The Death Penalty etc,

[jason]

In the guns thread PhilA made this comment

I do not believe in the death penalty. We manage without one quite well, and when it was abbolished, our murder rate didn't go up, in fact IIRC it went down. As well as the implications of executing the wrong man, there are the implications of executing the mentally ill, as well as the ideas of rehabilitation.


Which got me thinking, perhaps we should have a thread on the death penalty.

Now, i'm sure this will greatly surprise everyone, but I am in favour of executing certian sorts of criminals.

Let me explain why.

The only way to make a murderer morally responsible for his action is to execute him. I am a firm believer in the legal principle of Lex Talionis (The Law of the Claw) or as the bible puts it, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". In short I think that the punishment should equal the crime.

I actually think that not executing murderers is actually dehumanizing them and treating them like animals. By executing them you make the properly accountable for their action as the Lex Talionis judical principle demands.

So that is my reasoning in favour of the death penalty.

Now to rebut Phil's objections to the death penalty just to save time.

1. The death penalty does not deter crime.

Now this may be true. But it isn't really relevant, the question is, how do we justly punish criminals and my argument is not predicated on any sort of pragmatic approach to law enforcement. Similar arguments based on the cost of the death penatly etc are equally irrelevant in regards to my justification for the death penalty.

2. We might execute the wrong person !

Is this really an argument against capital punishment ? Seriously ? It is a really good argument for why capital punishment should be reserved for certian heinous sorts of crime, it is a good argument for a higher standard of guilt to be demanded in cases were the death penalty is on the table. It is a good argument for great care to be taken in the exercise of the death penalty but it is not really an argument against the death penalty per se.

Still you may say, "But what if we execute the wrong man". And their is a slightly more pragmatic answer to the one given above. How many are we talking about ? If we are mistakenly executing 1 in 10,000 I think I can live with that. 1 in 2 would be a different matter. No judicial system will be perfect, but look at it this way. Every year people die in road accidents or as a result of being hit by cars. Obviously all of these unnecessary deaths could be avoided if we entirely banned cars in our society. The death rate from automobiles would go to zero over night. But we as a culture accept the loss of life from automobiles, even though we take many many measures to make the number as low as possible, as the price we pay for the convenience of having cars. The same reasoning applies to the death penalty. If the number of mistakes is very very lower (0.01% of all executions are mistaken for example) then I think as a society we can accept such a loss.

Before anyone says, "But what if you are that 1, or are family of that 1 in 10000", well the same argument applies to car deaths. And car accidents kill plenty of people.

3. What about executing the mentally ill ?

The US doesn't do that do they ? I would agree that you should not execute the mentally ill.

4. What about rehabiliation ?

This fails because it treats the criminal as less than fully human and less than fully responsible for their actions.

Jason

[Solly]

We are probably going to cross over a lot with the prisons thread, but in a Chistian take on this, would not the full humanisation of the person reside in their realisation, remorse and repentance? And that takes time.

Father forgive them, they know not what they do.

[jason]

We are probably going to cross over a lot with the prisons thread, but in a Chistian take on this, would not the full humanisation of the person reside in their realisation, remorse and repentance? And that takes time.

Father forgive them, they know not what they do.

This is not the states role. They are their to punish evil doers.

There is nothing wrong with seeking to get them to come to this point along the way to execution, but to not execute them would be to thwart justice.

And then the state would be failing in its job.

I'm not opposed to caring for and loving murderers, I just don't think it is proper for the state to do this sort of thing. The state should dispense justice impartially and without prejudice. And the state should make use of the principal of Lex Talionis just as the God demands.

Jason

[Solly]

However, in OT times the use of the death penalty was much more widespread than just for murderers, but we don't kill adulterers, or rebellious youths, or homosexuals anymore - Solly notes some eyes lighting up at the mention. How do you separate this one from those?
And is the state not also allowed to show mercy, clemency?

[PhilA]

Let me explain why.



The only way to make a murderer morally responsible for his action is to execute him. I am a firm believer in the legal principle of Lex Talionis (The Law of the Claw) or as the bible puts it, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". In short I think that the punishment should equal the crime.



I actually think that not executing murderers is actually dehumanizing them and treating them like animals. By executing them you make the properly accountable for their action as the Lex Talionis judical principle demands.



So that is my reasoning in favour of the death penalty.



Now to rebut Phil's objections to the death penalty just to save time.



1. The death penalty does not deter crime.



Now this may be true. But it isn't really relevant, the question is, how do we justly punish criminals and my argument is not predicated on any sort of pragmatic approach to law enforcement. Similar arguments based on the cost of the death penatly etc are equally irrelevant in regards to my justification for the death penalty.

