Support for the death penalty

[Confused-by-christianity]

@Whyayeman - You want to deconstruct something?

 

[Whyayeman]

Yes the death penalty should be implemented everywhere.

for one, it may help to deter future crimes if they know the penalty is death.

for another, I believe an eye for an eye is true justice. If someone commits murder than they too should be murdered as a consequence.

I wonder if you have read through this discussion. Your points have been pretty well covered already.

History shows that the death penalty does not deter people from murdering and that the murder rate does not increase with its abolition. Take the experience of the UK, where I live. There is no death penalty here and the murder rate is falling. It is lower now than when hanging was the standard penalty.

As for the 'eye for an eye' argument, it has not been practised anywhere for many years, if ever. It is just a slogan.

 

[Whyayeman]

@Whyayeman - You want to deconstruct something?

I'm not sure. Is this an invitation to lay out my rationale for opposing the death penalty?

I was against hanging murderers from the time I first knew about such things - at a very tender age. I knew the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' from Sunday school I suppose; I saw the mismatch with the law as it then stood and could not get a satisfactory answer as to why one sort of killing was OK but not another. Many years later, and after the law has changed in many countries, the argument for capital punishment is still unsatisfactory.

An inquest brought a verdict of 'lawful killing' yesterday in London after police shot a terrorist during an incident last year. I am fine with that. I am also comfortable with the self defence argument.

I suppose what I am opposed to is the deliberate - cold-blooded if you like - execution of a person by the state. I have argued that the death penalty does not allow for remorse, contrition or any opportunity to make amends. I know that murderers can lead useful lives after their time in prison.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I suppose what I am opposed to is the deliberate - cold-blooded if you like - execution of a person by the state. I have argued that the death penalty does not allow for remorse, contrition or any opportunity to make amends. I know that murderers can lead useful lives after their time in prison.

Yeah I suppose the is a good point.

When you look at it that way - the deliberate cold blooded killing...it makes you question what exactly it is that your punishing, if you yourself advocate for deliberate cold blooded killing - then what problem have you got with a murderer?

 

[Whyayeman]

I have just by coincidence read that principled opposition to the death penalty is connected to or derives from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I can see that last sentence bringing retorts about the rights of the victims and victims' families. A pre-emptive defence would be that the rights of the victim and family are served by the administration of justice. The court's sentence in accordance with the law does not abridge anybody's rights save the perpetrator.

 

[Carol Walker]

Oh my. There's so much here...

First of all: No, Whyayeman, I do not need to consider whether or not working on the Sabbath day is worthy of death, because there are certain portions of Old Testament law which Christ removed once He died on the cross. Add to that the laws that God gave to His people because of the culture they already had and the ideas of right and wrong they already maintained in their minds from other cultures they had been heavily influenced by, and some distinctions start becoming a little more clear. For example, you neglected to mention other offenses resulting in death, such as cursing the father and mother, homosexuality, communing with spirits or prostitution, all of which exist today and are quite prevalent. However, there are multiple facts to consider when trying to figure out whether or not the Old Testament law applies in this case: cultural context, God's methods of speaking and/or interacting with humanity as time progresses, the ideas of right and wrong we have in our minds now, and most importantly the spirit of the rules of God. One cannot, must not merely judge whether what God has commanded applies today based merely off what they glance at in the Scriptures. This is why study is important. This is why you delve into the Scriptures before giving me such a weak objection as "do you really think people should be executed today for working on the Sabbath?" The mere fact that I came up with several clear reasons as to why your question makes zero sense...

The above statement also applies for why as you say, "The Old Testament weighs so heavily with me." But I will give you a New Testament reason, indeed a Gospel reason, for the death penalty making sense. I'm using this to also answer Confused-by-Christianity's post which states that God is not a murderer.

