capital punishment in America

[Markus6]

I'm not an executioner, who knew.

The way I see it, it's a win-win situation, executing criminals whether they've converted or not. If you execute him and he hasn't converted, he gets what he deserves. If you execute him and he has converted, you send him home to the Savior. If you free him and he really did convert and change, you get someone with a great testimony. If you free him and he was faking it, you've let a monster out to rape and kill again.

Furthermore, I really believe that a well-timed execution can be helpful in bringing the condemned to Christ. If you're going to die in 30-40 years, yeah, whatever. If you know you will die in a year, there's a sense of urgency all of a sudden to make peace with whoever is on the other side of death.

Threatening death is not a tool to spread the gospel - at least not the gospel as I see it.

A person saved by Christ will be judged by God to be NOT guilty and not deserving of punishment. To execute that person for their crimes is to go against the judgement of God ignoring the power of Christ.

A person saved by Christ has a powerful testimony, a message to share, the spirit living inside him and spiritual gifts to use. Do you really want to be the one to say that God should not be given the opportunity to use this person in the world?

What about Paul? We'd have found him guilty of being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Christians. Would it be win - win to execute him?

 

[MacFall]

And one of the three functions of government according to Adam Smith. I'm fine with it.

And I'm not. I don't think Adam Smith is an authority on political science. He wasn't even a great economist. If economics had skipped Smith and gone straight from the Spanish Scholastics into the Marginalist Revolution we'd be much better off today, and that would have been possible, because the Marginalist Revolution had little to do with Smith's work. No Smith, no labor theory of value, and hence no Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. That alone makes me wonder why so many people deify him as the "Father of Economics". He wasn't even original for crying sakes.

 

[MacFall]

Threatening death is not a tool to spread the gospel - at least not the gospel as I see it.

Amen to that. If there are good reasons for the death penalty, that's not one of them. In fact even the punishing of vice through violence was condemned by Christ.

 

[Sketcher]

Threatening death is not a tool to spread the gospel - at least not the gospel as I see it.

What I'm talking about isn't threatening death as a tool for the church to use. You kill someone, you deserve to die. It's the state's responsibility to make sure that you do die, if it can prove that you killed somebody. The finality of that is something God can use, because quite frankly, he can use anything. He uses hurricanes, earthquakes, wars, and all sorts of other horrible circumstances, and turns them on their heads to save people and bless lives, even those who are in the midst of that suffering. Why couldn't he use the finality of a death sentence. Now, it's not the role of the church to threaten somebody with death, or somehow cause a storm or an earthquake. But who are we to limit God and what he can do while the state performs its responsibility in performing justice?

A person saved by Christ will be judged by God to be NOT guilty and not deserving of punishment. To execute that person for their crimes is to go against the judgement of God ignoring the power of Christ.

Given that so many people can and have successfully faked conversion to get early release and managed to strike again, I'm sure God would understand. And frankly, this is a fairly limited problem, that only applies in countries where Christians are the majority. Where Christians are the minority, it's not as if the state will care, if you convert in prison, they'll still kill you. They may even make it harder on you, who knows.

A person saved by Christ has a powerful testimony, a message to share, the spirit living inside him and spiritual gifts to use. Do you really want to be the one to say that God should not be given the opportunity to use this person in the world?

What about Paul? We'd have found him guilty of being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Christians. Would it be win - win to execute him?

Paul did a lot from inside a prison cell writing letters. And, according to Romans 13:4, he even supported the death penalty as an institution.

 

[Sketcher]

And I'm not. I don't think Adam Smith is an authority on political science. He wasn't even a great economist. If economics had skipped Smith and gone straight from the Spanish Scholastics into the Marginalist Revolution we'd be much better off today, and that would have been possible, because the Marginalist Revolution had little to do with Smith's work. No Smith, no labor theory of value, and hence no Karl Marx and Frederic Engels. That alone makes me wonder why so many people deify him as the "Father of Economics". He wasn't even original for crying sakes.

You can't blame Marx and Engels on Smith. There are so many variables that go into making men with evil ideas.

Amen to that. If there are good reasons for the death penalty, that's not one of them. In fact even the punishing of vice through violence was condemned by Christ.

Where?

 

[MacFall]

You can't blame Marx and Engels on Smith. There are so many variables that go into making men with evil ideas.

But without the LTV, none of them could have been pinned together as they were in Das Kapital.

Where?

John 8:1-11. Unless you can find a sinless magistrate who does his own stone-throwing, the law is restricted to dealing with the violent members of society.

 

[Sketcher]

But without the LTV, none of them could have been pinned together as they were in Das Kapital.

And if a bunch of other circumstances hadn't happened in their lives, they wouldn't have gotten together and thought of what they thought of in the first place.

John 8:1-11. Unless you can find a sinless magistrate, the law is restricted to dealing with the violent members of society.