I would argue that Lex Talionis is not a good ethical way of applying law in this day and age. The obvious response is where does it stop? Do you only apply this to murder? If so why? Why not chop off the hand of someone who purposely chops off someone else’s hand? Where does it stop. There are better ways of dealing with a murderer than killing them.



I accept your argument, and working on your principle, your argument is without fault. But I argue that your principle is faulty, due to the other alternatives, such as imprisonment, that we now have.

2. We might execute the wrong person !

This is very valid. The current estimate is 1:7 people on death row (US) are not guilty. (http://members.tripod.com/RobtShepherd/innocent.html) These odds are not good enough to continue executing anyone.



The car accident deaths are not a fair comparison. execution is a deliberate act - if it were not ordained by court it would be classed as murder. A car accident is an accident. No one orders a car accident, no one caries it out on purpose.

3. What about executing the mentally ill ?

The mentally ill are executed all the time. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13063

4. What about rehabiliation ?

This fails because it treats the criminal as less than fully human and less than fully responsible for their actions.



Jason

No. It makes the criminal face up to what they have done, and then makes them live with it for the rest of their lives. It forces people to be fully responsible for their actions.

[jason]

However, in OT times the use of the death penalty was much more widespread than just for murderers, but we don't kill adulterers, or rebellious youths, or homosexuals anymore - Solly notes some eyes lighting up at the mention. How do you separate this one from those?

But we do execute people for the equivalent sort of offence today.

Murderers should always be executed. Lex Talionis demands it.

But in OT times adultery was a very serious problem because you depended on the inheritance to for survival and adultery messed that up because it casued paternity issues and the like with no way to resolve them (The DNA test being millenia in the future) and you endanger and undermine the whole community as a result.

Rebellious youths could endanger the safety of the whole social group as well.

Homosexuals, i'm not so sure. Check with JP Holding, it was him or Glenn Miller that put me onto the other two explanation.

And today we do execute people for treason against the state because they does endanger everybody.

So we do execute people for offences of the equivalent sort of harm to the community.

So whats the problem ?

Jason

[voidhawk]

Jason has reminded me of an idea I saw once.

Let everybody who believes in the utility of the death penalty register their name on a database. When a crime is committed that the majority of those so register on the database agree is sufficiently heinous two of those registered are randomly selected. One is the executioner one the executee. They can go off and the executee can be killed in what ever way the executioner likes. The rest of us can get on with devising and maintaining a pragmatic, just, penal policy.

I think Jason will see the validity of my suggestion he has already indicate that the guilt or innocence of the excutee is not of central importance to his view of capital punishment. My way has benefit of explicitly separating the issues and highlighting the element of a lottery. And those of us who do not believe in the validity of capital punishment will be reassured by the knowledge the excutee is willingly making a statement for a cause they profoundly believe in. Which we are of cause free to ignore.

Note it just occurred to me it could be a money spinner, sponsorship, ticket sales, merchandising, television rights, audience participation the possibilities are numerous- go for it people!

Perhaps Jason could demonstrate his commitment to the cause and put his name down as first excutee. Now that is a thought.

Come on Jason how serious is your belief?

[Solly]

So we do execute people for offences of the equivalent sort of harm to the community.

So whats the problem ?

Jason

the problem is, you liberal atheist you is that you have not taken scripture literally except where it follows your idea. Yes, we should have the death penalty - the punishment should fit the crime - but no, we can decide who actually gets it. And yet after the very first act of murder in the Bible, God acted in mercy, not punishment, preventing Cain from beng killed.

Scripture Verse:

Gen 4:10 Yahweh said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries to me from the ground.
Gen 4:11 Now you are cursed because of the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
Gen 4:12 From now on, when you till the ground, it won't yield its strength to you. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth."
Gen 4:13 Cain said to Yahweh, "My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14 Behold, you have driven me out this day from the surface of the ground. I will be hidden from your face, and I will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth. It will happen that whoever finds me will kill me."
Gen 4:15 Yahweh said to him, "Therefore whoever slays Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." Yahweh appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should strike him.

What is also interesting is that the death penalty was for the community of Israel as a nation, yet we do not see it carried over into the church. Sure, there were deaths: ananias and sapphira were struck down by God, and Paul warned about those who were falling asleep [dying] because of not discerning the Lord's body in the Lord's supper, but these were actions of God. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. Are Christians called to support one thing in the "secular" world, and another amongst themselves?

[jason]

I think Jason will see the validity of my suggestion he has already indicate that the guilt or innocence of the excutee is not of central importance to his view of capital punishment.

Actually it is the central point. What are you smoking ?