The penalty for sin is death, correct? If you die in your sins, you go to Hell and you perish eternally. But Christ has removed that destiny for His children, His followers. How? By dying on the cross. He received and took upon Himself the death penalty for all the sins of anyone who would ever follow Him. The wages of sin is death. And Christ died for every Christian out there. Who sent Him to earth so He could do this? The Lord God. Read the Gospels, anyone. Many times, Jesus states that the Father sent Him, the Son of Man, to die on the cross for the sins of all. It is the ultimate death penalty, not just for us, not just for Christ, but for the world entire. For every sinner will die for their defiance towards God, for their sins against Him. So it says in the Scriptures. For crucifying His Son, for their sins against the Lord God who created them and who deserves worship as God, they will all die. Except for those that Jesus Christ Himself was sent to die for.

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". It's not just a slogan. Your concept of the inborn nature of people baffles me. I've met those, and discoursed with them, who say that people are basically good. Which makes no sense given the number, untold number, of crises and/or violent crimes reported on the news daily, and that's just the news. Movies, tv shows, books, all depict villains and sometimes heroes, acting and thinking in dark and horrific ways. History itself shows how awful people can be towards each other. Torture methods, ritual killings, sacrifices, leaving children out to die, etc, etc, etc. And these were people who believed themselves, not just in the right, but justified and righteous for these acts. Humans are dark and evil people inside ourselves. Only those who have been saved through Christ, reborn, are better than the world at large. So please tell me how most of the world has a moral attitude that has moved away from capital punishment. Tell me how what is passed as law in these countries is what counts in this discussion. Is morality defined by law? If so, morality is as flexible as water, because laws have changed throughout the history of my country, let alone yours, let alone the world's. Those who murder, they themselves believe in capital punishment. They take the life of another individual into their own hands and dispose of it as they please. What else would you call it?

 

[Whyayeman]

You say ... there are certain portions of Old Testament law which Christ removed once He died on the cross.

Well, you believe that as a matter of faith. I don't. It seems that my every objection to Old Testament justice can be met this way, so there is no point in me asking about what I see as discrepancies between the Old Testament and the Gospels. The Bible contains lots of contradictions as well as some really horrible stories of violence and killing. I am not persuaded by the Biblical references above, nor by the explanations you have offered for why some parts of the Old Testament can be ignored while others remain in force.

You say The penalty for sin is death, correct? If you die in your sins, you go to Hell and you perish eternally. Well this may be so in some spiritual sense that you recognise. We are not discussing 'sin' but the punishment of a particular crime here in the material world. So for me this is not 'correct'. You will not be too surprised - I am not a believer, remember.

Your concept of the inborn nature of people baffles me. I've met those, and discoursed with them, who say that people are basically good. I don't think I have said that, though I have no argument with the sentiment. Of course I know that violent crimes are committed and and societies need to respond. Yet most people's lives are only rarely - if ever - touched by murder. A retired police officer once told me that he had met a murderer just once in his career. That surprised me. What seemed to surprise him was not that it had only happened once, but that it had happened at all. As it happens, I have met murderers; one thing I discovered is that they were surprisingly like everybody else.

You make the point that the news media, books and films are full of violence. Of course that is so. But what about your own personal experience? Do you experience great violence often in your own life? Most people live respectable, peaceful lives.

I do not believe morality is 'as flexible as water'; murder is as wrong now as in Old Testament times. The difference between us is how the law deals with murder. There are historical reasons for the shift away from capital punishment as well as moral ones, but the morality is straightforward. I have tried to put it in earlier posts, the last being #245. Many countries have acknowledged that the state has no right to take a life. That is the moral shift which occurred during the last seventy years or so in Europe.

Historically, courts in the UK began to experience juries very frequently returning Not Guilty verdicts. It became evident that juries were becoming reluctant to pass Guilty verdicts because enough jury members were refusing to take the step of sending the accused to his death. Attitudes had changed. Many countries went through a similar process; USA is going through this process now, with many US states no longer executing murderers. Even those states which retain the death penalty are reluctant to put convicted murderers to death with men living for many years on 'death row'.

Those who murder, they themselves believe in capital punishment. None of the murderers I have met would agree!

