*Posted by Joe Wooddell
This post is brief because it’s so straightforward: While it might sound counterintuitive, a society that values human life is a society in which the death penalty is still an option. Remember that there’s a difference between murder and other forms of killing. When a man walks into a movie theater, murders people in cold blood before several eyewitnesses, and is subsequently arrested, that man should receive a fair, speedy trial before a jury of his peers, and if he’s found guilty of the crime, he should be put to death. A society that does not put him to death does not value human life sufficiently. That is, the loving, compassionate thing to do is to impose capital punishment, while the unloving, hard-hearted thing to do is to let him live.
Such a one has so dishonored the image of God in others (by murdering them), that a society which allows him to live after being found guilty is a society that has insufficient compassion for the victims and their loved ones, and insufficient recognition of God, His Word, and the inherent dignity of being created in God’s image. I take Genesis 9:6 to be prescriptive: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (NASB). I take it as a principle for all time. And I take the “sword” in Romans 13:4 to include the idea of the executioner’s sword. Again, it is a principle for all time.
And it doesn’t matter if opponents of capital punishment convincingly make the case that such punishment does not dissuade would-be murderers, or that it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep him in prison for life, or that sometimes the legal system executes innocent people. Were such things true, it would not count against capital punishment as such. Instead, it should motivate society to continue working toward ethical ways of dissuading would-be murderers, to bring down the financial cost of capital punishment, and to work continuously toward a system of the rule of law where innocent people are not executed.
Well put! thank you.
And thank you for reading and commenting.
It seems to me that the matter is not nearly as straightforward as you incautiously assume it be. “A society that does not put him to death does not value human life sufficiently. That is, the loving, compassionate thing to do is to impose capital punishment, while the unloving, hard-hearted thing to do is to let him live.” — Not only are these statements represent a false dichotomy, they seem completely un-Christian. Not only are you advocating death for murderers, you callously disregard their eternal fate. Are you forgetting that Christianity is based on the guilty NOT getting what they deserve? As for your proof-text–There are thirty-six capital offenses mentioned in the OT including blasphemy and adultery. I assume you would make a distinction about the pre-Mosaic prescription in Gen 9:6, but I am not willing to simply take your word for it on a matter of life or death. What is it about life in prison that you take to be too good for murderers? And, what kind of moralistic, vengeful person ‘works toward’ a more efficient, cost-effective system for destroying human beings?
Thank you for reading and commenting. First, you are correct that I should have mentioned murderers’ eternal fate. In a radio interview with Dr. Barry Creamer I remedy this unfortunate omission, noting that there is no inconsistency between implementing the death penalty on one hand and sharing Christ with the convicted murderer (with the aim of bringing him into a right relationship with God) on the other. (The interview is to air July 31, 2012 on Dr. Creamer’s “For Christ and Culture,” on local Dallas station KCBI 90.0 FM, and on http://www.kcbi.org, at 6:30 PM and 10:30 PM CST.)
Second, while I am offering a dichotomy, it is not a false dichotomy: Murderers like the one I mention should receive the death penalty. While it’s true that those imposing it might not be doing it out of love or compassion, it is nonetheless the loving and compassionate response, while not imposing it is in fact the unloving, hard-hearted response. Someone merely thinking he is doing the loving or ethical thing does not mean that it is the loving or ethical thing.
Third, what I say cannot be un-Christian, because Christ Himself wrote all of Scripture (the entire Bible), and it is the Spirit of Christ whom I am attempting follow. You are correct that I would make a distinction between Genesis 9:6 on one hand and the Mosaic law on the other, but that is because Israel during those days was a special case – a theocracy – and such is no longer the case. (That is, while we are no longer bound by the civil and ceremonial law of ancient Israel, we are still bound by the moral law, which I take to include Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4, the latter of which you fail to address.)
Fourth, what it is about mere life in prison that I take to be too good for murderers, is that it is simply insufficient punishment for the crime. Only a life required in return can qualify as punishment for a life taken in cold blood. I am not, as you accuse me of doing, forgetting that Christianity includes (but is not “based on,” as you say) the guilty NOT getting what they deserve. Rather, I distinguish between heinous crimes which any properly functioning society must adequately punish according to a consistently implemented rule of law, and those same crimes being able to be forgiven by God resulting in the criminal being placed in a right relationship with God.
