Are you for or against the death penalty?

[OldWiseGuy]

Why impose a lifetime of suffering on a murder when we can free them from this torment in just a few moments?

And, there are ways to ensure that the wrong persons don't get executed. To use the possibility of wrongly putting someone to death to end the death penalty altogether is itself misguided at best and evil at worst.

 

[Dartman]

I note you advocate "the death penalty" is a deterrent to excessive criminal behaviour. Obviously you have never encountered someone spaced out on ice, or inspired to agression via misuse of steriods...

First, "excessive criminal behavior" isn't anywhere in my post. What I actually stated is; "Any person who demonstrates they are, and will be, a grave danger to innocent people around them". Chemical addiction MIGHT be the cause of someone's behavior, and that can be considered during sentencing ..... but there are individuals that demonstrate they are, and will be, a grave danger to innocent people around them .. by repeated offences, and patterns of
behavior, and it is the primary responsibility of Government to protect her citizens from that kind of danger.

As your reference to "suicide by cop" demonstrates, criminals fear internment more than death...internment is proved to be the greater deterrent...

Only those suicidal. MOST criminals would prefer to live... as witnessed by their furious attempts to challenge their sentencing, both DURING trial, and appeals afterward.

Of course it would be beneficial to society to have crims serve a realistic sentence for its full term...

As a matter of economy, I think Mohammad came up with a sensible solution = blind them, thus making them of little threat. I'd add, confiscation of all assets of an immedtiate family (husband, wife & dependents) and from a Darwinian viewpoint, emasculation for males and sterialisation (tube tying) for females. Cheap solutions with no ongoing cost to society, justice for the victims & their families, and with daily visibility of the crim and the penalty he/she endures, a deterrent...

...... wow .... given the harshness of these punishments, I am confused why you protest the death penalty!!

As for Moses' ordinance that promoted genocide and institionalised murder see Exodus 18 and note the pagan priest's instruction to Moses. Moses instituted Canaanite/Midianite law (slightly dressed up) not YHWH's law. Moses had smashed YHWH's law into pieces. The Rabbi say Moses did so because Hasham's law (YHWH's law) was too lenient & the Israelites needed to be punished.

This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to Scripture. And, is a completely different thread.

YHWH's law is given at Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man".

This verse states/defines the death penalty.

Texan's etc should read Ezekiel 18:25 "Yet ye say, The way of the [YWWH] is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?"

Jehovah's criticism of the house of Israel is, they thought they had a BETTER way, than the Mosaic Law ... Jehovah gave the Law to Moses, but Israel was rejecting it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Life sentences for murders doesn't indicate mercy, just tolerance. Caging a human for the rest of their life isn't merciful, but cruel. We tolerate murderers because the system has made it almost impossible to expedite the death penalty with any economy.

 

[dogs4thewin]

More than a few lives have been lost because the death penalty was not instituted. By that reasoning, we never should have stopped doing it. Even with life sentences, some of them have still managed to murder after being convicted.



The criminals must be doing diligent duty and stepping up to the plate to replace all of the ones that were lost, right? Good little Johnny decided to become a killer to replace the serial killer executed last Tuesday? The fact is that dead murderers have an uncanny knack of ceasing their crime with zero percent recidivism. It's the most successful form of punishment ever used.

By the way, no study has ever shown that bathing in skunk oil deters human reproduction, either. It's a disingenuous argument to counter a bad one, and I'll probably hate myself in the morning for even suggesting it.



You can't bring back the years of a person's life wasted in prison, either. You can't bring back any punishment. It's a matter only of degree. Either you're going to have to punish no criminal, or you're going to have to admit that you're risking a mistake that, to some degree, cannot be undone. If you punish no one, then you punish the victim.



I don't equate economic or technological development with virtue. That was the mistake of German Kultur, just prior to them showing the world the vast difference between being good and being "developed," by way of a World War. Having failed at that, they tried again, in case we missed it the first time. Don't show me a developed nation that has abolished it. If you show me a good nation that has abolished it, then I might listen. If you can show me a repeating pattern, then I might take you seriously.

Incidentally, the scriptural case for capital punishment outweighs the case against it, by far. The argument that we don't live by the Old Testament is, in itself, not supported by the New Testament, except in the case of dietary laws. The strongest New Testament argument against capital punishment comes from the Pericope Adulterae (John 8:1-11), which, unfortunately, was most definitely not originally in that part of the Bible. Someone added it in at a later date, and no one knows where it really came from. The most favorable defense of it is that, however it got there, it came by God's design.

