Capital punishment

[Grouchy Bear]

[edgerly779]

I disagree with everything you said. Eye for an eye for me. Many of those on death row are completely devoid of any compassion or chance of redemption. Put down those who have been sentenced to death. You can go to third world country and see how your faith works were murder is a common daily occurrence. Like northern Mexico.

[Sailormilan2]

Making the punishment fit the crime(an "eye for an eye") is proper. Remember, the Bible commands death in many of it's "crimes"(sins). The Hebrews(Jews) even used the death penalty for things that weren't listed in the Law as a sin. So, it is appropriate for certain things, though not all.

[Jeepergeo]

Self defense of community and society is not murder, and capital punishment is self defense.

War is not murder.

That said, I am opposed to capital punishment because of its costs. It's cheaper to house them forever, especially if it is done at the Joe Arpaio level of comfort.

[Grouchy Bear]

I disagree with everything you said. Eye for an eye for me. Many of those on death row are completely devoid of any compassion or chance of redemption. Put down those who have been sentenced to death. You can go to third world country and see how your faith works were murder is a common daily occurrence. Like northern Mexico.

[Grouchy Bear]

Self defense of community and society is not murder, and capital punishment is self defense.

[Grouchy Bear]

Making the punishment fit the crime(an "eye for an eye") is proper. Remember, the Bible commands death in many of it's "crimes"(sins). The Hebrews(Jews) even used the death penalty for things that weren't listed in the Law as a sin. So, it is appropriate for certain things, though not all.

I’m pretty sure Christ has some things to say about “an eye for an eye.”

Pretty certain he rejects that maxim during his Sermon on the Mount.

But that’s why I’d love for someone who is pretty literate with scripture to weigh in.

[Sailormilan2]

I was always taught that the Christ of the New Testament was the Law Giver of the Old Testament. The Law Giver of the Old Testament often commanded a death penalty to violations of the Law. Christ said He came not to change the Law, and changing, or doing away with a penalty, would come under "changing" one would think.
In 1Sam. 30, there's a story of David and his men being gone, and enemies came, burned David's village and kidnapped everyone in it. Nobody was killed.
David asked "God" what he should do, and God says, Go get them. Don't worry, you'll win.
David and his men went after them, caught and killed all of them, getting the kidnapped people back.
I'm not aware of any where in the Bible is there any criticism of David saying that he over reacted.
One must balance what Christ says in the New Testament with what was said and done in the Old Testament.

[newbutold]

[CVShooter]

I'm not a Christian -- just a guy very familiar with it. You'll have a hard time addressing capital punishment via a new testament perspective. Jesus didn't seem to have much of a problem with it as he was ready to dole out far worse punishments (eternal torment) for people who stood against him. Seems like capital punishment of any sort would be a more humane option than that. On an interpersonal level, Jesus was far more tolerant and forgiving, as evidenced in his most important theological speech: the sermon on the mount. But as far as his ambitions to depose the ruling elites and Rome from Judea, I think he was ready to kill, or at least to send others to kill, pillage the rich, etc. Maybe that's war and not capital punishment but I'd say that's semantic quibbling. Practically-speaking, they're one and the same.

But you could argue, as most Christians do, that Jesus is also God, therefore, his punishments are inherently just, even if they seem barbaric to us. I don't like that particular argument but it's a common one. It reminds me of Plato, who asked if the gods like piety because it is good or is piety good because the gods like it? If the former, then maybe serving the gods isn't as important as being truly just. And if the latter, then we concede that, to some degree, might = right. But that's another topic entirely.

Pretty much every Christian writer in the Bible and early writings didn't have the luxury of deciding capital punishment since they were among those being punished, sometimes with their lives. To think that Christians would soon be the ones killing non believers would have seemed too far fetched &, therefore, a non-issue. I can't think of a single example of an early (pre-Constantine) writer who addressed the issue. But it has been a long while since I was flipping through the writings of the early Patristics. So I might be wrong here. Just because I can't think of any doesn't mean there aren't any.

Practically-speaking, capital punishment and life incarceration are both ways of maintaining a state monopoly on violence. If any of those folks walk the streets, the risk of revenge killing goes way up. Vigilante justice gets out of hand real fast. So I guess I'm saying that some violent criminals will be executed one way or another so it might be best if the state handles it.

Personally, I feel no issue at all with capital punishment in certain contexts. It's the nitty-gritty of it all that I have objections over. I am far more tolerant of a gang member who plots the killing of a rival gang member or a bar fight that escalates too fast than I am of a child abuser or a kidnapper. While I think individualism is a good thing, I also believe that the community is also of great importance. Humans aren't solitary creatures -- we're extremely social and need a community in order to thrive. The criminally-insane have no place in the community and I fail to understand what we accomplish by allowing them to live. But I don't make the rules. And I wouldn't want to anyway.

[wpage]

The question of capital punishment's has no tie/bearing to any religion. Wether the 10 commandments "shall not kill" has any bearing on the one who may or has already violated that command...

Since in the biblical sense the violation of the command of do not kill has/may have occurred. That party is open to judgement. Clearly in the biblical sense to be judged.

Now the question in the secular world is does the killer deserve 3 hots and a cot for his/her natural life? The cost of incarceration in the US is very high and grows higher with cost of living, cost of goods etc. There are also families of victims who many time are disappointed their relatives were raped? tortured? kidnapped? and ultimately dead. These may want blood for blood.

Kill them all and let God sort the details.

[Rusty Bolts]

It is very much a matter of both protecting society as well as protecting the rights of the condemned. No one ever takes the side of the rabid dog when it is put down. Oh, it is a tragedy and a terrible thing but it needed to be done. Why is it that no one complains? Simple. It is understood the dog is a menace and action is needed to keep society safe. Same with human that has shown themselves to be a threat to society through their actions. As for protecting the rights of the condemned, the First Amendment gives us the right to express ourselves. The condemned has expressed his belief in the death penalty. Therefore, it is fitting that his beliefs be part of his sentence.

Rusty Bolts

[colossians323]

Just read Genesis 9:6, although not under the law, it does not get any clearer than that.

ETA; understanding that with sin comes consequences.

[GeeBee49]

As far back as I can remember this issue has been a controversy and I long ago accepted the fact that it will never be agreed on.
That being said, how often do you hear of a convicted criminal being executed in this country? Not very often.
Once tried, convicted and sentenced an inmate is still entitled to a lengthy appeals procedure that can go on for years and then they are still not executed right away. Some criminals have died of other causes while sitting on death row waiting to be executed.
So, I think the system is more than fair when you consider the vicious, brutal murders that these people committed that caused them to end up on death row in the first place.
And don't forget the families of the victims. Don't they deserve closure? How do you think they feel every day knowing that the animal who murdered their loved ones is still alive and well sitting in a cell somewhere instead of burning in hell.

[Flyron]

Capital punishment

Self defense of community and society is not murder, and capital punishment is self defense.



War is not murder.



That said, I am opposed to capital punishment because of its costs. It's cheaper to house them forever, especially if it is done at the Joe Arpaio level of comfort.