 

[Basil the Great]

If one really wants to emphasize the Gospels, then I do not know how one can support the death penalty. We live in modern society where maximum security prisons protect society quite well. Studies have shown that the death penalty is not much of a deterrent, if any. Hence, the real purpose of capital punishment in modern times is vengeance.

 

[Whyayeman]

We live in modern society where maximum security prisons protect society quite well. Studies have shown that the death penalty is not much of a deterrent, if any. Hence, the real purpose of capital punishment in modern times is vengeance.

I have been making the last point here repeatedly. The problem I have faced is that vengeance is fine according to the Old Testament and therefore for Christians. I have always understood that the Gospel's message requires its followers to refrain from taking it.

I agree that prison on the whole does a good job of protecting the public from killers. In the UK lifers (capital offenders) are never free when released on licence, but have supervision for the rest of their lives and can be recalled to prison if they breach the terms of their parole. Their recall can be something that is not in itself criminal.

 

[Carol Walker]

You say ... there are certain portions of Old Testament law which Christ removed once He died on the cross.

Well, you believe that as a matter of faith. I don't. It seems that my every objection to Old Testament justice can be met this way, so there is no point in me asking about what I see as discrepancies between the Old Testament and the Gospels. The Bible contains lots of contradictions as well as some really horrible stories of violence and killing. I am not persuaded by the Biblical references above, nor by the explanations you have offered for why some parts of the Old Testament can be ignored while others remain in force.

You say The penalty for sin is death, correct? If you die in your sins, you go to Hell and you perish eternally. Well this may be so in some spiritual sense that you recognise. We are not discussing 'sin' but the punishment of a particular crime here in the material world. So for me this is not 'correct'. You will not be too surprised - I am not a believer, remember.

Your concept of the inborn nature of people baffles me. I've met those, and discoursed with them, who say that people are basically good. I don't think I have said that, though I have no argument with the sentiment. Of course I know that violent crimes are committed and and societies need to respond. Yet most people's lives are only rarely - if ever - touched by murder. A retired police officer once told me that he had met a murderer just once in his career. That surprised me. What seemed to surprise him was not that it had only happened once, but that it had happened at all. As it happens, I have met murderers; one thing I discovered is that they were surprisingly like everybody else.

You make the point that the news media, books and films are full of violence. Of course that is so. But what about your own personal experience? Do you experience great violence often in your own life? Most people live respectable, peaceful lives.

I do not believe morality is 'as flexible as water'; murder is as wrong now as in Old Testament times. The difference between us is how the law deals with murder. There are historical reasons for the shift away from capital punishment as well as moral ones, but the morality is straightforward. I have tried to put it in earlier posts, the last being #245. Many countries have acknowledged that the state has no right to take a life. That is the moral shift which occurred during the last seventy years or so in Europe.

Historically, courts in the UK began to experience juries very frequently returning Not Guilty verdicts. It became evident that juries were becoming reluctant to pass Guilty verdicts because enough jury members were refusing to take the step of sending the accused to his death. Attitudes had changed. Many countries went through a similar process; USA is going through this process now, with many US states no longer executing murderers. Even those states which retain the death penalty are reluctant to put convicted murderers to death with men living for many years on 'death row'.

Those who murder, they themselves believe in capital punishment. None of the murderers I have met would agree!

And once more we reach a stalemate, insomuch as neither of us have managed to convince the other and we both remain pretty solid on our own beliefs. I ask you, how else am I going to respond to your arguments? I am a Baptist Christian, you are an Atheist. I give you arguments from Scripture, you give me arguments from both the world around you and your personal experience. I don't believe your sources are good enough to refute mine, and you believe the same concerning your sources.