Fifth and finally, I’m not sure what you mean by “moralistic,” but I am not vengeful (if I ever am I pray God would forgive me and help me to implement such measures lovingly and compassionately rather than vengefully). Pushing for less executions of innocent people, and for more efficiency and cost-effectiveness in our legal system strikes me simply as being a good steward of all God has entrusted to Man.
Again, I appreciate the interaction, and I welcome any counter-response.
Let me attempt to state my case with greater clarity: I want to offer a rebuttal to your claim that the death penalty is the morally-required, loving, and compassionate response to murder. My counterclaim is that life in prison is a sufficient punishment for murder and that the death penalty does nothing in the service of society, justice, or God that life in prison does not.
I find your article and response long on assertion and short on argument, but I will
attempt to respond to the points you raised. You write, “. . .that a society which allows him to live after being found guilty is a society that has insufficient compassion for the victims and their loved ones, and insufficient recognition of God, His Word, and the inherent dignity of being created in God’s image.”
What is it that the death penalty secures for the victims and their loved ones that is not so secured by life in prison? (I fail to see how compassion is even relevant here, why not add mercy and wisdom to the mix? The issue is a matter of justice.) The idea seems to be that society owes, or is responsible to the victims of crime to mete out punishment that “fits the crime”. No doubt, justice demands that the severity of punishment should be in proportion to the gravity of the crime committed, but it would be naive to think that this requires us to ‘murder’ murderers (we certainly don’t rape rapists or torture torturers). The principle of proportionality of punishment is tempered by many factors, not the least of which is our valuation of human dignity.
As for whether or not the Bible requires of us that we execute murderers, we could rehearse the arguments typically made on either side (e.g., if Gen 6:9 is absolute why did God explicitly forbid retributively killing Cain, the first murderer? and doesn’t this suggest an interpretation more like Jesus’ saying, “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.”), but I am unwilling and unprepared for such an unfruitful task. There are a great many, well-respected Christian leaders, scholars, and theologians who take the bible seriously and who fall on either side of this debate. In an effort to avoid resorting to name-calling, I suggest we provisionally stipulate that matter is underdetermined on this account.
Central to human value and dignity is the notion that we are created in the image of God. The remarkable value of a human being that this implies means that murder is the gravest crime. You argue that murder necessitates the death penalty, that no other punishment would be sufficient for such a crime. It does not so follow unless you assume a naive form of retributive justice wherein punishment is not only proportional to, but also of the same manner as the crime. Insofar as the death penalty involves the destruction of a human life, and hence does violence to the image of God, it seems to count against its use, not in its favor.
I take violence against another human being to be justified (within contextually defined limits, but possibly to the point of death) when employed in the defense of persons against what can reasonably be considered an threat of serious bodily harm, when non-violent, non-lethal means are not available or reasonable options. (I take this statement to be true, but inadequate) The death penalty, at various times and places, has and does meet this criteria, but it seems clear to me that it no longer does here and now. (It is worth noting that the US is the only western industrialized country that has not outlawed the death penalty.) Life in prison satisfies the relevant principles of justice, including a thoughtful version of retributive punishment, and it does so without destroying a human being. It seems to me to be a sufficiently severe, reasonable response that fully recognizes the gravity of the crime and the demands of justice. It also has the benefit of not possibly knowingly sending someone outside the grace of God to their eternal fate.
I could go on the enumerate the many contingent reasons that the death penalty should be at least suspended in this country (e.g., the many wrongfully convicted persons executed, the institutional racial/class discrimination represented on death row, the fact that it serves no appreciable effect as a deterrent, that it costs taxpayers about twice as much as life in prison and places an enormous counterproductive burden on the criminal justice system, and it has a dehumanizing effect on society), but it seems to me that if there is any reasonable doubt about the justice of the death penalty, the only ethical response is suspension. It is, after all, not something to take lightly, being quite irreversible. . .
How can you say that a “cold blooded” murderer like the one who commited the murders in Aurora, CO will have the same punishment value by living the remainder of his life in prison as he would by receiving the death penalty. Additionally, what sort of message does it send people if we allow someone to live after blatantly committing murder. Do you think it is justice for him to continue his life when he took so many.
The Bible gave us the right to capital punishment and in cases such as this, I do not see any other means of deterring more of the same. Consequences are usually very difficult to live with, but that is why God gave us both choices and consequences in order to deal with the sin in this world.
