The death penalty and Christianity - how does that work?

[nnmartin]

It seems as if quite a few Christian areas and followers support the death penalty.

How can that be the case if it actually goes against the Commandment of 'thou shalt not kill'

wouldn't life imprisonment be more in line with the theology here?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Many Christians will point to Genesis 9:6

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

 

[Straw Dog]

It seems as if quite a few Christian areas and followers support the death penalty.

How can that be the case if it actually goes against the Commandment of 'thou shalt not kill'

wouldn't life imprisonment be more in line with the theology here?

I don't know. You would think many would be against it, or at least very hesitant to implement it, considering Jesus himself was falsely tried and executed.

 

[nnmartin]

Many Christians will point to Genesis 9:6

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

But in one of my other recent threads, it seemed to be made out that OT law had been passed over with the coming of Jesus.

Therefore, this part of Genesis cannot be used as justification.

 

[Straw Dog]

But in one of my other recent threads, it seemed to be made out that OT law had been passed over with the coming of Jesus.

Therefore, this part of Genesis cannot be used as justification.

What we don't understand, we can make mean anything.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It seems as if quite a few Christian areas and followers support the death penalty.

How can that be the case if it actually goes against the Commandment of 'thou shalt not kill'

wouldn't life imprisonment be more in line with the theology here?

It's interesting that you aim this thread towards Christians instead of "Christians and Jews"...

But I'll take a stab at this... the commandment is "thou shalt not murder". Hebrew has a different word for "kill" and "murder".

Captial punishment being the lawful penalty for a capital crime, executing the death penalty is not considered murder.

 

[nnmartin]

So if it were lawful to execute people back in ancient times for adultery and homosexuality, then why can we not do that now?

 

[Poisonshady313]

So if it were lawful to execute people back in ancient times for adultery and homosexuality, then why can we not do that now?

Because the process for doing so is very complicated, and was very rarely carried out. And now that there is no Sanhedrin, Jews don't have the authority to execute those who violate capital offenses as described by the Torah.

 

[nnmartin]

ok, fair enough.

perhaps you know why Christians can execute people?

certainly in the past and also still today in some places, we have the death penalty for various sins.

 

[Sleeppy]

The Christian life is one of sacrifice. Most people will have a hard time with this.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever may will to save his life, shall lose it, and whoever may lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew 5:43-48 `Ye heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and shalt hate thine enemy; but I -- I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you, that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous. `For, if ye may love those loving you, what reward have ye? do not also the tax-gatherers the same? and if ye may salute your brethren only, what do ye abundant? do not also the tax-gatherers so? ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who [is] in the heavens is perfect.

 

[ankarali]

The death penalty is the real justice if you kill someone you also must be killed. This is the real equality

If somebody kill your child what you will do? I ask you this question. According to you the life imprisonment will be ok for this murderer?

No, of course no

So I acclaim and felicitate USA and other countries applying death penalty but
I am disappointed with European countries and my country

The aim is to block crimes if you don't give hard penalties there will be many crimes

Many Christians will point to Genesis 9:6

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The death penalty is the real justice if you kill someone you also must be killed. This is the real equality

If somebody kill your child what you will do? I ask you this question. According to you the life imprisonment will be ok for this murderer?

Yes

The aim is to block crimes if you don't give hard penalties there will be many crimes

88% of expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any effect on the rate of violent crime. SOURCE

And the US has a higher rate of intentional murder than European countries with no death penalty in most cases.

Intentional homicide rate per 100,000.
(The darker blues indicate higher rates)

SOURCE




I would rather a guilty man be imprisoned for life than for one wrongly convicted man to be executed.

 

[Tarheeler]

I would rather a guilty man be imprisoned for life than for one wrongly convicted man to be executed.

This is where I'm at. I have little issue with a death sentence for specific crimes (the within reason). But there are extremely few instances where guilt can be absolutely proven, and I think it is wrong to kill a man based on circumstantial evidence and how good of a lawyer he could hire. I'd much rather see him imprisoned for life, where he can be released if new evidence proves his innocence, than to kill the wrong person.