Everyone dies. It's only a question of when, why and how. The execution of a heinous criminal has less to do with the evil of the criminal than it does with the righteousness of the society. If a society believes that a man who takes another's life has any right to his own, then it would seem that the society has condemned itself.

You cannot get back those "wasted" years In quotes because people CAN be productive in prison if they choose. There are self improvement programs, work details, and yes even chances to volunteer within prison walls, so it does not have to be a total waste unless the inmate CHOOSES to make it so. Secondly, even though they cannot get that time back they at least CAN be released, however bringing someone back from the grave cannot happen. Moreover, if someone is killed that did nothing wrong then it can make those who had a part in ACTUALLY killing them live with THAT guilt which I would wish on NO ONE.

 

[Karl.C]

This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to Scripture. And, is a completely different thread.

In your opinion Exodos 18 isn't part of scripture? Most interesting...

This verse states/defines the death penalty.

If so it justifies vendetta. There is a reason that the Jews chose stoning by a group, why firing squads have multiple members, why executioners wore hoods etc etc

Read the text again and think upon it. It is similiar to "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword"... In scripture there is no justification in intentional murder whether it be institionalised or otherwise...

In an earlier post I answered the OP directly with two affirmatives based on social practicalities & a negation based on Christian conscience. Having answered the poll, I am now in discussion of the morality of institionalised murder...

 

[twinserk]

The people who claimed that God instituted it were unjust. Like humans today, they could err.

Unless you believe that the bible is false, then God Himself instituted the death penalty.

They're not to be "rehabilitated", or given a second chance. Murder is an untouchable.

Numbers 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

 

[Radrook]

The people who claimed that God instituted it were unjust. Like humans today, they could err.

In other words you reject or accept parts of the Bible according to how you like or dislike what it says. Nice policy!

 

[Radrook]

I guess I did see that movie...

Well, since you have decided to be a law unto yourself then that really makes any discussion with you on the subject pointless since your response will always be "Ummm I disagree cuz !" which places your opinion against the Word of God and no one here is challenging your right to your opinion.

 

[Dartman]

In your opinion Exodos 18 isn't part of scripture? Most interesting...

Of course it's a part of Scripture, it just doesn't make your point.

If so it justifies vendetta.

What did Abraham do to the 5 kings?

There is a reason that the Jews chose stoning by a group, why firing squads have multiple members, why executioners wore hoods etc etc

What did Samuel do to king Agag?
What did David do to Goliath?
What did Phinehas do to the fornicating couple?
What did Jael do to Sisera?

You are straining to make an invalid point.

BUT, each of those examples happened during the Mosaic Law, Jesus completed the Mosaic Law, fulfilling the prophecy IN the Mosaic Law that Jehovah would provide a NEW law giver, with NEW commandments, which Jehovah would place directly in the mouth of His prophet.. (Deut 18:17-19, John 12:49,50. John 14:24, Acts 3:19-24)
And, the New Testament/Law, which Jesus taught, doesn't allow the Christian to do ANY violence: (Matt 5, Matt 26:52, 2 Tim 2:24, etc. )

 

[-V-]

First we have Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed." This was given long before the Mosaic Law, so arguments that "we aren't under the old covenant" don't apply. This was part of God's covenant with Noah, and I don't see anywhere in the Bible saying God's covenant with Noah has ever ended.

Then we have Romans 13:4 - "for [government] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." I can see no rational argument for something referred to as the "sword of God's wrath" as not including the death penalty.

For those who say, "well governments are run by humans, and they make mistakes, and some innocent people will be executed, and that is wrong,"... do you think God wasn't aware that humans make mistakes? And yet in BOTH old and new covenants, God allows for the death penalty carried out by governments run by humans. To say the death penalty is unjust for that reason is to call God unjust.

 

[Dartman]

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[-V-]

And, the New Testament/Law, which Jesus taught, doesn't allow the Christian to do ANY violence: (Matt 5, Matt 26:52, 2 Tim 2:24, etc. )

Those are all about our personal daily interactions with others. They are NOT about the criminal justice system.