(Second reply to “No Better Than A Murderer”):
Yes, you are correct. To my assertion that the death penalty is sometimes compassionate, loving, and ethical, I would add that it is sometimes wise, merciful, and just. You say life is prison is sufficient punishment, but also that, “The severity of the punishment should be in proportion to the gravity of the crime committed.” So you see life in prison as severe enough for murderers, but I do not. We simply disagree on this. Then you say, “we don’t rape rapists or torture torturers.” That’s true, and we don’t murder murderers, because as I said, there’s a difference between murder and other forms of killing. Moreover, I wouldn’t necessarily suggest we kill the murderer in the same manner as he killed his victims. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
You contend that since Bible scholars disagree about the biblical material on capital punishment, then we should reject the entire discussion of what Scripture says about it, and presumably stick only to utilitarian arguments. The problem with this line of thinking is that Bible scholars disagree over just about everything in Scripture. Irrespective of this fact, we still must come to what we believe are valid, biblical conclusions if we call ourselves Christian, and my conclusion is that God Himself ordains it in some cases in both Old and New Testaments. Again, we will have to agree to disagree.
You say, “The death penalty involves the destruction of human life, and hence does violence to the image of God.” This entails the following: Anything involving the destruction of human life does violence to the image of God. But this simply isn’t true. You yourself say, “I take violence against another human being to be justified ([even] . . . possibly to the point of death) when employed in the defense of persons. . . .” So in one breath you say anything that takes human life violates the image of God, but in the next you say there is a time and place for taking human life. This is inconsistent. Presumably you would believe imprisoning someone for no reason also would violate the image of God and human dignity, but some crimes warrant such a punishment. I am simply saying this is also true of executing the convicted murderer. Again, we simply disagree.
To address another of your points, I believe the only reason “it is worth noting that the US is the only western industrialized country that has not outlawed the death penalty,” is to show how far these other nations have fallen from being sensible and godly.
I already mentioned all your “contingent reasons,” none of which I find compelling if the death penalty is, in fact, the correct response to some crimes.
Finally, I’m at least glad to hear that you value human life so highly, even though we disagree about how to work it out with respect to the death penalty. Based on your statements, I can only assume you have a highly pro-life view, and thus are against abortion and euthanasia.
Pat: I assure you that I have been deeply affected by brutality and senselessness of the July 20th shooting in Colorado and feel deeply for the victims of the shooting, their family and friends, and their community. But, I also have compassion on James Holmes, an intelligent human being, created in the image of God, endowed with immense value deserving dignity and respect. It requires no effort to love our friends and hate our enemies, but that does not reflect the trans-formative power of the gospel, nor is it in obedience to our Lord.
Also, to make deterrence a primary purpose of punishment is to espouse consequentialism, something you probably do not want to do . . .
Wooddell: I must have failed to make myself clear to be misunderstood so thoroughly. . .
First, I never suggested that we adopted biblical skepticism, on this issue or any other. I suggested that we leave aside scriptural arguments in this debate (hence “provisionally stipulate”) because, 1) I am not a biblical scholar and have nothing to add to what others have already said on the issue, and 2) it would be unfruitful because I assume we are both familiar with the biblical arguments for and against the death penalty. I am not uninterested in what the bible says in regard to this issue, nor do I distrust my own biblical understanding on the matter, and I am certainly not a consequentialist of any stripe.
Second, I do not contradict myself. I take the phrase “made in the image of God” to mean, minimally, that humans have immense value (I don’t think this exhausts the meaning, however). Hence, the taking of a human life is an extraordinarily grave act (this reflects our intuitions about the seriousness of murder), and it is so whether or not it is performed in a morally justifiable context or not. That I believe it is sometimes morally justified is clear because I go on to offer a criteria of when it is so justified (a criteria you did not dispute). I had counted on a more charitable reading from you. . .
Third, contingent problems (problems that could at least in principle be overcome) are important to recognize, not because they prove the death penalty is wrong in principle but because such recognition tempers the thoughtless allegiance to a status quo which encompasses so much, and such serious, injustice. If you think the death penalty is good, at least be willing to admit that the way we carry it out in this country is subject to many serious problems if you find it to be so. Also, there is much we can learn from the rest of the world’s criminal justice systems and how their various approaches to punishment impact both those within them and the communities in which they are a part.
