The death penalty

[dtknowles]

Tim, you know as much about God as does a cow. Something is fixed in your brain that can not or will not see who or what God is.
It won't do much good to try to explain anything to you because your tormented mind won't or can't recieve the knowledge of God. And what you seem to know is a twisted version of the Word of God.
For help and instruction read the book of Romans in the New Testament and for how He tests the faith of His followers read Job in the Old Testament.
You will find no evil in God, just as you will find no ice cream in a rock.

I think I know better than you "what God is." God has already put in my mind the sense of what God is. I don't ask these questions for my benefit. I already know what I believe, I ask them to get readers to think about their beliefs, to open their minds. That is not to say that my beliefs go unchanged. Some posts here are very insightful.

People have called me a Troll because they figured out that I don't ask these questions looking for answers for myself. That is not what a Troll is

An Internet troll is a member of an online social community who deliberately tries to disrupt, attack, offend or generally cause trouble within the community by posting certain comments, photos, videos, GIFs or some other form of online content.

Look at the title of this sub-forum "deeply theological discussion," the nature of my posts is completely of the sort fit for theological discussion. Discussion. I think in the future I will refrain from starting posts with rhetorical questions and instead start posts with a statement of philosophy. I am not looking for answers, I am looking for a deep nuanced discussion.

Have not you ever sat in your library or office and had a long philosophical discussion with one of your friends. Maybe with a drink and a smoke. Maybe you do that in a bar or a diner.

Ickisrulz seems to get it but not many others. I will try to find a way to start these discussions without offending others or putting them on the defensive.

The final sentence in your response hints at a meaningful discussion "You will find no evil in God, just as you will find no ice cream in a rock." I am going to start a thread to discuss this. Not because I think you will find evil in God but to hear eloquent arguments about why God does no evil. This is a common discussion in philosophy, I would be glad to hear it from philosophers here.

Tim

[1hole]

Christianity is not a philosophy nor a topic for playing troll head games. The "god" you listen to is not the God of the Bible.

[lightload]

DNA evidence has freed many from death row. Texas executed a man convicted on junk arson science. The man witness against him later admitted he gave incorrect testimony. I care not about putting killers to death but can not accept the flawed system that does it. A few years ago Texas executed a man who had been on death row for 30 years. The state spent almost $15 million on total costs.

[sigep1764]

The first page had a question about how as Christians we reconcile supporting the death sentence but remain Christian. I answer because I am flawed, fundamentally, being human. I freely admit that. And I admit to supporting the death penalty.

Please stop claiming to know God better than others. Please stop bashing each others opinions. Do be open to others thoughts and expressions. That is what this forum is for, the exchange of knowledge, lessons, experience, and for open discussion.

[1hole]

... I care not about putting killers to death but can not accept the flawed system that does it. A few years ago Texas executed a man who had been on death row for 30 years. The state spent almost $15 million on total costs.

Seems that 30 years and $15 million of examination by our legal system illustrates that we know the system is flawed (there is no way for any system to be perfect is there?) AND that we know it's imperfect AND that we are trying really hard to examine the process AND to examine the evidence that leads to a death sentence.

So, yes, we have an imperfect legal system. But, over all, I believe we're doing pretty good. And - our few contemptible politicians, ivory tower "educators", corrupt judges and very many despicable attorneys aside - America constantly strives to get it right for now and to do better later.

I don't like deadly "mistakes" at all but, stated as a percentage of capital sentences, it seems we really don't miss perfection by very much.

[lightman]

Is beyond a reasonable doubt an appropriate measure for a death penalty case? Shouldn't it be beyond the shadow of a doubt? Tim

I have to agree with this. I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty but we need to be 100% positive that they are guilty.

[Ozark mike]

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

This is my response when called to jury duty and let me tell you the judge does not like me one bit but that is his problem.
God is my judge.