That's not a prohibition on it, that's Jesus seeing the corruption in their not bringing her partner in crime to be stoned with her, and avoiding a trap. It tells us that Jesus is merciful. It does not tell us that Jesus abrogated anything pertaining to the death penalty. The King of Kings can grant pardons. That doesn't mean that nobody can rightly execute someone else for that crime. Otherwise, why would the Lord have commanded the death penalty for it in the first place.

 

[MacFall]

So then, do you think it would be just if the government decided to execute everyone found guilty of a vice? Except for themselves, of course, because there would be nobody left alive at all if that happened.

 

[Sketcher]

So then, do you think it would be just if the government decided to execute everyone found guilty of a vice? Except for themselves, of course, because there would be nobody left alive at all if that happened.

Nah, not just any vice. I can see the case for using it when there's full-blown adultery, not Matthew 5 adulterous glances. I'm not saying we must go there, but if God commanded that it be done at one point, we shouldn't reject it out of hand, we should weigh the pluses and minuses.

What I really want to see the death penalty for is acts of violence - murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, slave trading. Acts of war such as treason and espionage, sure - as long as you've gotten all the information out of the guilty party.

 

[MacFall]

God commanded all sorts of things that Christians no longer follow. Jesus' example was the forgiveness of sin in spite of the law. Since He is my King, I recognize no law that is not in accordance with His nature, and the punishment of vice through violent means is clearly contrary to it. It is also contradictory, since only some vices committed by some people will be punished, whereas others will not. A contradiction is a falsehood; a lie. I do not obey lies.

As for the death penalty, those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace are often very quick to call for death in return for crimes which did not cause death. That disturbs me. And treason? Give me a break. No nation nor leader thereof has a claim on your life.

 

[Sketcher]

It is also contradictory, since only some vices committed by some people will be punished, whereas others will not.

Which is the only problem really, assuming that the offense in question deserves any sort of punishment. That's not justice, but corruption.

As for the death penalty, those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace are often very quick to call for death in return for crimes which did not cause death. That disturbs me.

I'll give you two examples. One is a disgruntled employee who goes to work and shoots his boss in the head, killing him instantly. The other is a deranged psychopath who kidnaps a woman, takes her to his basement, tortures her for days, but she is discovered and rescued before she dies, and they're able to save her life at the hospital. If you only execute people when their victim died, you would be executing the first person but not the second, even though the second is more of a deranged monster. Not that the first person is innocent, but he'd be getting killed only because he was more efficient. That's not right. The worst of the worst, you have to kill. And if God wants to save them first, that's his business.

And treason? Give me a break. No nation nor leader thereof has a claim on your life.

What makes treason so bad is it's essentially assisting those who would kill or enslave a whole community of people.

 

[MacFall]

Which is the only problem really, assuming that the offense in question deserves any sort of punishment. That's not justice, but corruption.

It's the only problem, yet it is sufficient to render all punishment of vice by law unjust. It can't be any other way. If only some vices are punished, there is not equality under the law. If all vices are punished, then everybody must be punished, all the time. The first is a contradiction, the second is absurd and impracticable. Furthermore, it is often a matter of opinion which actions are vicious and which are benign, as I discussed in this thread.

I'll give you two examples. One is a disgruntled employee who goes to work and shoots his boss in the head, killing him instantly. The other is a deranged psychopath who kidnaps a woman, takes her to his basement, tortures her for days, but she is discovered and rescued before she dies, and they're able to save her life at the hospital.

Attempted murder is in the same moral category as successful murder. Other violent crimes whereby the victim's life was not endangered are not. There is no such thing as improportional justice.

What makes treason so bad is it's essentially assisting those who would kill or enslave a whole community of people.

That assumes that the state against which the treason was committed was just. It is perfectly possible - in fact, perfectly normal - for states to call "treason" actions which undermine the enslavement of their people.

 

[Sketcher]

It's the only problem, yet it is sufficient to render all punishment of vice by law unjust. It can't be any other way. If only some vices are punished, there is not equality under the law. If all vices are punished, then everybody must be punished, all the time. The first is a contradiction, the second is absurd and impracticable.

I'm not saying all vices should be punished. I'm just saying that any crime deserving punishment must be punished consistently.

Attempted murder is in the same moral category as successful murder. Other violent crimes whereby the victim's life was not endangered are not. There is no such thing as improportional justice.

For every crime I listed as deserving of death - murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, slave trading- you can make a good case for the person's life being endangered though.

That assumes that the state against which the treason was committed was just. It is perfectly possible - in fact, perfectly normal - for states to call "treason" actions which undermine the enslavement of their people.