Leviticus 19:18 says, "love your neighbor as yourself." That is part of the old covenant - the SAME covenant in which God ALSO calls for the death penalty for various crimes. If God saw no conflict between the death penalty and "love your neighbor," then neither do I.

 

[Dartman]

Those are all about our personal daily interactions with others. They are NOT about the criminal justice system.

Leviticus 19:18 says, "love your neighbor as yourself." That is part of the old covenant - the SAME covenant in which God ALSO calls for the death penalty for various crimes. If God saw no conflict between the death penalty and "love your neighbor," then neither do I.

Correct. The governments of the world are NOT obligated to Christian law. And, the Christian has no business participating in the worldly governments.

 

[-V-]

Correct. The governments of the world are NOT obligated to Christian law.

That has no bearing on God instructing Israel to *BOTH* love their neighbor *AND* use the death penalty. And there is NOTHING in the Romans 13 passage that limits the death penalty to non-christian or evil governments.

And, the Christian has no business participating in the worldly governments.

Nowhere does the Bible ever say, "Christians can't be involved in their governments."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Without the death penalty there is no civilization, as it welcomes murderers as legitimate members of society, albeit behind bars. Thousands are employed and millions are spent caring for the material and 'legal' needs of murderers while the needs of legitimate society go begging. Ask the director of any social program and they will tell you they need more money for their commissioned work, and much of that need is caused by criminal activity. Yet the money goes for the care and feeding of those very offenders instead of their victims. And we claim to be a civilized society?

 

[Dartman]

Correct. The governments of the world are NOT obligated to Christian law.

That has no bearing on God instructing Israel to *BOTH* love their neighbor *AND* use the death penalty.

Israel was commanded to have "no pity" on their enemies, to consume them;

Deut 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

Jehovah/YHVH God commanded Jesus to change that law;

Matt 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matt 5:43-44 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

John 12:49-50 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

And there is NOTHING in the Romans 13 passage that limits the death penalty to non-christian or evil governments.

Until Jesus establishes his government at his coming, there are only "non-christian or evil governments". The New Testament commands the Christian to be a good citizen to ANY government they live under, or visit, as "strangers and pilgrims";
1 Peter 2:11-17 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; 12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. 13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Nowhere does the Bible ever say, "Christians can't be involved in their governments."

2 Cor 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

 

[-V-]

Israel was commanded to have "no pity" on their enemies, to consume them;

Deut 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

Jehovah/YHVH God commanded Jesus to change that law;

Matt 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matt 5:43-44 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

John 12:49-50 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

And, as already pointed out, in the Matthew passages Jesus is talking about our personal day to day relationships, not criminal justice.

Until Jesus establishes his government at his coming, there are only "non-christian or evil governments".

Where do you get that from?

2 Cor 6:14-18 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

It's quite a stretch to say that means have no part in government. If you pay taxes, vote, or serve on a jury, you're participating in government.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

In other words you reject or accept parts of the Bible according to how you like or dislike what it says. Nice policy!

No, those are your words not mine. I accept the biblical canon recognised by my church and approach it seriously with respect to each of the genres and literary styles utilised. Contrary to popular misconception, the Bible is not one book and neither is it a book that is always prescriptive. Just as often, if not more so, it is descriptive simply describing what people did at what time. The Bible describing what people thought in that time does not necessarily make it prescriptive for today. Exegetical interpretation involves many elements including context, subtext, intratextaul work, intertextual work, and historical criticism.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Unless you believe that the bible is false, then God Himself instituted the death penalty.

They're not to be "rehabilitated", or given a second chance. Murder is an untouchable.

Numbers 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

Let me know when you follow all of the other laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, an Numbers. No mixing fabrics, no eating shellfish, no tattoos, no shaving the sides of the head or trimming the edges of a beard etc. That'd be interesting to take inventory. Do you just pick and choose?

 

[Quasiblogo]

The first Council of Jerusalem (See Acts) obligates Christians to the Noahic law which states...

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

Also note YHWH's sentencing of Cain after he murdered Abel. (Genesis 4:10-12) Cain's appraisal "My punishment is greater than I can bear". No man was permitted to take Cain's life (Genesis 4:14-15)...

I know Texan's and like think they are exceptional but it seems they also think they are greater & wiser than God (?)

The above, I think relates to murder. You make an unwarranted leap to make the council fit your modern-day conviction about capital punishment, however admirable.