[popper]

I am a believer, was empaneled for a murder trial that ended up as a mistrial - admin error. If the evidence were there I would have voted conviction, no hesitation. O.T. and N.T. confirm death penalty, many places. Would my vote be a sin? No. As a believer, the promise is my sins (many) are FORGIVEN!! Tim doesn't get that yet!!
"If on a jury a Christian votes guilty and the accused is executed but is actually innocent did that Christian commit murder." Nope. Silly question to begin with. An executed prisoner's case is not investigated after the fact so there is no opportunity (legal trial) to PROVE innocence. Possibly someone else MAY confess to the crime but again that case has to be proven!

[Rizzo]

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

This is my response when called to jury duty and let me tell you the judge does not like me one bit but that is his problem.
God is my judge.

Hmmm....
So you use those lines to get out of jury duty?
You feel it is not your place to lay judgement on someone?

Do you believe in the rule of law?
If so, doesn't that equate to some legal action against someone who breaks the law such as murder, rape, robbery, etc.?

I would say that doing jury duty is a citizen's civic duty/responsibility.
If everyone took your attitude where would we be?
A trial with no jury?
Don't we have a right to be judged by our peers?, ...yet you use your biblical statements to get out of doing so.
I've been called for jury duty and have served on a jury and the reasons some people use to try to get out of it are laughable.

Don't be that guy and do your civic responsiblity.

[1hole]

Judge not, that ye be not judged.......This is my response when called to jury duty and let me tell you the judge does not like me one bit but that is his problem.
God is my judge.

Mike, I understand your position if it's just a ploy to get off jury duty but, if you really mean it, I judge Biblically that you are really wrong.

IF you really mean you will not judge evil then we must assume you believe there should be no penalties at all. Do you not realize that making no judgements for anything - rape, stealing, murder, etc. - would immediately revert civilization back to the primitive law of the jungle? Do you not realise that living by your standard men would revert to stone age brutality, we would have to live by pure "survival of the fittest/strongest", because there could be no meaningful restraining force to protect the weak? I see nothing in scripture to support that end goal and I don't believe you do either. Not only are legal judgements for crime good, they are absolutely necessary!

Fact is, you have lifted that "don't judge" passage completely out of context and quote it in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with what it means. By stretching and twisting it totally out of shape you misuse it; that's not a good thing to do.

Surely you know those verses were (and remain) aimed at hard-hearted and self righteous religious critics evilly judging others for not being sufficently subservient to the critic's view of Christianity. We still have a lot of that "log" in many of today's religious eyes so it still applies, but only for what it means and that's not at all what you seem to be suggesting it means!

I would be very uneasy standing before the Judgement Seat of Christ trying to explain to Him how/why I took took his words totally out of their clear Biblical context and there by totally destroyed their meaning. HIS written instructions explicitly tells us how his people should try and judge criminals and then extract just penalties for their crimes (eye for eye, life for life), not that there shouldn't be a secular judgement at all and, therefore, no penalty for illegal bad deeds.

[Snow ninja]

So which laws do you follow? Eye for an eye and such? Then you also have to follow all the others. You're gonna need a lot of stones...
Oh and make sure that they next time your wife or daughter finishes her period, to bring two turtle doves or two pigeons to the Tabernacle for offering.

[cp1969]

I don't support the death penalty because I feel it punishes the wrong people. I believe it unduly punishes the families of the condemned, not the condemned himself.

I can't imagine the anguish I would be going through if an execution date was set for one of my kids and come to within minutes of that happening, only to have it stopped by an appeal of some sort. Then have to go through all of that again. And again.

Regardless of the heinous crimes committed by these people, there may be some people who still love them.

Life in prison with no parole is enough, as that's just the beginning of their punishment unless they get things square with their maker before they die.

[1hole]

So which laws do you follow?

Snow job, you already know the "laws" you refer to were the religious laws of Jewish society some 4,000 years ago. We have no evidence they had written civil laws at that time but they had common sense. Their common sense demanded that both innocents who had been wronged AND the accused should be protected by their society in a fair and open trial.

Do you believe that was/is a bad idea?

