Christian Death Sentence
 

I was thinking about this and I can't come up with a logical solution. I know many Christians who are in favor of the death penalty, and I can't understand why. I understand the logistics behind the death penalty, but I can't understand how a Christian could support it when the sixth commandment (I believe) states "Thou shalt not kill." So any thoughts? (You don't have to be Christian to reply.)

*muble*The romans had a death penalty y'know.*muble*

-edit- Gak. Just realized I spelled the title wrong. Oh well.-edit-

As a Christian, I support it because it is a punishment given down by God to the Jews when they were wondering the the desert after the Exodus. And as a Christian I follow the laws that He laid down for us, even though I don't have to to go to Heaven. All i have to do is beleive. But my morals go with the laws.

But it is not a Christian's duty to judge and condem. That is left to God.
So we're just speeding up the processes! LOL

"thou shalt not kill" is, IMO, one of the most horrid translations of biblical text. It is more accurately translated as "thou shalt not take innocent life."

Nonetheless, I think that the New Testament gives good support for an argument against the death penalty and I know that the Catholic Church only supports the death penalty in situations where it is not possible to greatly diminish the criminals capability to inflict pain on other people - thus, pretty much never in the modern world. Personally, I am also of this belief: that the death penalty is an unecessary evil in today's world, when life imprisonment can accomplish the same thing just as easily

That's a bit flexible isn't it, how many innocents do you know?

To some extent, the idea behind it is the retributive theory of justice; that, in part, the purpose of punishment is to inflict harm on someone in proportion to the harm that they have caused. The taking of a life is so heinous an action that it can only be adequately paid for by the death of the guilty party. There's something to this, but this is probably not the thread to argue theories of punishment. In any case, I think the Catholic Church is right on this one. There may have been good reason for capital punishment in the past, but in the modern age, there's almost never going to be a case where it's necessary.

After reading the Old Testament, I don't think God has any problem what so ever with the death penalty, or for that matter mass murder, and slavery. I've heard the argument of 'well that was before Jesus saved us' and I say hooey to that.

I'm sure this "Thou" guy is probaly dead by now. Who would name their kid Thou anyways... I imagine he got beat up on the playgrounds.
Anyways... bring on hte slaughter houses... I feel the need to purge!

Yes, because we all know that it's just as easy to house, feed, and guard someone 24/7 for decades as it is to stick a needle in their arm.

I am for the death penalty. If you commit 1st degree murder or rape, you deserve to die. It is the only punishment that has a 100% chance of preventing the person from commiting the same crime again, with life imprisonment the criminal still has the chance(however slim) of escaping or making a successful appeal.

As for their not being a death penalty because it's immoral, well, morals are based on religion and the First Ammendment takes care of that. As for just not liking the death penalty, well it's an opinion and just as valid as my opinion, but I hope the government follows mine.

my life in Christ calls me to be an opponent of the death penalty. the core of that conviction comes from my belief that God's way is of non-violence.

Frankly, one of the most important things that Jesus does while on earth is steal the show from an empire that thinks it can promise peace, order and justice. Why we think we're any better...it's beyond me. For an expanded treatment of these ideas..."The Executed God" by Mark Lewis Taylor.

MageB420666, actually, your argument that it is more difficult to care for a person 24/7, etc, holds very little water. There are numorous studies showing it is far more expensive and time-consuming to put someone to death than to give them life imprisonment. Combine this with information from Harvard University's Civil Rights Project that there is a 68% error rate in death penalty cases and it becomes clear that the logic behind the death penalty is extremely flawed.

First I don't buy the 68% error rate as in the guy is not guilty.

Secondly the cost is easy to lower :rolleyes:

Third since the soul is eternal and by giving them last rights and sending them to God you have made sure their sinning soul is safe from the fiery depth of hell. What minor suffering on earth can compare with an eternity in the light of God?

Wow that’s easy, I knew I should have started that cult.