Finally, nowhere do you espouse a theory of punishment despite being quite adamant about one punishment’s appropriateness for one crime. However, you seem not to disagree with the crux of the retributive theory of punishment. The non-talionic (not in the form of lex talionis or “an eye for an eye”) version of retributive punishment says that punishment should be proportional to the gravity of the crime committed and the culpability of the offender (assume for our purpose that the offender is maximally culpable). This seems reasonable and in accord with our intuitions about justice. It means that a punishment is justified if we know that an offender deserves a punishment, AND we know what punishment they deserve.
And this gets to the very heart of the matter–how do we match punishment to crime? Even if we stipulate that murder is the gravest crime, there is no straightforwardly corresponding punishment because there is no non-arbitrary maximally or minimally severe punishment which the State can inflict. Why not, instead of a relatively painless death, inflict severe pain for an indefinite duration? Is not endless torture more severe than any form of execution? The reason this kind of punishment is deemed too severe even for murder is that it violates the individual’s rights and the principles of human dignity. You have nowhere stated upon what basis you assign murderers a punishment of death beyond the fact that it seems to you to be the case (presumably even if the bible can be taken to make such an assignment it is not inappropriate to ask on what basis that assignment is made). If this is indeed the sum of your case, that it seems to you to be so, and leave it at that–I can only marvel at your confidence you must have to advocate ending a human life based on intuition. . .
I reject the necessity of the death penalty, at this time and in this place at least, on the principle of minimalism, which states that a less severe punishment is to be favored over a more severe one when it satisfies the purposes of punishment. While the data is notoriously sketchy, there is no good reason to think that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than life in prison. Both punishments provide societal protection from continued offenses, and both represent severe responses to a grave crime (life in prison can be made indefinitely severe, and is, in a sense, a ‘natural’ death penalty). On this basis alone one can make the case for life in prison. However, life in prison affords certain goods not so afforded by the death penalty precisely because of its irrevocable nature. The possibility of rehabilitation is not something Christians should take lightly, not merely with a view to possible reconciliation with God, which is an exceedingly great good, but also simply the opportunity to come to terms with what they have done and to gain wholeness.
The abstractness of the debate is ill fitting the existential reality it reflects. The more than 2,000 people on death row in this country are not worthless, mindlessly violent, animals, but human beings and objects of God’s favor through the gospel. I believe that if the death penalty remains in effect that all executions should be broadcast live so that we witness the gravity of what we have consented to and share in the burden it places on judge, jury, and executioner, from whom their authority is derived. If this seems inhumane and barbarous to you, I suggest that you have not fully considered the implications of your words.
Unless further clarification be needed, I rest my case and concede the final word. . .
(Third reply to “No Better Than A Murderer”):
I certainly didn’t mean to read you uncharitably. You seemed to say the biblical argument was off the table since prominent scholars disagree, and you seemed to say on one hand that taking life was always wrong, while on the other that it’s sometimes justified. If reading you this way is uncharitable, I apologize, but that’s what it sounded like to me.
While it strikes you that I have no further argument than ‘the death penalty just seems right, it just seems to fit the crime,’ when you take out your own moral and biblical claims it strikes me that all you’re left with is ‘the death penalty just seems wrong, and it’s not necessary for the punishment to fit the crime (or life in prison does sufficiently fit the crime).’ But if we take out the moral and biblical arguments, then all we’re left with is utilitarian arguments and/or one intuition versus another. Below in another response I referred to a 2007 testimony before the Senate by David Muhlhuasen of the Heritage Foundation, in which he convincingly (to me, of course) argues that capital punishment is, in fact, a deterrent to other murders. (He also argues that it is not, in fact, racist, and that Americans are in favor of it by 2 to 1, if either of those matters to you or anyone else.)
Your view seems to be that the death penalty is inhumane, but this is based on your view of morality and your view of God and His Word. But these latter are your own intuitions, for which you give no defense or argument. You can’t expect me not to use my moral sense or intuition and then turn around and merely use your own. Your view also seems to be that life in prison fits the crime of murder sufficiently, but this shows that you do want the punishment to fit the crime in some sense. But that notion itself is another of your moral intuitions. So we both think the punishment should sufficiently fit the crime, but we have different ideas or intuitions about what is sufficient. Again, I appreciate the exchange.