People suspected of common sense bad acts were brought before a council of community leaders where the facts, pro and con, were carefully examined and voted on before any penalty was imposed. We effectively still have that system today.

Was/is that a bad idea?

Eye for eye ....

Before the Jewish system, massive retaliation by injured families was common; I steal one of your cows, you kill my herd. I respond by killing your herd and killing your herdsmen. You respond by burning my barns and home, with me and my family trapped inside. Thus, eye for eye was given as a just limitation of punishment, not a freedom for vengance; it carried the idea that retribution should be moderated by common sense, not by angry attempts to hammer other people with excessive brutality.

Was/is that a bad application of justice and limitation of force?

Then you also have to follow all the others. You're gonna need a lot of stones...

A blatantly false premise. In today's societies we have a written code of laws, including the penalties government can rightly impose to balance the scales of justice. You know that no stones are involved.

We, the people, have appointed (elected) people to write the rules and, if not followed, to impose due punishment in our name. None of us have ever thrown any stones at all, not even you.

Oh and make sure that they next time your wife or daughter finishes her period, to bring two turtle doves or two pigeons to the Tabernacle for offering.

Well, that's just a mess. Your hypothetical distant past is badly scrambled and doesn't apply anyway, but you already know that.

Being silly trying to make a point doesn't strengthen anyone's arguments.

[slim1836]

The death penalty works. It prevents THAT convicted person from ever committing another crime. DUH. It should be done within a year of conviction with a single bullet to the head. Now you know where I stand.

I like the way you think.

Slim

[4given]

From gotquestions.org:

The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24), and several other crimes. However, God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due. David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life be taken (2 Samuel 11:1-5, 14-17; 2 Samuel 12:13). Ultimately, every sin we commit should result in the death penalty because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us (Romans 5:8).

When the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus and asked Him if she should be stoned, Jesus replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). This should not be used to indicate that Jesus rejected capital punishment in all instances. Jesus was simply exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into breaking the Old Testament law; they did not truly care about the woman being stoned (where was the man who was caught in adultery?) God is the One who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Jesus would support capital punishment in some instances. Jesus also demonstrated grace when capital punishment was due (John 8:1-11). The apostle Paul definitely recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate (Romans 13:1-7).

How should a Christian view the death penalty? First, we must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard. God has the highest standard of any being; He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.

Second, we must recognize that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7). It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crime

[4given]

More excerpts from gotquestions.org:

"It is crucial to understand that Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17–18). Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the Law. Ephesians 2:15 says that Jesus set aside the Law with its commands and regulations. Galatians 3:25 says, now that faith has come, we are no longer under the guardianship of the Law. The civil and ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament Law were for an earlier time. The Law’s purpose was completed with the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ."

"Also important to understand is that the civil laws within the Mosaic Law were meant for Israel under a theocracy. God’s chosen people, living in the Promised Land, following God as their King, were to adhere to a system of civil laws with divinely prescribed punishments. The priests taught the laws, the rulers enforced the laws, and the judges meted out punishments as necessary. The rule of Leviticus 20:13, “They are to be put to death,” was given to duly appointed government officials, not to ordinary citizens or vigilantes. The civil laws of the Old Testament were never intended to apply to other cultures or other times."

"Another consideration is that the Old Testament Law did not allow for vigilantism. One of the reasons for the cities of refuge was to protect those accused of murder until they could receive a fair trial. The Mosaic Law said that only civil government was allowed to implement capital punishment, and that only after a fair trial with at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6)"

"But the question still arises as to why the death penalty was required in the Old Testament Law in the first place. The answer is this: all sin is an affront to a holy God. God hates all sin. And while God only required a civilly administered death penalty for some sins, all sins are ultimately worthy of death (Romans 6:23) and eternal separation from God."

[BunkTheory]

I'm no biblical scholar,but in the age of DNA and fancy scientific test guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a shoe in. As a Christian should I ever be called as a juror for a capital case and the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt I have no problem voting for the death penalty.
That's not going to happen here in Ma as we tend to send our murderers to life in prison. Plus being 70 now I don't have to do jury duty any more.