I never said 68% error rate is that they are shown to be not guilty. 68% error rate means there was some error in the application of justice. The #1 error was incompetant council - an important thing to not have when you're on trial for your life - and prosecutorial misconduct is another one of the most common errors. Both things that can easily cause an innocent person to be found guilty. On average, it took 11 years to uncover an error in a trial - far too long. If one person who is innocent of a crime is put to death, that is one too many for the death penalty to be a good solution. This is consistant with the fact our entire justice system is designed to focus on protecting innocent people as opposed to punishing guilty ones. There have also been numerous studies showing that there is great racial disparity between the application of the death penalty and likewise economic disparity. For example, if a black person kills a black person, they are less likely to be put to death than if they kill a white person. The opposite does not hold true however - if a white person kills a black person, they are less likely to be put to death than if they kill a white person. In the end, a person who kills a white person is more likely to be put to death than one who kills a black person.

Lowering the cost is also not easy. The only way to do so would be to limit a person's right to appeals and so forth - something which a justice system that values innocent life cannot do in good conscience.

As for the ast argument, I'm not even going to bother addressing it beyond stating two simple words: secular state.

But secret the question was not how can a secular state have the death penalty now was it?

:D

Sodom and Gamora? The Great flood of 40 days and 40 nights? Noah?

You realize that according to the bible, if a man works on the sabbath, he is to be stoned to death by the town he lives in?

You know according to the bible that its ok to own slaves as long as they are bought from a neighboring country?

These sound like non violent actions not only condoned by your god but acted out by your god?





Being stoned to death sounds like the death penalty to me! So I can totally see how christians can say that its completely ok.

I am completely against the death penalty. If there is a God, he does not need us to do His judging for him. It is not our place.

Maybe I'm just naive about our justice system, but if someone makes a successful appeal, isn't the idea behind that that they are probably innocent (or at least there is a chance of it)? It's silly to try to kill someone before they get a chance to appeal, because that increases the chance of taking the life of someone who didn't commit the crime. (Spoken as though I thought it was okay to kill someone who did.)

Thank God the story doesn't end there. That's really the first thing that i think when i read those stories.

The bible is vastly influenced by our perception of God...and in many of the instances you mentioned, i read more in to the white spaces than the text itself. one text condones slavery...but the whole exodus story, THE story of the Torah, condemns slavery for what it does to both master and slave. again and again, the people are reminded of their servitude in egypt...and what that might mean for them now. and eventually...they get it.

the death penalty is similar...long endorsed in scripture, and confronted later on in scripture. When God chose what kind of violence God would confront in the incarnation...i think it is very telling that it was the death penalty. if God's Christ was killed and raised from battle...i don't think we'd have gotten the message. but God looks at the violence we keep very close to home. we might try to dress it up, cover it over, and push it to the ghettos and margins. but in the end, it's right next door...its the violence we try to keep as a pet, to make our lives easier. there can be no mistake in that God subjects God's self to the shame, pain and destruction that we called justice. how we would ever think to kill someone in cold blood in the name of "justice" every again...it's beyond me.

none of this is simple...that much is true. but since the beginning, we've known we don't have the whole story. but we can thank God that the story will never end with what we know.

To be honest with you, I would have to say thats a completely solid arguement there Martinguerre.

My matters of opinion differ quite a bit but hell, I won't argue with yours either. Very well done.

What do you think of ...

by chance?

In my experience, there is no single "Christian" bible, but rather an endless version of interpretations. The beauty of these books is in the vague nature of them, and the ability of believers to choose what is said within, depending on what they already believe.
That said, Murder can be considered ok, or forbidden, depending on what you decide to read into the scriptures, and is therefor (like pretty much everything else) left in the hands of Church leaders. Really the only aspect of these texts which is not open to interpretation is the need to worship the entity purported to have written them.
Fortunately, Capital punishment is a function of the State, not the Church, and even the current administration is likely to keep this line intact.

But isnt this the fundamental flaw of christianity? That one person can interpret it one way, and its ok, but another person can interpret it another way and its no longer ok to do. How is it possible to follow christianity in this manner? All that difference, and thats not even branching into the different catholic/lutheran/methodist etc..

Christianity confuses me to no end because its simply, you make it however you want to, which I can't understand.