Reblogged this on Sarah Kerby and commented:
Interesting perspective of capital punishment…never thought of it this way before but I agree.
Thank you for the comment and for re-posting.
Reblogged this on FIRE AND HAMMER.
How would you justify the death penalty to someone who does not accept your view of scripture, assuming that is something you care to do? I ask because we live in a pluralist society wherein our laws do not generally reflect the particularities of individual religions, and the secular world seems to be in consensus against the death penalty. Is there a compelling reason for keeping the death penalty that does not rely on special revelation or our somewhat flimsy intuitions?
Good questions, thanks for asking. First, I’m not sure my intuitions are all that “flimsy.” Many of our most strongly held and most important beliefs are held on the basis of intuition, or they are “basic,” or we have no arguments that would otherwise convince doubters. For example, most of us believe our cognitive equipment (brain, mind, senses, etc.) is functioning properly, that logic applies to all of life (that is, we can’t argue for logic without using logic), that there are at least some moral absolutes (e.g. torturning babies for fun is wrong; kindness is a virtue; etc.), and that something called “reality” exists, and that it exists outside of our minds (i.e., most of us are not solipsists). So I’m not at all sure my most stronly held intiutions are flimsy. Moreover, I am a believer who is trying to follow God and His Word (that should be redundant, but alas), so I think the Holy Spirit is guiding me toward truth in a way unbelievers are typically not so guided.
Second, I would put the question back to the unbeliever as to why he believes anything at all is right or wrong. I can’t make sense of ethics or morality at all without there being a God. I would ask the secularist on what basis he condemns me or anyone else of immoral behavior. Presumably it would be merely his intuition. But then we’re left with my intuition versus his intuition.
Finally, I think capital punishment does have a deterrent effect upon further murders. In his testimony before the Senate in 2007, David Muhlhausen of the Heritage Foundation argued this convincingly, in my opinion. (See http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-death-penalty-deters-crime-and-saves-lives.)
I read the testimony of David Mulhausen and in reply to what Jeff said, I think Mulhausen makes it clear that the findings there seems to be a deterent factor in executing criminals and as someone else said in the posts, there is a long wait between conviction and execution—in other words, time to repent if one becomes repentant. One statistic that they cannot show is just HOW MANY lives are saved because someone STOPS AND THINKS before committing murder; although, he does point out that people such as the killer in Aurora probably are not in that category. I don’t think any of us who believe in the death penalty take it lightly, especially because those of us who are Christians, wish that everyone could come to know Jesus and have joy in their life, but it does not mean that they will. I wish there were no homeless people and I have tried to help many of them with very little success, but just because someone is homeless it does not give them the right to steal my money, nor does someone’s desire (or anger) give them the right to murder me. Jesus loves all of us, but if you reject him there is a price to pay. As I have said in an earlier reply their are choices and there are consequences and if that makes me a consequentialist, then I think I may be in good company. Even though, these are my reasons for believing we need to continue to use the death penalty as the best deterrant to murder, it does not mean that I dislike people who believe otherwise, because I think it is a hard conclusion because it is a life issue.
(Reply to Pat’s Aug. 3 note):
Some interesting comments, Pat. I would just be careful about endorsing consequentialism. While there are different (and controversial) meanings for this word, in ethics it is typically used to indicate that one is interested not in principles but in consequences. In other words, the consequentialist believes that so long as the consequences are what we want, how we get there doesn’t matter. That is, the end justifies the means. And I bet you don’t want to go that far. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Joe – My final opinion in answer to your 3rd response
No, I do not want to go that far. I do want to give a very simplistic summary of this discussion on consequentialism as it relates to capital punishment and my ethics. I do believe I am at least a mixed consequentialists (combination of deontologism and consequentialism)…possibly part of my sin nature.
Example – I am late to work. I may miss an important meeting if I don’t get there on time; I might even be fired. I don’t see any speed traps/cops. Have I ever taken the chance of getting a ticket? Yes I have. Would I drive faster than the speed limit if the penalty was death? Nope. Consquences matter.
I usually am convicted to follow God’s laws (which include those made by man)—and I believe most of the time I am making decisions as a deontologist, but I cannot say that, even as a Christian, I always make decisions for the right reasons. Muhlhausen’s testimony verifies that, in the case of murder, capital punishment may just be what stops us even if our morals don’t.
