Should Dog owners who's Dog kills person receive the death penalty?

[Daniel C]

Starting with the scripture:

Exodus 21
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.


So the scripture is talking about Ox because livestock was the main animals kept by the general population at the time of Moses.

We clearly see if an Ox is known to be dangerous and then goes on to kill a person the owner is put to death for negligence and ultimately responsible for the life of another human ended.

As Jews in Moses' day found dogs unclean animals and would never have them as pets it's hard to tell what punishment would come of a dog owner who's Dog went on to kill someone as it was simply not allowed or desirable to own a dog.

I think so many dog attacks are happening because the heathen justice system is handling the outcome of dog attacks and not Gods will for this matter. I think if a dog goes on to kill someone the owner should be put to death for loss of innocent life,they are the dog owner after all. Just like if a dangerous Ox kills someone.

Dogs historically are just ''domesticated'' wolves,wild animals. You can't ever fully tame wild animals so it's not a reasonable defence to assume dogs are ever fully safe around the population so you have on your hands a potential dangerous animal before any human influence. We do know these dogs are dangerous because it keeps happening over and over again so I think pet ownership should not be banned but if your pet kills an innocent person-that's your death warrant. People seriously need to take responsibility for these dogs.


I know people are very emotional about their pets but for me human safety and Gods word comes first.

 

[Jonaitis]

I do see the universal equity in those particular commandments in the theocratic laws of Israel. The death penalty goes further back to Genesis 9, and I believe this is a wider scope for such matters. If human life is valuable, because we are made in the image of God, then even if an animal murders/kills a man should no less be punished. I believe it deserves it. But not the owner, unless there was frequent negligence. The sixth commandment refers not merely to premeditated murder, but also death by negligence of another.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I know people are very emotional about their pets but for me human safety and Gods word comes first.

How many people die each year from dog attacks ?
Compare that with the leading causes of death, including doctors ! (medicine)

 

[Daniel C]

I do see the universal equity in those particular commandments in the theocratic laws of Israel. The death penalty goes further back to Genesis 9, and I believe this is a wider scope for such matters. If human life is valuable, because we are made in the image of God, then even if an animal murders/kills a man should no less be punished. I believe it deserves it. But not the owner, unless there was frequent negligence. The sixth commandment refers not merely to premeditated murder, but also death by negligence of another.

We already noted the Bible doesn't speak on dog attacks that lead to fatalities and the closest thing that does is ox,the animal that would have been in close proximity to the general population that could also kill.

I think one of the issue's here is choice. We know dogs are tearing people apart everyday and not for any other reason then peoples pleasure-they want pets. Ok,you want a pet,have a pet but there should be consequences if a dog kills someone. I think I made a reasonable case in the OP that dogs can never be classified as safe and there is always a risk of danger,so the owner must share the risk and if the dog kills an innocent person the dog owner should be put to death by the state because their blood is not innocent.

Sidenote: Well done on spotting vs 6 on Genesis. Never noticed it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

MEN are a lot more common cause of death than dogs are - tens of thousands of times more perhaps ?

I think I made a reasonable case in the OP that dogs can never be classified as safe and there is always a risk of danger,so the owner must share the risk and if the dog kills an innocent person the dog owner should be put to death by the state because their blood is not innocent.

Cross References
Genesis 9:5
And surely I will require the life of any man or beast by whose hand your lifeblood is shed.

I will demand an accounting from anyone who takes the life of his fellow man:

Exodus 21:28
If an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox must surely be stoned, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the ox shall not be held responsible.

Exodus 21:30
If payment is demanded of him instead, he may redeem his life by paying the full amount demanded of him.

 

[bekkilyn]

Is this question for real?

 

[Daniel C]

Is this question for real?

Yes. serious.

You're in the fundamentalist forum.

 

[Radagast]

Exodus 21
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

So the scripture is talking about Ox because livestock was the main animals kept by the general population at the time of Moses.

