Death Penalty

[Penumbra]

Ethical or no? Moral or immoral? What are your thoughts on the death penalty?

I'm sure this topic has come up in this section before, but I did a search and haven't found it in the past month, and I'd like to hear viewpoints. I am personally against it.

While everyone is of course invited to participate, I am specifically interested in conservative Christian responses to this issue. I may be wrong because I don't have statistics with me, but it seems that conservative Christian Americans are more likely to support the death penalty than more liberal Americans.

For Christians, how do you view this well-known section of John 8 and how it applies to the death penalty?

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

 

[gwenmead]

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty.

On one hand, the death penalty is the most sure way of removing a truly dangerous individual from society, even more sure than life in prison without parole, as dead people don't escape from prisons or come back from the grave to do more damage, or get off on legal technicalities.

On the other hand, there's always the possibility that you got the wrong guy. In which case an inmate's death amounts to little more than state-sanctioned murder.

So I haven't really come to any conclusions either way on the matter.

 

[Sojourner1]

I think in some cases the death penalty is merited. I think the death penalty should be used very rarely. I would be supportive of the death penalty for someone like Charles Manson.

 

[Washington]

As it operates in the USA I have to be against it because, 1. Innocent people can be caught up in the process and executed--it isn't fool proof. 2. The appeals process in capital judgments for each case can go on for 10's of years and cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars. I guess I would rather see someone truly guilty of a capital offense simply serve out the rest of their life behind bars rather than either of these two happening.

 

[ragarth]

I think most major crimes that receive capitol punishment result from two possibilities- circumstance and personal initiative. If circumstance then the person who committed the crime is a victim of circumstance. If personal initiative then I consider this person to have a psychological disease.

It's my opinion that 'normal' people value human life to a minimal standard and it's clear that those who commit murder fall below this line of normality. Given this, just as we don't kill someone for being autistic, we shouldn't kill someone for murder. This isn't the bronze age, eye for an eye just makes you as bad as the person who committed the crime. Rather, we should remove these people from society in such a way that we can study them and learn more about why they do what they do. Then hopefully develop treatments that can resolve the mental disease that causes murderers, etc.

 

[Hentenza]

The passage from John 8 (not John 9) has a primary meaning other than just capital punishment. Jesus was actually exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into breaking the Old Testament law and they did not truly care about the woman being stoned (where was the man who was caught in adultery?). If you keep reading a bit verses 13-18 disclose this.

As far as the death penalty, I believe that in theory it is right, however, in practice our judicial system has shown that they can make mistakes. There needs to be a major overhaul of the system before I would commit myself to fully agreeing with the death penalty.

 

[Joachim]

Very much pro. I can elaborate if need be.

 

[Penumbra]

The passage from John 8 (not John 9) has a primary meaning other than just capital punishment. Jesus was actually exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into breaking the Old Testament law and they did not truly care about the woman being stoned (where was the man who was caught in adultery?). If you keep reading a bit verses 13-18 disclose this.

As far as the death penalty, I believe that in theory it is right, however, in practice our judicial system has shown that they can make mistakes. There needs to be a major overhaul of the system before I would commit myself to fully agreeing with the death penalty.

I am aware that the Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus (it says it right in John8:6).

But I do not see how the context of the situation changes the logic that Jesus used when talking about the actions they would take.

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

His statement seems rather universally applicable because most Christians believe that pretty much every single person has committed a sin.

 

[Penumbra]

Very much pro. I can elaborate if need be.

Yes I would like elaboration if you don't mind.

This isn't a poll it's a discussion.

 

[BobW188]

My problem with the death penalty is not that it exists and can be imposed. As a Christian, I don't see death as an ending but as a transition to eternal life and, as the story of the thief on the cross illustrates, the imposition of a death sentence in no way forecloses repentance and forgiveness.
The problem I have is exemplified by all those sentences - to death, or life, or for set times - that have had to be set aside because DNA evidence which did not exist at the time of conviction clearly establishes innocence. Here are police, a prosecutor, a judge and a jury whose good faith and intentions aren't in question who are nonetheless wrong! If we're going to continue with the death penalty, we need at the very least to establish a burden of proof that is more along the lines of beyond any reasonable doubt than beyond a reasonable doubt and, perhaps, to not only hasten the appeals process but give appellate judges a broader power to review, reverse or modify findings of fact.
Again, what's frightening about these DNA cases is that they seldom seem to involve any allegations of police, prosecutor, jury or judicial misconduct. Everybody sincerely believes they are arresting, prosecuting, convicting and sentencing the right person. Their actions are not, as is said in law, "arbitrary and/or the result of whim and caprice." But everybody's wrong!

 

[Jade Margery]

I am against it for many of the reasons stated above, mostly the cost and the disturbing number of mistakes made. I am not against it in principle, because I feel that people who are truly dangerous to others in direct, physical manners should be removed as efficiently as possible to prevent a drain on resources and a danger to other human beings. At the moment though, the cost of killing one man could feed several hundred, and keep said convict in jail where he is unable to harm anyone.