Not to say its not cool for someone else, but its just not for me

menoman-the quote you pull is from the purity laws of the torah. i happen to think that they say a lot more when you don't enforce them...the people as they enter the land (modern day Isreal, Palestine) are trying to stay a people, and not simply blend in. The folks that try to assimilate are dealt with pretty harshly... (and that includes a ban on temple prostitution: a man not lying with a man...) point being that the motivation behind that is an attempt at cultural preservation in difficult circumstances. Anyhow.

fundamental flaw? i don't tend to see it that way. HR Niehbur, in his work Christ and Culture talks about how there have been multiple christianities since the very beginning...the whole thing swings back and forth over time. perhaps most importantly...we're a people searching out revelation...and so to try to come up with "One" answer invites not just tyrrany, but a lack of imagination. We have to have respect for the "unconcluded history" of the church. it's not ours to define...just ours to journey with. and as i posted before...it has always been Christian to hope for more light and truth to come to us.

i don't agree that it's however you want to make it. when i converted...i had a pretty solid idea of what i wanted to beleive in. now two years later...i think about the original checklist...and very little has made it. a few very important items, for sure, but i've realized that being in a community of belief is going to challenge me in a lot of ways i'd never thought of. when i struggle with something, i know that some of the most brilliant minds of western civilization have struggled with the same...and so in contact with their voices and writings, i'm pushed much farther than i would have been any other way. i agree...there are many ways to read any passage. but at it's best, Christianity is about considering and wrestling with all the options, not just picking one.

As MartinGuerre points out, Christianity has long seen itself as part of a history of progressive revelation; it's not that God changes, but that our understanding of God develops and becomes more...well, I don't want to say sophisticated or accurate, but different. God relates to cultures as they are, and so he relates to more primitive cultures differently than he does to more 'developed' cultures.

That sounds more like an excuse to me. God is seems different here or a time X because the people are different.

What that says to me is god is just a reflection of a societies values and as those values change they will change the image of their god to fit.

I was speaking in terms of a guilty person getting off on account of a technicality or such. And just because someone is found innocent by a judge or jury of a crime, does not mean that are innocent of the crime, sometimes it just means that they could not be proven guilty. Plus people do make mistakes, and it goes both ways, guilty parties can be found innocent. And a justice system that finds the guilty innocent is just as bad as one that finds the innocent guilty.

SecretMethod70,
A person appealing a life sentence can have court costs just as high as a person appealing a death sentence. As far as I can tell, keeping a person in prison for 15 years or so and then killing them is a lot cheaper then keeping them in prison for 50+ years. The actual shot cannot cost enough to make up the difference. So unless I'm missing some extra expenses in there, I think I stick with the death penalty being cheaper.

The fact that it costs more to put someone to death than to put them in prison for life is a well-known fact - something I've known since I was in gradeschool. There is a whole slew of information here for starters: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=108&scid=7

This is ENTIRELY contrary to the design of our justice system and patently false IMO. The whole purpose of a justice system is to protect the innocent - through giving them proper justice and through actions against the guilty. If innocent people are then being incarcerated and, worse yet, KILLED by the very justice system that is supposed to protect them, it does not work. An innocent life IS more valuable than a guilty life (something which you must agree to in order to support the death penalty) and, thus, one cannot accept the killing of innocent life as a trade-off for the taking of a guilty life.

Extremely well put....Couldn't agree more.

It's not "patently" false, the entire point of the justice system is to protect the innocent. If the justice system finds the guilty innocent and lets them back out on the street to commit more crimes, then it is no longer protecting them. An innocent killed by a released murderer(or an escaped one) is just as dead as one wrongfully sent to death row. And therefore one is just as bad as the other.

And no I do not have to agree that an innocent life is more valuable then a guilty one, I could just like the idea of people being killed(I'm joking here, but to make a point).

i'll add a third.

mageB...there's a pretty strong difference between the two parts of your example. one death is the responsibility of a single person. the other is the responsbility of the entire nation. i think you can guess which is which.

while letting murderers go free is obviously repugnant...it is not a just decision to randomly administer death in response.

How is sentencing someone to death for a serious crime(murder 1 and serial rape) randomly adminstering death? :confused:

I'm just saying that the only way to ensure that a person will not be able to murder or rape again is to kill them.

