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.

My personal stance on the death penalty is that, it may be less expensive to execute a criminal instead of giving them 20+ years of public welfare in a penetentiary (3 meals a day, a warm dry bed, safety from death or bodily injury (relatively speaking, a new girlfriend named "Bubba" doesn't count), however as an optimist or humanist (whatever you want to call it) I believe that somewhere deep inside, people want to do what is right. Killing them doesn't give them the chance to change. Whatever the Old Testament says, Jesus taught that "he who is without sin..." and "love your enemies" and the rest that would indicate to me that capital punishment was a concession for the Hebrew people for that time in their history. Since Jesus came to fulfill the law, his teachings should hold more weight than what came before. I'm not going to go into the apparent inconsistencies here between Old Testament Law and New Testament teachings. Jesus taught that grace and mercy are better than judgement and vengence. Killing a convict, no matter how heinous the crime leaves little room for grace and mercy and no chance for that life to be redeemed. I'd rather leave that decision to God. I certainly don't want the responsibility for that choice. I think perhaps that more people would be against capital punishment if the alternative were more effective. There is not enough effort put into rehabilitating prison inmates. I like the line from Shawshank Redemption where he states that he wasn't a criminal until he spent time in prison. I think our prison system has failed us in that instead of turning criminals into productive citizens, it just removes the criminal from society for a time only to release a criminal back into society at a later date. In my time here on earth learning about God and humanity, I think that Jesus would be for rehabilitation and against capital punishment.

Well, it's difficult to build social theory directly on scripture, since scripture is directed primarily at individuals rather than states. Jesus taught that we should forgive our enemies, but that clearly doesn't entail the same thing for the state as it does for us. The state has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and this sometimes involves going after and killing its enemies rather than forgiving them. I doubt anyone thinks that the judicial system would be better off if judges simply forgave criminals.

The difficulty with rehabilitation is that, if it is our only theory of punishment, we end up treating criminals as if they were sick, rather than as if they were criminals. This would imply that we treat the criminal until they are 'better'. And who decides when the criminal is 'better'? Naturally I don't mean to suggest that rehabilitation shouldn't be a goal of the justice system, only that it shouldn't be the only or even the most important goal.

Isn't the real question here related to the "deterrent" that the death penalty is often purported to have? I don't want to argue the point of whether or not that works or not. But just to clarify - two broad thoughts are:

1. Humans act as a judge in enforcing "God's laws". You killed, so we kill you. Taking the religious slant, its not our place to judge, which would be a world with no immediate consequences for killing indiscrimenently; we'll just let God deal with you later.


2. Since we need immediate consequences (whether its a deterrent or prevention) we justify our killing. Doesn't this imply a lack of faith? After all, if we REALLY have faith in God, wouldn't we leave the judgement up to him?

Honestly - I don't care either way. Some may conclude that this makes me a faithless pagan or someone without morals, but truthfully - my "religious" beliefs are that humans will always be human...further than that is too far off topic to even start here.

The death penalty in biblical theology should have ended in the Old Testament where bassically you were put to death for nearly everything. Jesus brought mercy into the timeline and to the guidelines of his followers. Therefore in the preachings of the New Testament that Christians now adhere to the death penalty would be wrong.

Well, here's my two bits.

I am Christian, and am not in favour of the death penalty, aka capital punishment.

The reason however is because of the possibility of an innocent life being taken in the pursuit of the guilty. The Bible specifically authorizes the Rule of Law and in many places advocates the use of the death penalty. It is not a forbidden punishment under the tenets of Christianity.

If we could be 100% certain that only the guilty would suffer the ultimate toll for their crimes, I think I would have to reconsider my position.

-pause-

The offenders who would likely be penalized in such fashion would be some of the most expensive to society in terms of 'upkeep'.

The possibility exists that their crimes are the result of some mental condition that is curable.

Someone who breaks the law may still be rehabilitated and make a meaningful contribution to society.

Nope - still against it. It's the optimist in me that suggests that we can be reasonably sure that an offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated to be released before they are. AND, that tells me that the process isn't going to be interfered with politically, but of course that is not the case in reality. Political interference - yet another excellent CON in the argument for capital punishment.