DNA tests are the devils child. Far to many episodes of the actual crime shows i get as repeats all seem to have "the freezer/piece of clothing sat in an evidence shed for 20 years, and a detective followed their ideal suspect to a smoking area and snagged a ciggarrette from the ground. then they somehow found DNA on the original item in evidence shed, and gets a court order for their ideal suspects dna to be tested, and somehow it "matches" who they want..

[.429&H110]

I am glad this thread stays up, there is a lot of considered opinion here.
And Scripture.
Some have asked What Would Jesus Do?
Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

[downzero]

The death penalty system is broken. Reports show it costs more (appeals, etc) than if you just put them in prison for life. Until that is resolved, my vote is for life in prison. I don’t want my tax dollars spent on appeals. Add to this that there have been too many falsely imprisoned folks, death penalty doesn’t make sense.

If you can fix the above, I have no moral issue with the death penalty.

I'm glad my opinion is shared. I see nothing wrong with the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, but if it isn't cost effective, those resources would be better used locking these people up for life without the possibility of any kind of release and taking the additional, otherwise wasted resources, and spending that to reduce crime (whether that means more cops, longer sentences, better rehabilitation, etc., any of that is superior to wasting it on a broken death penalty system).

As to whether a Christian would be committing murder by voting to execute an innocent person, the answer is no. Mens rea, the concept of the guilty mind, is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system for a reason. That's why a manslaughter is punishable by 6 years in my state and a murder could be a life sentence. Making a mistake that costs someone else their life is not "murder." Murder is the unjust taking of human life by another human being with malice aforethought. Anything less than that is not murder.

I have to agree with this. I'm strongly in favor of the death penalty but we need to be 100% positive that they are guilty.

If that was the case, there would be virtually no convictions for murder, ever. Most murder cases are one scumbag killing another one. Some are domestic violence. A tiny, tiny minority are the kind of truly innocent people like little girls who are kidnapped/raped etc.

There is no criminal case where you can be 100% positive that the person is guilty. Crimes happen in real life with real people who are flawed, and it is those people who give testimony in court. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "beyond all possible doubt," is simply not realistically possible. So if you can't support a death sentence in the real world with a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, what you're really saying is that you aren't for the death penalty at all. Which is actually fine, everyone is entitled to decide these issues for themselves. But in a real courtroom, with real people, 100% positive does not exist. Cases are proven primarily through eyewitnesses, which are flawed human beings just like the accused.

[Shanghai Jack]

More excerpts from gotquestions.org:

"It is crucial to understand that Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17–18). Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the Law. Ephesians 2:15 says that Jesus set aside the Law with its commands and regulations. Galatians 3:25 says, now that faith has come, we are no longer under the guardianship of the Law. The civil and ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament Law were for an earlier time. The Law’s purpose was completed with the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ."

"Also important to understand is that the civil laws within the Mosaic Law were meant for Israel under a theocracy. God’s chosen people, living in the Promised Land, following God as their King, were to adhere to a system of civil laws with divinely prescribed punishments. The priests taught the laws, the rulers enforced the laws, and the judges meted out punishments as necessary. The rule of Leviticus 20:13, “They are to be put to death,” was given to duly appointed government officials, not to ordinary citizens or vigilantes. The civil laws of the Old Testament were never intended to apply to other cultures or other times."

"Another consideration is that the Old Testament Law did not allow for vigilantism. One of the reasons for the cities of refuge was to protect those accused of murder until they could receive a fair trial. The Mosaic Law said that only civil government was allowed to implement capital punishment, and that only after a fair trial with at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6)"

"But the question still arises as to why the death penalty was required in the Old Testament Law in the first place. The answer is this: all sin is an affront to a holy God. God hates all sin. And while God only required a civilly administered death penalty for some sins, all sins are ultimately worthy of death (Romans 6:23) and eternal separation from God."

You left out the first halb of Matthew 5:17-20 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or. the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." ...