Jason

[jason]

And yet after the very first act of murder in the Bible, God acted in mercy, not punishment, preventing Cain from beng killed.

God not the state. God may have mercy on who he wishes to. The state does not have that luxury.

yet we do not see it carried over into the church.

The state is not the church. So you would not expect it to be. Chalk and cheese.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. Are Christians called to support one thing in the "secular" world, and another amongst themselves?

Your not getting away with that.

The purpose of the state is explicity outlined by Paul

Romans 13:1-4 (NIV)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

© source where applicable

That is what government that is carrying out the mandate God gave it is doing when it executes murderers.

And I have to say, I think my verse is stronger than yours in this instance.

Jason

[Kulindrichnus]

Jason

The life of one innocent man, unjustly executed, is worth more than the sum of the lives of every single criminal justly executed; and what is more, the more heinous the crime set as the minimum which qualifies for execution, the more and more stark that intrinsically unacceptable discrepancy will become.

The death penalty is unacceptable in any system where the judiciary cannot guarantee inerrancy. The price- of only a single mistake- is too high.

If we are mistakenly executing 1 in 10,000 I think I can live with that.

That disgusts me. I, for one, cannot and will not 'live with that'. There is no price on life, not in money and certainly not in a ratio. That is the single most disgraceful opinion I have ever read on TWEB. I sincerely urge you to reconsider.

If you believe in Jesus Christ's right to judge, you will leave it to him to choose the place, time and manner in which he carries out his judgment on heinous criminals. He knows better than you do. You have no business rushing in before him.

K

[Solly]

God not the state. God may have mercy on who he wishes to. The state does not have that luxury.

Source?

The purpose of the state is explicity outlined by Paul
Romans 13:1-4

That is what government that is carrying out the mandate God gave it is doing when it executes murderers.

And I have to say, I think my verse is stronger than yours in this instance.

Except that your verse and commetns didn't address my point. In the OT economy, church and state were tied together. Now they are not. Yet you consider the texts of the church de riguer for the state. All Paul says is to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. It does not prescribe what form that punishment will be. Nor is that a complete theology of the state, since Paul is addressing a particular issue of his time, which was the fact that Christianity was a proscribed religion, and therefore potentially treasonable. His point is not to outline a theology of punishment, but to encourage the saints to bear up under whatever might happen to them, and to not disturb things in the way the Jews and others were over tax changes at the time.

[voidhawk]

Actually it is the central point. What are you smoking ?

Jason

Jason,

The point that I read you making was that the utility of executing people was so great that the guilt or innocence of the person to be executed was a secondary consideration. It is as if (to me) you are proposing a kind of lottery. If that is what you think is appropriate put your name down. Then you can be executed instead of a possible innocent person as a way of demonstrating the validity of your apparent position.

If it is your position that the death of the innocent in a judicial execution is never acceptable to you I apologise and withdraw my comments.

Otherwise have courage of your convictions - get strapped down while one of your buddy’s prepares to send you into the hereafter.

[Roy]

This is very valid. The current estimate is 1:7 people on death row (US) are not guilty. (http://members.tripod.com/RobtShepherd/innocent.html) These odds are not good enough to continue executing anyone.

Given that no judicial system can ever be perfect, there will always be a need to deal with the results of judicial errors.

If you imprison someone for life and later discover they are innocent, you can release them and try to compensate them for their lost time.

If you execute someone and later discover they were innocent there's no way to reverse or reduce the punishment.

Roy

[Rahab]

May I also add that the state does have the permission to grace as the Governor can intervene and stop an execution. That provision reinforces the notion that grace is an alternative in the way the state applies justice. So any extreme position which dismisses that provision is in fact not submitting to the " governing authorities" contradicting Romans 13:1 to 4.

As far as I am concerned I rally with all the arguments presented here against the death penalty. Especialy Solly's.

I also want to consider the spiritual implications of terminating the life of an unsaved individual banning him or her not only from this life but also from any opportunity to confess, ask forgiveness to God and accept Christ as their Savior, experiencing a faith which God wills to not restrict no matter what sin we have commited. As christians we need to really reflect on the spiritual rehabilitation of all sinners.

Every effort should be made to give any criminal the opportunity and time to experience redemption. As we willfully restrict their lifespan, we condemn them to far worse than physical death.

We now live under the Last Covenant. Christ. Salvation ,so we may not die in our sins, is the product of God's Grace. We have no rights to consider it an exclusivity to us. We are to facilitate that access to Grace and promote it. We are not to decide who "deserves" it and "who does not". When we will to see a criminal die, we have established he or she does not deserve to make that spiritual choice. Dismissing that none of us ever deserved God's Grace.