mamacat]

it's society's affirmation that it's ok to take a life. if people think that's ok, they will murder with the idea in their mind that it is justice. it's the very purpose of President Faust's story about the Amish and forgiveness in General Conference.

isn't there something about hate the sin, not the sinner? every person, even murderers are children of God and can count on God to show mercy and forgiveness in the event of repentance.

edit to add ~ Jesus would wish to abolish murder (it is one of his 10 commandments after all)....therefore he would abolish capital punishment, which is murder.

[CrimsonKairos]

You keep looking at murder like a sin.

Society doesn't view it as a sin. Society is separate from religion or spirituality.

Society doesn't need to "forgive the sinner to be forgiven." Society merely enforces laws which punish the guilty and protect the innocent.

Now if someone was saying that the LDS Church should be able to use the death penalty instead of excommunication, you'd have an argument with your "hate the sin, not the sinner," thing.

It's apples and oranges, mamacat. Here's an example closer to home. I have forgiven in my heart the guy who drove without siezure medication (which he chose to stop using years ago) and who subsequently had a siezure and hit my dad, giving him traumatic brain damage. So yes, I have forgiven him. I don't wish him ill will, I don't have a desire to make him see what it's like to have a brain injury. If he was homeless, I'd give him some cash; if he was hitchhiking on a hot day, I'd give him a lift if I had room in my car, etc...

But I do support the charge of felony negligent driving that prosecutors have brought against him. He broke the law, he drove when he shouldn't have been (the legal details are too voluminous and boring to list here), hence, he should be punished. Why? Not because I or the prosecutor hate him, but because consequences follow actions, and if those who break the law go unpunished, who will fear to break the law...which of course leads to more car accidents and more shattered lives.

It's possible to forgive someone in your heart and still insist that the temporal authorities impose a punishment according to the laws of men and society.