As for the OP, people who are conservative Christians also tend to be politically conservative. This is one issue where it is likely that it is the political orientation is an intervening varible with considerable influence on their position.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't know how they reconcile their support for the death penalty with the verses that say you shouldn't return evil with evil.

The death penalty is homicide plain and simple.

 

[Vultar]

I agree with CynthiaCypher, too many excuses have been made throughout history to justify killing. it just needs to simply stop. Not having a death penalty is a good start... (lead by example)

 

[Poisonshady313]

88% of expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any effect on the rate of violent crime. SOURCE

That's entirely irrelevant. Mostly because with the exception of Texas, Virginia, and a small handful of other states, the death penalty is already virtually non-existent in this country. Those "experts" are basing their beliefs on what is, rather than what should be, or even what could be. The death penalty could very well be a deterrent if it were used more consistently, more frequently, and more efficiently. Wouldn't even have to sacrifice caution or accuracy. The trouble is, even if it were some sort of deterrent.... and even if it currently is some sort of deterrent, such a thing would be impossible to know.

You cannot actually measure a deterrent effect because you don't know how the population will change, or if people in a given year are going to generally be happier and less likely to commit murder. You don't know how much murder to expect next year, so you can't know why the rate might be higher or lower.

The death penalty might very well indeed be a deterrent, but with a smaller population the next year and a fewer number of murders, the murder rate could indeed still be higher than the previous year. So the numbers as you and your experts would like to see them are not being used in a meaningful way.

And the US has a higher rate of intentional murder than European countries with no death penalty in most cases.

You just said "88% of expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any effect on the rate of violent crime." Now you're saying that abolition would reduce the death penalty? If you're saying that the death penalty is a cause for higher murder rates (which is absurd), then you are contradicting your claim that abolition would have no effect on the crime rate.

If it's just a fun fact and has no relevance regarding the murder rate, then it is irrelevant and need not be mentioned.

As long as you're asking questions, why not consider this...

How do you explain why Michigan, a state without the death penalty, has a consistently higher murder rate than Texas, the state that leads the nation in number of executions (It's total number, 482 since 1976 is higher than the combined totals of the next six death penalty states. )?

Or how about the fact that Louisiana, with only 28 executions since 1976, consistently has a higher murder rate than Texas (482 executions), Virginia (109), Oklahoma (98), Florida (73), Missouri (68), Alabama (55), Georgia (52), Ohio (47), North Carolina (43), South Carolina (43) and Arizona (31)?

I'm sure you could put together a couple of states that demonstrate the opposite conclusion.

Could it be that there are more factors at play than just the death penalty?

I would rather a guilty man be imprisoned for life than for one wrongly convicted man to be executed.

Would you also rather one wrongly convicted man be imprisoned for life than a guilty man go free?

Take the chance that an innocent man won't be exonerated and that he'll die in prison?

As for the guilty man... history proves that a life sentence isn't always a life sentence. There's escape, parole, pardon, commuted sentences.

Would you sacrifice the lives of the innocent victims of convicted murderers who should still be in prison to save the rare individual who slips through the cracks of the capital punishment system to be wrongly executed?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I don't know how they reconcile their support for the death penalty with the verses that say you shouldn't return evil with evil.

The death penalty is homicide plain and simple.

Not all homicide is murder.

Like self defense, for example.
Or vehicular manslaughter.
Or executing murderers.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's entirely irrelevant. Mostly because with the exception of Texas, Virginia, and a small handful of other states, the death penalty is already virtually non-existent in this country. Those "experts" are basing their beliefs on what is, rather than what should be, or even what could be. The death penalty could very well be a deterrent if it were used more consistently, more frequently, and more efficiently. Wouldn't even have to sacrifice caution or accuracy. The trouble is, even if it were some sort of deterrent.... and even if it currently is some sort of deterrent, such a thing would be impossible to know.

You cannot actually measure a deterrent effect because you don't know how the population will change, or if people in a given year are going to generally be happier and less likely to commit murder. You don't know how much murder to expect next year, so you can't know why the rate might be higher or lower.

The death penalty might very well indeed be a deterrent, but with a smaller population the next year and a fewer number of murders, the murder rate could indeed still be higher than the previous year. So the numbers as you and your experts would like to see them are not being used in a meaningful way.