I want to continue this debate, I really do. But I'm starting to wonder where it's going, other than in circles. Are you saying that the attitudes of the world are finally beginning to conform to the true nature of morality? As in, the more and more reluctant we are to sentence someone to death, the closer we draw to enlightened morality? Because I'd have to ask (and I'm not sure I ever got a satisfactory response to this) how you know what enlightened morality is. How you're able to say with such certainty what is barbaric and what is civilized. To be sure, you can tell me that retribution is wrong, but where did you get that idea? From history? From yourself when you first heard of all this? From the culture you were raised in? I'm sure you know how subjective this makes the idea of morality.

Say there was an honor culture. There have been many such cultures in the past, so that should be no issue. But let's say that this particular culture was the dominant one in its world, on its planet. Let's say that this culture believed murder was wrong, but not retribution. Revenge for the death of someone's loved one was not only accepted, it was seen as a sign of weakness if such an act were not carried out. Cultures like this have existed across the world, so I ask that you don't tell me people wouldn't act like this. If you were raised in such a society, you would believe the same as them. So you would tell someone from another kind of culture that not killing a murderer was wrong, morally. That the attitudes of people everywhere have gradually been shifting towards your point of view and that they were all gradually becoming more accepting of what was morally appropriate. This kind of approach to how morality works varies a great deal depending on two factors: mass belief and cultural belief. The more people believe something, the more pressure is applied to others to join them in their beliefs. Eventually, if you get enough people believing something, the belief stops being a belief and becomes fact, truth to these people. As the early attempts to explore and understand our solar system should help illustrate. As should many examples in history.

If I've just attempted to refute something you do not, in fact believe, I'm sorry. I want to understand your view, not twist it by mistake. Also, no I have experienced myself a great deal of violence in my life, but I've studied quite a number of examples of it both in our history and today. As for what I said concerning how murderers believe in capital punishment, I'm not saying something so dim as that murderers believe they should be executed for their crimes. I'm saying that those murderers obviously believed their victims should be executed for whatever crimes they committed, or because they were in the way of some goal the murderer had in mind. Both these motives, I'm sure you know, are not only possible in a human, but happen quite often in murder cases. "You were unfaithful to our marriage and to me, so you deserve death", "You stole my (insert item or person here) so you're going to die", "I deserve this recognition for my ideas/acts/inventions/ but you're taking it all and you won't move so you will die." This is capital punishment, just not administered by the state. And since these crimes take place today, these murderers (I never said they weren't normal people, that would be dumb), are people who also were raised in the society that believes that capital punishment is wrong. People who see themselves as very civilized, very good people. (Except for those who turn themselves in, I always acknowledge exceptions.)

 

[Carol Walker]

If one really wants to emphasize the Gospels, then I do not know how one can support the death penalty. We live in modern society where maximum security prisons protect society quite well. Studies have shown that the death penalty is not much of a deterrent, if any. Hence, the real purpose of capital punishment in modern times is vengeance.

My argument has nothing to do with whether or not society is protected from murderers by max security prisons. Which aren't much of a deterrent themselves, by the way. And if you read my argument, you haven't given much in the way of objections, so if you have them, by all means let me hear them. Better that we debate than that we agree to disagree. No progress is made at all in that case.

 

[Whyayeman]

It is late for me. I will do my best to continue our exchanges constructively, when I have given your last points a little thought...

 

[Whyayeman]

I will deal with your last post in parts, starting here:

Are you saying that the attitudes of the world are finally beginning to conform to the true nature of morality?

No, I think that there is a morality which seems to be fixed anywhere human beings are. In the context of our discussion, murder has always been wrong, both in the times of the Old Testament writings and today.

What has changed is not the crime, but the emphasis on execution by authority. This is just a historical fact; most authorities have abandoned capital punishment either formally through a change in the law (as in UK, Canada, Mexico and every European country except Belarus) or more pragmatically through a change in practice (as in Russia, Argentina, Kenya, Liberia). Attitudes have changed toward the punishment, not the crime. Murder is taken just as seriously in Europe as in USA.

How you're able to say with such certainty what is barbaric and what is civilized? To be sure, you can tell me that retribution is wrong, but where did you get that idea? From history? From yourself when you first heard of all this? From the culture you were raised in? I'm sure you know how subjective this makes the idea of morality.