And we are just saying....You better be Damn sure (as in 100%) they are guilty, before you kill them.

"Judge not lest ye be judged" comes to mind. I mean, who are we to take a life on purpose? Chuck 'em in jail, give em psychotherapy, whatever.

I just can't see Jesus endorsing the death penalty. He might take it personally, what with being innocent and crucified and all.

Well, I actually think he was guilty of what the Romans where charging him with, whether or not it warranted crucifiction is another matter.

Anyone remember the name of the short story where God was used as a witness only to determine if someone should go to hell and men did the judging? The concept was god being all knowing, understanding and forgiving would never be able to send someone to hell so men did the job.

Its sort of an interesting take on the whole thing, and points out some of the conflict between the vengeful god of the old testament and the hippie god of the new testament.

I've never been so sure you really weren't reading either carefully.

Guess the Testament.

Oh my! This is a doozy of a topic. Isn't it?
My take?

God has allowed, appointed, placed secular governments to be His instruments of justice on this earth. In as much as a government institutes the death penalty, it is that government acting in what it believes to be the best interest of the nation or tribe or whatever. Are human institutions able to be completely impartial and objective about their decisions and punishments? No. Humans are rather subjective in their approach to just about everything. Is the American justice system perfect? No more so than any other justice system in the world. We have judges passing sentances because they have their own particular issue with the crime that was (or was not) committed. One judge may view a crime as extremely terrible where another judge views some other crime as worse.

I belive that God prefers mercy to justice, forgiveness to vengance. I had a similar discussion the other day. Law suits that involve millions of dollars for "pain and mental anguish" or for "pain and suffering". No amount of money can erase what has happened, bring back our loved one, restore our sense of security or self confidence. Only God can bring about true healing and restoration. Would God have pardoned Hitler if he had a sincere change of heart on his death bed? Only God can know what is in someone's heart, if they're truely repentant.

Is it wrong for an earthly government to put criminals to death? That is for the elected officials to determine. If you don't like the stance of the current administration, loby and campaign to put someone in office who supports the ideals you hold dear.

The way I see it is you can go to either of two extremes. It's either "Kill them all and let God sort them out" or "wait on God to exact justice as He sees fit". Either way, innocent people will die. I don't think there is any way around that until we live in a society where God is the one and only rulling body and all justice is exacted by Him and Him alone. In war we call in collateral damage. I think all of life is a war. A war against death. A war against evil. A war against injustice. A war against indifference. There's collateral damage in every war.

Here some really hard questions.

Is a police officer guilty of murder if he shoots someone he is convinced is about to shoot someone else, himself, even? What if the person who got shot was never intending to shoot anyone? The courts will examine the evidence and if the police officer is found to have acted in the best possible way considering the information at hand, he will most likely not be prosecuted.

How about a bomber pilot who was given incorrect coordinates for his bombing run? Is he guilty for the murder of the school children that just happend to be in a "chemical weapons plant"?

Here's one. Who is innocent? Do you believe in orriginal sin?

I've got much more to say, but I must be running along now.

One final thought. Christianity isn't the only religion subject to interpretation. There are muslims in Iraq killing western infidels because their interpretation of the Koran says they should. Some of those they are killing may be muslims from USA, Britain or another allied country who's interpretation of the Koran says that the terrorists are wrong. Think about it...

Christians supporting the death penalty is just another example showing that christians don't actually get their sense of morality from a book. They go with what they feel and then attempt to justify it via their religion. Given that the bible is so ambigious and is (apparently) symbolic and metaphorical in places where it is decidedly un-ambigious, it is easy to justify just about anything, given the right spin.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Indeed. I like taking a Vash-the-Stampede-don't-need-to-kill-anybody approach to these things, but maybe I'm too idealistic. Still, killing a sentient being, taking away their future... I just don't think it's right. Anyone can change; who are we to kill them?

Without the death penalty, Christianity would not exist. Think about it.

Better the death penalty than life in prison.

Hey, life in prison you get to read books, think, watch TV, whatever. I would vastly prefer life in prison over the death penalty, even solitary confinement.