You just said "88% of expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any effect on the rate of violent crime." Now you're saying that abolition would reduce the death penalty? If you're saying that the death penalty is a cause for higher murder rates (which is absurd), then you are contradicting your claim that abolition would have no effect on the crime rate.

If it's just a fun fact and has no relevance regarding the murder rate, then it is irrelevant and need not be mentioned.

As long as you're asking questions, why not consider this...

How do you explain why Michigan, a state without the death penalty, has a consistently higher murder rate than Texas, the state that leads the nation in number of executions (It's total number, 482 since 1976 is higher than the combined totals of the next six death penalty states. )?

Or how about the fact that Louisiana, with only 28 executions since 1976, consistently has a higher murder rate than Texas (482 executions), Virginia (109), Oklahoma (98), Florida (73), Missouri (68), Alabama (55), Georgia (52), Ohio (47), North Carolina (43), South Carolina (43) and Arizona (31)?

I'm sure you could put together a couple of states that demonstrate the opposite conclusion.

Could it be that there are more factors at play than just the death penalty?



Would you also rather one wrongly convicted man be imprisoned for life than a guilty man go free?

Take the chance that an innocent man won't be exonerated and that he'll die in prison?

As for the guilty man... history proves that a life sentence isn't always a life sentence. There's escape, parole, pardon, commuted sentences.

Would you sacrifice the lives of the innocent victims of convicted murderers who should still be in prison to save the rare individual who slips through the cracks of the capital punishment system to be wrongly executed?

I am sure you know what is the motivation of leading criminologists.

I am not at all saying no capital punishment=lower violent crime.
That would be a false equivocation, not something I am fond of.
What I am saying is there is no evidence that capital punishment reduces violent crime.

And it is funny you should mention commuted sentences.
Wrongly convicted people are released every year due to new evidence, DNA profiles, and legal misconduct.

Good thing we didn't get around to killing them first....
The Innocence Project - Home

 

[Poisonshady313]

I am sure you know what is the motivation of leading criminologists.

There is no way to know how many murders are supposed to be committed in a certain place during a certain period of time. Not even if you know how many murders were committed in that place during a previous period of time. They can state their beliefs based on how the numbers have changed from one year to the next. But it's not meaningful if there are other factors that affect the murder rate.

What I am saying is there is no evidence that capital punishment reduces violent crime.

What I am saying is that's a trivial statement. There is no evidence that capital punishment doesn't reduce violent crime.

Without evidence one way or the other, it's not worth being mentioned.

I support the death penalty, and I never use "reduces violent crime" as an argument.

I prefer "stops convicted murderers from murdering again more effectively than life imprisonment, because a life sentence on paper isn't always a life sentence in reality."

If Kenneth McDuff had been kept on death row and eventually executed, 11 of his 13 victims wouldn't have been murdered. Why was his death sentence commuted to life? The Supreme Court put a moratorium on capital punishment. He was released from a life sentence due to prison over-crowding. Couldn't have happened if he were dead, or if he had remained on death row.

And it is funny you should mention commuted sentences.
Wrongly convicted people are released every year due to new evidence, DNA profiles, and legal misconduct.

That means the safeguards we have in place work. If wrongly convicted people are being released, they're not being executed, are they?

 

[tumbleweed41]

What I am saying is that's a trivial statement. There is no evidence that capital punishment doesn't reduce violent crime.

I prefer to ere on the side of innocence.

I support the death penalty, and I never use "reduces violent crime" as an argument.

I prefer "stops convicted murderers from murdering again more effectively than life imprisonment, because a life sentence on paper isn't always a life sentence in reality."

If Kenneth McDuff had been kept on death row and eventually executed, 11 of his 13 victims wouldn't have been murdered. Why was his death sentence commuted to life? The Supreme Court put a moratorium on capital punishment. He was released from a life sentence due to prison over-crowding. Couldn't have happened if he were dead, or if he had remained on death row.

His release should have never happened. I agree.

However...

That means the safeguards we have in place work. If wrongly convicted people are being released, they're not being executed, are they?

15 People Who Were Jailed and/or Executed, Then Found Innocent | Raw Justice

The State should never have the right to execute the innocent. And since the system is not perfect, capital criminals should be kept locked up.