(Reply to Pat’s Aug. 6 note):
Thanks for clarifying. I think deontologism ultimately fails because when we have conflicting duties (e.g. be on time for work and obey the speed limit) we tend toward hierarchicalism. For example, so long as we can speed “safely” we prioritize getting to work on time over obeying the speed limit. So instead, I tend (at least in theory) toward some combination of virtue ethics and deontologism. In other words, a virtuous person knows which duties should be prioritized when, and to what degree. With respect to the death penalty, if capital punishment serves as a deterrent, great. But if not, it should still be carried out, because it’s the virtuous thing to do, regardless of consequences.
“Third, what I say cannot be un-Christian, because Christ Himself wrote all of Scripture (the entire Bible), and it is the Spirit of Christ whom I am attempting follow…..That is, while we are no longer bound by the civil and ceremonial law of ancient Israel, we are still bound by the moral law, which I take to include Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4, the latter of which you fail to address.”
That logic is faulty. If moral law was still in effect Jesus would have had the woman stoned for adultery. Either an eye for an eye mentality of the old testament was replaced by a Jesus who preached forgiveness or it was not.
I find it repugnant for someone to pick out scriptures to support a behavior inconsistent with the teaching of their lord and savior by justifying that ‘well he wrote it so it must be okay.’
You may want to reassess the Christ you think you are following to see if it is the true one or one you have made in your own image.
Thanks for the feedback, but: No, stoning for adultery was not part of the moral law, it was part of the civil law of Israel’s theocracy. The moral law in question here is simply this: adultery is immoral. That’s all. And Jesus was well within His rights as God the Son to make exceptions in order to make a point. The point being that the religious leaders were just as sinful as the woman.
I actually think it’s you, not I, creating a Jesus in your own image. There are some things Jesus (or Scripture) says which I don’t like very much, but I still have to accept them. He’s God, not I. I have (what I believe to be) a high view of Scripture. When Jesus claimed oneness with the God of the Old Testament, I take Him at His word. So if I find something that looks like a contradiction between Jesus in the gospels and the Old Testament law (moral, civil, or ceremonial), or perhaps with, say, Paul the apostle, I immediately assume not that it’s a problem with the text, but with me. In other words, I’m missing something. There has to be a way to reconcile the two, for God is not a God of contradiction.
So when I read of capital punishment in Romans 13 or Genesis 9, and I read of Jesus not condemning to death the woman caught in adultery, I have to assume they can be reconciled, since He wrote the whole Bible.
There is one problem with what I wrote that you quote, which no one has picked up on yet. I say, “what I say cannot be un-Christian, because Christ Himself wrote all of Scripture (the entire Bible), and it is the Spirit of Christ whom I am attempting follow.” This is not exactly right. For example, anyone can believe “Christ Himself wrote all of Scripture . . .” and be attempting to follow HIm, but that doesn’t mean he will necessarily get the interpretation or application right. So it’s possible that I’m wrong. I just don’t think I am. Thanks again for reading and commenting.
It seems to me that an appeal to intuition within a given discussion has weight only insofar as it is held in common. As your rather lengthy discussion with the commenter above seems to indicate, intuitive beliefs may be justified for the one one has them, but they do not translate well into compelling arguments for those that do not. Sometimes an argument for an intuitive belief can be constructed on the basis of one or more basic, and perhaps more commonly held, beliefs. Again, the above discussion seems to indicate that there is no straightforward way to do this in this case. If two Christians cannot even argue the point, how are we to expect to make a legal case in the courts? (It is, after all, the State that \”wields the sword\” as you say.) I find it troubling that \”agreeing to disagree\” is best we can do between two seemingly plausible intuitions.
Good points, but I don’t think it’s “the best we can do.” One thing I can and should do is get as many people as possible elected to public office, who basically hold beliefs such as mine. (This is what everyone’s trying to do, right? And there’s nothing wrong with it, so long as I admit I’m not going to usher in some theocratic Kingdom of God in this world; and I wouldn’t want to!) Second, I can and should pray for people who disagree. Third, I can and should continue the discussion, making as many valid points as possible. The fact that I might not have a silver bullet argument (an argument that would convince everyone) shouldn’t dissuade me from giving what I take to be some points and arguments worth considering.