Yeah, police states abuse that. Doesn't mean that the treason I talked about isn't what it is, and shouldn't be punished accordingly. But I should reiterate, in the cases of abuse by a police state, such treason (i.e. not worshiping the Emperor once a year, or not honoring a philandering king's adulterous "marriage") is not bad. "Bad" treason is being in league with foreign spies, terrorists, and armies.

 

[MacFall]

I'm not saying all vices should be punished. I'm just saying that any crime deserving punishment must be punished consistently.

Well, we certainly agree there.

For every crime I listed as deserving of death - murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, slave trading- you can make a good case for the person's life being endangered though.

Perhaps. Although slave traders usually prefer to keep their victims alive, as do rapists. To be completely honest, I wouldn't shed a tear if either of them were killed in the commission of their crime. Afterward, though, I think there are more fitting punishments.

Yeah, police states abuse that. Doesn't mean that the treason I talked about isn't what it is, and shouldn't be punished accordingly. But I should reiterate, in the cases of abuse by a police state, such treason (i.e. not worshiping the Emperor once a year, or not honoring a philandering king's adulterous "marriage") is not bad. "Bad" treason is being in league with foreign spies, terrorists, and armies.

Fine, but I'm sure we have different definitions of what constitutes just authority against which treason can actually be committed. I do not believe that the United States government is just. A person who puts a U.S. citizen in danger is guilty of endangering human life. A person who collaborates with someone who wants to kill U.S. citizens is guilty of being a party to murder. But I couldn't care less if someone undermined the power of the state over American citizens.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence committed treason against a government for which I would trade the one we have now in an instant. I foresee the day when Tea Partiers are accused of treason by the same government that now exists. Just because ours is not as bad as others doesn't make it good, nor treason against it necessarily bad. It is whether such action harms the people or not that matters to me.

 

[Sketcher]

Perhaps. Although slave traders usually prefer to keep their victims alive, as do rapists. To be completely honest, I wouldn't shed a tear if either of them were killed in the commission of their crime. Afterward, though, I think there are more fitting punishments.

In all cases of rape, there's a definite risk of death. Slave traders might want to keep the people they are trading as merchandise alive, but the people they sell them to can work them to death.

But why would you not want them killed after the fact if you wouldn't mind them being killed in the act? If they deserve death, they deserve death.

Fine, but I'm sure we have different definitions of what constitutes just authority against which treason can actually be committed. I do not believe that the United States government is just. A person who puts a U.S. citizen in danger is guilty of endangering human life. A person who collaborates with someone who wants to kill U.S. citizens is guilty of being a party to murder. But I couldn't care less if someone undermined the power of the state over American citizens.

But those committing "treason" against the United States in this modern era are collaborating with America's enemies - who want to kill and/or oppress American citizens. That's how it's defined in the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The signers of the Declaration of Independence committed treason against a government for which I would trade the one we have now in an instant.

Don't say anything you can't take back, the Bill of Rights was specifically constructed to keep this government from the flagrant abuses of the English crown. Not saying that we completely stick to it anymore, but better the frying pan than the fire. Of course, I believe that we should get back to those principles that corruption in our government has eroded.

 

[Blackguard_]

Of course, I believe that we should get back to those principles that corruption in our government has eroded.

I think that was his point. In 1776 they rebelled against far less taxation and regulation than we currently have. I don't think he meant he'd have been a Loyalist.

Really, until they dissolved the Massachusetts legislature and put in a military governor, they didn't do anything much worse than then present government has at some point.

 

[Sketcher]

I think that was his point. In 1776 they rebelled against far less taxation and regulation than we currently have. I don't think he meant he'd have been a Loyalist.

Really, until they dissolved the Massachusetts legislature and put in a military governor, they didn't do anything much worse than then present government has at some point.

We're overtaxed and overregulated, sure. But we are not yet forced to quarter soldiers, or restricted to fowling pieces, or outright shot when protesting the government.

 

[voiceofsoul]

I don't think death is the proper punishment for your "ordinary" murderers and rapists. I'd rather have them in prison for several decades doing hard manual labor to repay their debt and rehabilitate.

Capital punishment should be reserved for extraordinary cases where keeping a convict in jail could be a threat to national security. High-profile war criminals should be executed. The methods currently used, though, are dumb. Lethal injection is undignified and the chair is just barbaric. It may be old-fashion, but a standard-drop hanging is probably still the most justified and humane way to be executed.

 

[Colin]

As a non-American may I say that the death penalty is evil .
Life is from God .
It has an absolute value .
No human has the right to take it away .
I add that this also applies to abortion , murder , euthanasia , and anything else that
is destructive of human life .

 

[KarrieTex]

As a non-American may I say that the death penalty is evil .
Life is from God .
It has an absolute value .
No human has the right to take it away .
I add that this also applies to abortion , murder , euthanasia , and anything else that
is destructive of human life .

If you use that view then how do you reconcile yourself to the fact that God has capital punishment in the bible for the same offenses?