I'm not interested in punishment really, or even rehabilitation that much although if someone genuinely wants it they should have access to it. (Not that I do not think that criminals deserve to be rehabilitated, merely that the resources required to turn one mentally twisted person back into a functioning member of society are too great a cost for too little a gain. They have a high chance of regressing and hurting again, just to be shuffled back into the system. Better and cheaper to keep them fed, comfortable, and away from other people.)

Punishment is a dangerous concept. Some of us believe that certain people deserve to die. Some of us believe they don't. If we cannot have a consensus on such a thing, how can we as a society take such an ultimate, irreversable step? We should err on the side of caution, and be motivated by what is really useful for our government to be spending time on rather than only that which excites us emotionally.

If (big ifs) a person could be proven without a shred of doubt to be guilty of a heinous crime and quickly, cheaply disposed of, then I would support the death penalty. But we can't, and we don't, so we shouldn't.

Also, I do not find it odd that more Christians are for the death penalty than against. If you believe there is such a thing as eternal life, what difference does it make when you die, especially if you're all confessed and forgiven and absolved?

 

[Fin12]

Against.


1. Your giving the government a right to kill it's civilians - I don't believe this is a right that the government should have.

2. Their is an asssumption that the justice system is infallable- it's not, this has been seen again and again.

3. Their is no moral difference betweeen a serial killer deciding that someone deserves to die and a jury deciding that someone deserves to die.

4. It's barbaric and only deals with the symptoms not the problems.

5. Doesn't actually give any form of closure, just perpetuates the notion that exacting vengance is a virtue to be upheld.

6. Your not just punishing the condemmend but also thier families and friends, (daughters, son's, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, parents, child-hood friends) These people should not be made to suffer becuase of what someone else did.

7. IMO human rights are not something which can be forefitted.

8. I'd prefer it if the governemnt didn't sink to the level of those it punishes.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

I am against the death penalty in all circumstances.
As has been mentioned, there is always the chance there could be a wrong conviction and some innocents have died in the past for crimes they did not commit.

Give them a life sentence and in the worst cases life should mean life and never let the worst offenders out again.

 

[Joachim]

Yes I would like elaboration if you don't mind.

This isn't a poll it's a discussion.

Simply put, I feel that society reserves the right to have the ultimate penalty for our most egregious offenders, and, also, I live in a state that has such a generous appeals process such that no innocent person can ever be put to death.

 

[Rebekka]

Punishment is a dangerous concept. Some of us believe that certain people deserve to die. Some of us believe they don't. If we cannot have a consensus on such a thing, how can we as a society take such an ultimate, irreversable step? We should err on the side of caution, and be motivated by what is really useful for our government to be spending time on rather than only that which excites us emotionally.

I agree with this, but I also am against the death penalty for principal reasons. I am pro-life, which means I'm against abortion, euthanasia, war, and the death penalty. I don't want to take another person's life, and the death penalty is state killing. In a democracy I am part of the state, so it would be me who kills. Life is not mine to take.

Life sentence and secure prisons should be enough. If that is too expensive, let them work for their food and shelter.

 

[LittleNipper]

If I'm not mistaken, biblically for a person to be executed for a crime there needed to be 3 witnesses. Any less and the person was released.

 

[keith99]

Ignoring the cost issues with appeals (which may not be eliminated by eliminating the death penalty, likely reduced, but a lot just sifted to long life without parole cases) I favor the death penalty, but in a very different way than most.

I do not want it for heinous or especially brutal cases because those cases result in an attitude of get the (explicitive). And that is the problem, being sure the individual is really guilty is most apt to get lost in such a case. Instead I want it for cronic offenders. I want them to have been warned early on that this is the road they are on. I would strongly prefer that the point is made early on to offenders that they have committed a crime that gives them points toward being executed and avoid such a life.

But is someone over the years has accumulated enough to be a cronic offender then death becomes them. Mechanics here are important. Some maximim for any 'identification' the idea being that once someone reaches this level it does not matter if any one or even 2 of their crimes are really bad busts, there is still good reason to execute them.

Will not happen of course.

 

[LittleNipper]

I do feel that to not take a life where it has been determined warrented is to shirk one's personal responsibility to one's society and would make one a moral accomplice if that offending individual committed another crime.

 

[rahmiyn]

Ethical or no? Moral or immoral? What are your thoughts on the death penalty?

I'm sure this topic has come up in this section before, but I did a search and haven't found it in the past month, and I'd like to hear viewpoints. I am personally against it.

While everyone is of course invited to participate, I am specifically interested in conservative Christian responses to this issue. I may be wrong because I don't have statistics with me, but it seems that conservative Christian Americans are more likely to support the death penalty than more liberal Americans.

For Christians, how do you view this well-known section of John 8 and how it applies to the death penalty?

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Because of this, I cannot support the death penalty myself.

 

[Nihilismus]

There is no absolute way to prove guilt or innocence.