I value human life immensely and can wholeheartedly agree with this article. It is true that there can be times where innocent people can be convicted but all can see too that all too often those who commit such acts are eventually released and on goes the injustice. Victims families are tormented for a lifetime knowing these people are alive and well, able to live, learn, relax, eat sleep and be merry and eventually walk free back into society with pay due them upon their release. Then, on the taxpayers dime, continue living all the while a loved one lies in an early grave robbed of a life of living with the joys and sorrows that were rightfully theirs to experience had they been given the chance.
What did those killers learn and teach while they were allowed to continue? Who did they instruct while they lurked about in cell or courtyard, how is it we wonder why some go to prison one person and come out much worse than when they event in? It is written; By beholding we become changed, from image to image. And so it will continue, until society demands a change repelling and cutting off support of those special interest groups who promote such laws.
One more point, while a murder lives out their lives behind bars, they can still be a deadly threat to those outside. Debts owed from someone released can still carry out the killers designs even if this person never sees the outside again. Can these people still find a God of mercy and forgiveness prior to the death should experience? Of coarse they can. Could that fateful date give them the strongest of reasons to seek Him while He could be found? I most assuredly believe so. Could it be a deturant to others to walk the same path? Yes, but not if it continues the way it’s been for that past 100 years. Most every person knows that “the death penalty” really means a fairly long time in jail with some possibility of parole in 10 or 20 years. Meanwhile, the family has to wonder if the criminal will someday escape, be released via a number of loopholes, or either hire someone or threaten someone to continue to hurt their families while they sit in their cell waiting for this to unfold before them as they watch their TV. If the death penalty were carried out swiftly after their trial and the verdict of death was pronownced, the next would-be killer would think twice before seeking fame and a cheap place in history.
There was a time when I wondered if my God would still have it so, but the while considering all I could not but recall “I Am the Lord your God, I change not”. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is the inspiration and author of all
scripture, who am I to say, you must be wrong, surely you didn’t see our day. Surely you haven’t been paying attention to the “other nations” who know a better way to take care of these issues.
Last I knew, The Lord God didn’t wait to count votes or to let the majority tell Him how He needed to think and or to rule. True, this world we live in is messed up, it’s all too easy to point the finger and even to say or think that God isn’t doing the best of jobs down here, but we see through a glass darkly and don’t see the whole picture as He does. This world and it’s people are living in a time of judgment where time is running out. Are we to be found taking Him at His Word or will we be found questioning everything we have trouble swallowing? If we cannot follow Him here, how could we be trusted to follow Him there? We must surely know He will not force this change upon us to fit us for Heaven but we must be willing to be molded now. Is it not written that we must become as little children? Though we are invited to “come, let us reason together” we are also commanded to obey. Sometimes I don’t understand what I read, but I still do what is plainly revealed simply because I know He knows.
Some interesting points, Don. I would probably take issue with some parts of what you have written, and perhaps part of the tone with which it comes across. (I’ll try to make it more clear in my response to Jeff below.) But some points well taken nonetheless. I appreciate the interaction.
So the reason to put to death is compassion, and that compassion is driven by a need to exact punishment for a sin committed. The fact that some may die who are innocent as well as some who may seek forgiveness plays nothing into your decision to follow through with it. You need to ask yourself why you want these people dead. Is it to protect society or exact revenge? If you say protect society then prison without parole will do that. The other one is not yours to take.
I would respectfully disagree. I think your criticism is simplistic and misguided (I’m not trying to be rude, just accurate). The compassion is for the victim, his family, and for society. It’s not the loving thing to do to let convicted murderers off with mere prison time. It’s not loving to the victim, his family, society, or God. You say I need to ask myself “why [I] want these people dead.” I don’t want them dead simply for the sake of them being dead. It’s certainly not for revenge. And Don’s comments make it clear that prison w/o parole will not necessarily protect society. But that’s not my main point. My main points throughout this exchange have been these: First, only a life taken in execution can count as sufficient punishment for the sin/crime of murder. Second, the loving, compassionate, and ethical thing to do for all parties (including the murderer) is to execute the convicted murderer. I’m not happy about this. I don’t desire death for the sake of death, and I’m not sadistic. I simply see it as an aspect of both general and special revelation.
I could not agree more!
Thanks for reading and commenting.