I have suggested synonyms for 'barbarity' already, but I do not mean anything other than common usage for this or for 'civilised'. I do not think these terms need explanation, but let me suggest that the Roman punishment of crucifixion was barbaric. I have not heard of it being practised anywhere in modern times. In my view this is certainly progress; whether it is moral progress is another matter.

The idea that retribution is wrong has not come from me. Life imprisonment is retribution for the crime of murder. The culture I live in is essentially Christian in its background. The whole of European culture is steeped in Christianity. Even though its practice has dwindled since the Enlightenment it remains a towering influence. I acknowledge that my opinions - and specifically my opinions about the death penalty - have been heavily influenced by Christian morality. I believe my view on the death penalty, and that of the European authorities, derives from the Gospels. This is summed up neatly here (from Basil the Great's post #248):

If one really wants to emphasize the Gospels, then I do not know how one can support the death penalty.

This is what I mean by your putting too much emphasis on the Old Testament, paying little attention to the reforming narrative of the Gospels.

And here I will end, for now.

 

[Whyayeman]

To continue ...

About murderers:

"You were unfaithful to our marriage and to me, so you deserve death", "You stole my (insert item or person here) so you're going to die", "I deserve this recognition for my ideas/acts/inventions/ but you're taking it all and you won't move so you will die." This is capital punishment, just not administered by the state. And since these crimes take place today, these murderers (I never said they weren't normal people, that would be dumb), are people who also were raised in the society that believes that capital punishment is wrong. People who see themselves as very civilized, very good people. (Except for those who turn themselves in, I always acknowledge exceptions.)

I am a bit surprised by your suggestion that murders are some kind of punishment for wrongs committed against the murderer. It may be true in some cases but I doubt if it is so in more than a few. You will recall the case of the man who hacked his wife and all but one of his children to death with an axe. This does not fit your notion at all. A moment of rage, perhaps, or a seething madness. Maybe his wife had been unfaithful or wronged him in some way; that does not explain the killing spree which ended his children's lives.

Revenge for the death of someone's loved one was not only accepted, it was seen as a sign of weakness if such an act were not carried out. Cultures like this have existed across the world, so I ask that you don't tell me people wouldn't act like this.

I agree here. Honour killings are carried out in certain societies; they often happen in families and the victims are often girls. Blood feuds in which one death demands another still go on, each killing requiring revenge in an unending cycle. Such behaviour is clearly barbaric and neither of us could support it.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

...I'm using this to also answer Confused-by-Christianity's post which states that God is not a murderer...."

This is true. I do not think God is a murderer.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

If one really wants to emphasize the Gospels, then I do not know how one can support the death penalty. We live in modern society where maximum security prisons protect society quite well. Studies have shown that the death penalty is not much of a deterrent, if any. Hence, the real purpose of capital punishment in modern times is vengeance.

Personally - that's what I believe is really going on.
Those who wish for the death penalty - I think for the most part, just want to see someone suffer who has hurt them. Revenge basically.
I think it's obviously dressed up a little with some justification or another - but really, I think often someone is hiding the fact that they want to see someone suffer who they think "deserves it".

Probably not always:
Probably sometimes people just don't think much about anything. They just accept what is told to them about what's right?

Maybe some people start with the assumption that they are evil hearted and so cannot be trusted to think for themselves and must defer to the scriptures?

 

[o_mlly]

The problem I have faced is that vengeance is fine according to the Old Testament and therefore for Christians. I have always understood that the Gospel's message requires its followers to refrain from taking it.

You have argued well, I think, as to why a Christian should oppose capital punishment. My question is, as an atheist, what is your argument against capital punishment?

 

[Whyayeman]

... What is your argument against capital punishment?

You have got me going through my posts on this thread! Here are points I have already made. I am not sure how powerful my arguments look to retentionists - probably not very. Here they are, more or less in the order I made them.