The passage can be used more generally to say that there should be punishment of people who are careless with a known risk.

That extends to punishing the owners of dangerous dog breeds for what their dog does.

But a death penalty? Do you think Jesus would support that?

 

[Daniel C]

The passage can be used more generally to say that there should be punishment of people who are careless with a known risk.

That extends to punishing the owners of dangerous dog breeds for what their dog does.

But a death penalty? Do you think Jesus would support that?

I said in the OP I think the dog owner should be put to death. They are not the victim,the person who their dog killed is the victim.

Jesus is the co-author of the OT laws and if a dangerous ox killed someone,the owner was killed. That law is a million miles away from my proposal.

 

[archer75]

How about just holding people responsible in general for what their pets do?

 

[Radagast]

They are not the victim,the person who their dog killed is the victim.

And I was agreeing with that

Jesus is the co-author of the OT laws and if a dangerous ox killed someone,the owner was killed.

Yes, but we live in a New Covenant now.

That law is a million miles away from my proposal.

Huh?

 

[Radagast]

How about just holding people responsible in general for what their pets do?

Yes, we should.

The Exodus passage suggests that we should be stricter about it if the animal was a known risk. It makes no sense to say "I never expected my pet rattlesnake to bite anybody."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But a death penalty? Do you think Jesus would support that?

Well, we know He Used To Support That....

 

[Radagast]

But not the owner, unless there was frequent negligence. The sixth commandment refers not merely to premeditated murder, but also death by negligence of another.

The Exodus passage refers to animals known to be dangerous. The owners of such animals have a duty to be extra-careful. Not being extra-careful with such an animal is indeed negligence.

 

[Radagast]

Well, we know He Used To Support That....

John 8:1-11.

 

[Daniel C]

And I was agreeing with that



Yes, but we live in a New Covenant now.



Huh?

What I was saying is the law of moses and the law I was suggesting for dog fatalities are similar in nature and more suitable than the heathen justice system in place currently.

There is a thread somewhere currently on this forum about a 95 year old woman being killed by a dog. That's not all, the dog has previously killed people,now tell me moses law wasn't applicable in that case.

Just a friendly reminder that you are in the fundamentalist forum,so saying parts of scripture are redundant is not allowed here-forum rules.

 

[Radagast]

What I was saying is the law of moses and the law I was suggesting for dog fatalities are similar in nature

That much I agree with.

Just a friendly reminder that you are in the fundamentalist forum,so saying parts of scripture are redundant is not allowed here-forum rules.

I consider myself a fundamentalist, in the original sense of that term.

I don't think that entails the reintroduction of the entire Mosaic law, however. Parts of the Mosaic law are now no longer required.

 

[Daniel C]

That much I agree with.



I consider myself a fundamentalist, in the original sense of that term.

I don't think that entails the reintroduction of the entire Mosaic law, however. Parts of the Mosaic law are now no longer required.

This is rule #2 of the fundamentalist forum:

"Believes whatever the Bible says is so;"

If you don't agree with my idea about dog owners being put to death that would be your right as my proposal is not actually scripture. What you are not allowed to do is say scripture is redundant,in this forum.

What do you think an alternative should be for fatalities caused by dogs?

 

[Radagast]

This is rule #2 of the fundamentalist forum:

"Believes whatever the Bible says is so;"

I do.

What you are not allowed to do is say scripture is redundant,in this forum.

I never said such a thing.

I did suggest that parts of the Mosaic law have been fulfilled, but Jesus and the Apostles said that too.

Nevertheless, I will bow out of this thread, because I find it too hostile.

 

[Nevada Smith]

Yes. serious.

You're in the fundamentalist forum.

This can't be a serious question even in a fundamentalist forum. We don't give the death penalty to child rapist, murders, and all sorts of evil doers. Why would you even think that we would give the death penalty to a pet owner that is negligent?