Here's are a few scenarios:
1.Put yourself on death row for a crime you didn't commit. Is the death penalty still a good idea? Would you sacrifice yourself and your family's time with you for this perceived benefit?

2.You're on death row, and you're guilty. You killed your daughter, who was severely mentally and physically handicapped, and suffered excruciating pain every day of her life. She had the cognitive ability of a six month old child, and there was no hope of any improvement, ever. You also happen to be a doctor - say, a geneticist. One who, if released, eventually has an epiphany and comes up with a cure for -insert terrible illness here-. Is society better off with you dead, or contributing to its benefit?

3.You're on death row. You're guilty. You're poor, uneducated, genetically challenged and we are all quite certain you'll never make any meaningful direct contribution to society. You cost the taxpayers $80000 per year for your incarceration. Should you be put to death?
Now, it's a year after 'the date'. You're alive, and talking with a psychologist. She realizes what caused you to do the crimes you did, and effects a cure that can prevent any future person from being subjected to that particular causal effect.
Oops, sorry - you're dead. No psychologist after all.
Is society better off?

Capital punishment is a lose - lose scenario, and the problems with it are not religious in nature. As a Christian, I am neither for nor against the death penalty. As a member of our society, I am steadfastly opposed.

My support of the death sentance has nothing to do with religous reasons....its simple that if someone wants to do somthing that merits a death sentence and maybe in some farfetched way affect me then they can go right on ahead and die.....because like it or not no matter what i say i know that where 1 leaders other will follow thus....why through myself infront of a horde? There simple is no reason.....anouther reason for my support of it comes from the quote. "Catch the ill'ness before it catches someone else and eliminate it."

it seems that many pro death penalty people identify themselves as christian
God gave life, and commanded that it shall not be taken. Unless there was some fine print or an asterisk next to that commandment I'd say that "no" to the death penalty should be pretty cut and dried to a christian. This commandment is presented as sufficient to ban abortion. Now of course if you were to point out that the bible says something else, now that would be contradictory and thus imperfect... slippery slope
If you say you live by the word of God, you can't treat the Bible like a pick and choose buffet.
-Just stirring up thought and debate, honestly not meant to offend anyone

portereight: I am against the death penalty, however, the english translation of the commandment you refer to is quite poor. A better translation is "thou shalt not take innocent life" i.e. "thou shalt not murder" as opposed to "thou shalt not kill."

I'm against the death penalty, and Christian, but that commandment is a weak argument against it.

I'm gonna have to agree with SecretMethod on the interpretation of the commandment. As a Christian, if two portions of scripture seem to contradict each other it is most likely that my understanding of one or both of them is erroneous. In one "breath" God states that murder is against His will. Later, he states that the penalty for breaking most of the commandments is death. Who fulfills the sentence? The same people who are supposed to be obeying the command not to murder. Now either God is crazy (that would be blasphemous, wouldn't it?) or our understanding of God's definition of murder is wrong. God commanded Isreal to commit what comes down to genocide when they were cleaning out the rabble in the promised land. God commanded that adultery and other transgressions are punishable by death. Since it would be blasphemous to say that God is contradicting himself, we must assume that war and capital punishment are not necessarily covered under the command not to murder.

Now I also agree that Jesus commanded us that grace is better than judgement (am I repeating myself here?).

Who makes the decision when a criminal is reformed? That's what parole boards and hearings are for. I feel that there are instances where a crime is so bad that the sentance should not include an option for parole. I feel that the penal system is too cushy. Not that a maximum security prison is realy comparable to club med, but they should be as close to the line to being inhuman as is possible without crossing it. A punishment should be a punishment, not a vacation. Lose the cable TV, lose the weight room and the exercise equipment. I think hard manual labor isn't a bad idea. It keeps boredom away, provides some benefit to society and doesn't provide the comforts that club fed do now. I think it's possible to protect our citizens without removing the possibility of reform fom the equation. The fact that most criminals get three hot meals, a warm dry place to sleep and protection from harm doesn't seem like much of a punishment, especially if they are sitting around, watching cable, working out, getting all buff and thinking about how they're gonna get back at the weasel who landed them in the pen anyway. Lets get them talking about their crime, convince them why it was wrong (beyond the fact that they got caught and locked up). It seems obvious that the penalty for many crimes is not adequate in and of itself to deter people from committing them especially if they have a twisted or absent sense of morality to begin with. The penal system should be trying to instill this sense of morality where it is lacking and correcting it where it is twisted. For that matter, if our public schools were doing some of that, would there be as many criminals as there are now?