British juries became reluctant to find defendants guilty because they did not want to be responsible for sending the man they could see before them to the gallows. This, like the deterrence argument, is just a pragmatic argument;

The death penalty removes the possibility of remorse or repentance, or at least puts a limit on the opportunity for these. Along with this, experience shows that murderers on licence can and do go on to lead useful lives in the bosom of their families, cherished by their children and grandchildren;

The death penalty is a remnant of the more savage forms of punishment from ancient times, abandoned by civilised nations round the world in the Twentieth Century, along with the rack, thumbscrews and burning at the stake;

Most countries have subscribed to the ideas of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of which is the right to life. This universal right cannot be over-ruled by the organs of the state;
​

But to end where I began more than 100 posts ago: the Commandment I was taught as a little boy; Thou shalt not kill. While it is Biblical, it is not exclusively so. Most societies have forbidden killing, even those which have never heard of the Ten Commandments. My boyish question about why the execution of murderers did not count as killing has never been properly answered. I have read nothing here which comes close. Biblical justifications look pretty thin to me, and not based on direct evidence from the Book.

Does that help?

 

[o_mlly]

Does that help?

Yes. Thanks for summarizing.

British juries became reluctant to find defendants guilty because they did not want to be responsible for sending the man they could see before them to the gallows. This, like the deterrence argument, is just a pragmatic argument;

Does the argument that British juries in the presence of the one to be executed felt repugnant seem more to be an argument from emotion rather than prudence, ie., pragmatic?

The argument from a lack of deterrence, it seems to me, requires a prior assent to some principle in justice that requires more from the state than proof beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. That is to ask, what prevents the state from executing the criminal if doing so does or does not deter future homicides? Capital punishment certainly does not encourage future homicides so why not employ it? Is it possibly because every human life, even the murderer's, is to be considered sacred?

The death penalty removes the possibility of remorse or repentance, or at least puts a limit on the opportunity for these. Along with this, experience shows that murderers on licence can and do go on to lead useful lives in the bosom of their families, cherished by their children and grandchildren;

Why is it important that the guilty one have time to achieve remorse or repentance for his act? Did he commit a sin for which he must repent in order to come to salvation of his soul? If he has no immortal soul or life to come, why is repentance important?

The utility argument on the possibility that the murderer may be useful to others, especially family, I think, we can all agree upon. Does his usefulness to others in providing for their pleasure also provide pleasure to the murderer himself? If so, why does that happen? Is charity toward others its own reward?

The death penalty is a remnant of the more savage forms of punishment from ancient times, abandoned by civilised nations round the world in the Twentieth Century, along with the rack, thumbscrews and burning at the stake;

Why is the inhumane treatment of others, even murderers, evil? If torture is pragmatic in the objective of protecting one's own then why would one not do so?

Most countries have subscribed to the ideas of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of which is the right to life. This universal right cannot be over-ruled by the organs of the state;

Your last argument is a legal one but is based on a moral principle. Why do humans have a right to life? Christians believe life is a gift from God and, made in His image, life is sacred. How does an atheist reach the same truth w/o believing in God?

 

[Whyayeman]

Well, I see that there are objections to my arguments! No surprise there, as I suggested in the first paragraph of #258:

I am not sure how powerful my arguments look to retentionists - probably not very. Here they are, more or less in the order I made them.

The British problem with juries was not so much a moral as a legal one. Guilty men (mostly) were going free. Nobody knows what jurors think, only their verdicts. The juries were probably just mirroring the sentiment of the time, as objections to the death penalty increased generally. (Juries had to be unanimous, so it only took one juror to feel that way.

The deterrence argument is utilitarian or instrumental, and it does not work. Thus it is not justified. Your argument sounds a lot like 'it does nothing to change anything but let us do it anyway because that is what has always happened'.

... What prevents the state from executing the criminal if doing so does or does not deter future homicides? Capital punishment certainly does not encourage future homicides so why not employ it?

Is it possibly because every human life, even the murderer's, is to be considered sacred? Yes. That is the basis of the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill', surely.