I guess that's a bit of a hot question, so I'll let someone else talk.

How I do go on.... blah, blah, blah...

" If you say you live by the word of God, you can't treat the Bible like a pick and choose buffet."

No...such disregard would be unhealthy. But so too would be to try to eliminate any critical evaluation of what passages mean. I find it very frustrating to see people argue against a fundamentalist strawman, and then claim it's the only legitimate Christianity. I should know...i used to do it myself.

The point i'd like to make is that Christianity is not unthinking acceptance...saying the Bible is scripture will not make it a self-interpreting document. Do not be careless with it, that's for sure. But do not be thoughtless, either.

I'm sorry, but while the "Kill them All, Let God Sort 'em Out" slogan makes for a great t-shirt, as a personal philosophy I find it abhorant.

I am a Christian and opposed to the death penalty on philosophical grounds.

In essence, it is potentially not only a death sentence on their life, but a sentence to Hell as well, since they will never have a chance to redeem their lives.

I am not under the dillusion that every inmate "finds Jesus", but it does happen.

So long as they are locked away forever, this is sufficient for me.

I'm pretty sure they won't get much of a chance to redeem themselves while behind bars. It might matter to god whether you repent or not, but it sure as hell won't matter to the victims and society, who are really only concerned with the fact that they commited a crime in the first place.

"it sure as hell won't matter to the victims and society, who are really only concerned"

This thread is disussing that issue...so i wouldn't treat it as a foregone conclusion.

The justice system's job isn't to exact revenge on behalf of victims and their families, it is to punish and/or rehabilitate the person who committed the crime in such a way as to protect society. Removing the person from society for life is the most that is necessary to achieve this.

If it was somewhat more likely that the criminal would escape, I can easily see the death penalty being justfied. Better that the criminal should die than that he should escape and kill more innocent people. But given the fact that our jails are pretty secure, I don't think it's justified.

What is punishment if not revenge on behalf of society as a whole?
Exactly what the death penalty does.

Punishment is a reasonable penalty imposed for wrongdoing. Revenge is an act driven by emotions and irrationality. Aside for that, I think I can state what I mean a bit better: the primary duty of prisons is to PROTECT society by removing the criminal, then to work to rehabilitate the criminal, and it's final, and least important duty, is to "punish" the criminal.

And, yes, the death penalty DOES remove the person from society for their life. But life imprisonment does so just as well now. Prison escapes are rediculously rare enough, let alone escapes by people who are spending their life in prison or are on death row.

Umm? Cleaning the dishes and shooting them with a 12 gauge. Both remove grease...

I'm sorry...but there's a call to be proportional. If the goal is to remove a threat from society, we are not called to use the most lethal means available.

Oddly secret I don't see Libertarians as the type to have a giant prison system.

Most to me seem to want 'justice' and justice may well be the death of the criminal.

Since most criminals sit on death row for at LEAST a decade, and on average approxmiately twenty years, along with numerous other costs of the death penalty, death row inmates are costlier than normal inmates. If it was just "guilty, out you go, now kill them", then it would be cheaper; the United States' current system is not.

The main difficulty in administering the death penalty from my point of view is that it is final. If someone is found to be innocent afterwards, you cannot release them from death. It's basically "Whoops, our bad. Sorry we killed somebody because we're a bunch of fuckups". At least with life imprisonment, those who are wrongfully convicted can have a chance of being freed in due time; similarily it can go with those who committed lesser crimes but are inaccurately convicted of more serious crimes, and those who do become repentant.

It would also be cheaper to just have prisoners live in prison towns, where they would be forced to farm and work to sustain themselves, rather than having everything handed to them on a plate. You can still run a total institution without feeding and clothing people and attending to them like children.

The problem with a person sucessfully appealing a conviction being? so much better to kill them first, ask questions later, no?