Carrying out the death penalty

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Today, just after 6 in the evening, Missouri executed prisoner Ernest Lee Johnson, who is intellectually challenged. (This has led many people to presume that the execution is unconstitutional, although SCOTUS declined to grant a stay). Members of Congress and the Pope requested that he not be put to death, though he did murder three people during a 1994 robbery.

I am still implacably opposed to the death penalty. I do not, I cannot understand how people who believe in a "merciful God" can reconcile their belief with their desire for such a revenge.

Debate or don't, I don't care. Americans tire me out.

 

[Nakosis]

Today, just after 6 in the evening, Missouri executed prisoner Ernest Lee Johnson, who is intellectually challenged. (This has led many people to presume that the execution is unconstitutional, although SCOTUS declined to grant a stay). Members of Congress and the Pope requested that he not be put to death, though he did murder three people during a 1994 robbery.

I am still implacably opposed to the death penalty. I do not, I cannot understand how people who believe in a "merciful God" can reconcile their belief with their desire for such a revenge.

Debate or don't, I don't care. Americans tire me out.

I also don't agree with the death penalty.
I've been told it is a matter of justice and closure for the victim's family. I have had a hard time seeing it as anything other than vengeance.

 

[Glaurung]

I am still implacably opposed to the death penalty. I do not, I cannot understand how people who believe in a "merciful God" can reconcile their belief with their desire for such a revenge.

It's quite easy actually. The Church these days argues that the intrinsic value of human life renders the death penalty impermissible, but I would counter that if you truly believe human life is sacred then the death penalty makes perfect sense as a matter of justice. There is no restitution to be made on the murder of three people but the destruction of the perpetrator's own earthly life. Precisely because human life is inviolable. Vengeance is a legitimate aspect of justice and anything less implicitly denies the inviolability of the victims' lives.

In my personal opinion I'm not saying that the U.S. should have the death penalty, but I find the argument that Christian principles forbid it unconvincing. Be it come from atheists on the internet or pope Francis.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no restitution to be made on the murder of three people but the destruction of the perpetrator's own earthly life. Precisely because human life is inviolable. Vengeance is a legitimate aspect of justice.

I wonder that you cannot see the huge logical disconnect in your own words.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The death penalty ultimately resolves and fixes nothing. It's another death, another family losing a loved one, just a horrible excuse to be a killer and advocate killing while trying (in vein) to be clean of further violence. It is revenge, it is vengeance, it is not justice.

 

[Glaurung]

I wonder that you cannot see the huge logical disconnect in your own words.

There is no disconnect at all. That (innocent) human life is inviolable does not mean those guilty of profound evil against the social good cannot every be rightfully destroyed by the civil authority which carries the sword of the law. If human life is so sacred then our disgust at a man who as taken three should demand nothing less. Unless, of course, the murder of three people in cold blood isn't actually that much of a big deal after all.

Going back to Christianity for a moment. The Church argues that it has 'developed' in its understanding of human dignity. But I think the real reason is that it has gotten squeamish and condemning the death penalty is an easy way to get their much desired kudos from the secular liberal world.

But, if the Church really believes in the immortal soul (unlike the people they are so desperate to please) then it should know the premature loss of physical life is far from the worst thing that can happen to a person.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm against the death penalty because of the evidence that it doesn't work as a deterrent, its historical record of enabling murder of innocents and political executions, and my belief in the priority of rehabilitation over retribution as a basis for justice.

However, my reasons for opposing the death penalty don't include the belief that all human life is absolutely equal in value, a notion I view as both unrealistic and morally questionable. I firmly believe that in some cases, specific people's actions indeed make their lives worth less than others'.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where you absolutely had to choose between saving the life of Charles Manson or Larry Nassar and the life of a child or someone who has never committed a felony. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hesitate to save the latter's life--and it is because I regard the former's actions as having reduced the value of their lives below that of people who haven't ruined another's life.

Another example is killing in self-defense: by supporting the act of shooting an armed robber or a criminal holding a gun to a hostage's head, we are implying that the life of the victim or hostage is worthier of saving than that of the criminal/aggressor. I see no reason to treat the two as having equal value, and I would go so far as to say it would be morally dubious and downplaying of the value of innocent life to do so.

The death penalty is misguided and often more harmful than beneficial, but the reasons for that, in my opinion, don't and shouldn't include idealistic mantras implying that the lives of deliberate, chronically offending serial killers or rapists are equal to those of someone who has never even physically harmed another person.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no disconnect at all. That (innocent) human life is inviolable does not mean those guilty of profound evil against the social good cannot every be rightfully destroyed by the civil authority which carries the sword of the law. If human life is so sacred then our disgust at a man who as taken three should demand nothing less. Unless, of course, the murder of three people in cold blood isn't actually that much of a big deal after all.

Funny, really, that you added that parenthetical "innocent," which did not exist in the post to which I replied. There, you merely said "human life is inviolable."

How easily we adjust our morals to suit our present prejudices. Ah, well, I guess that's what it is to be human.

Going back to Christianity for a moment. The Church argues that it has 'developed' in its understanding of human dignity. But I think the real reason is that it has gotten squeamish and condemning the death penalty is an easy way to get their much desired kudos from the secular liberal world.

Or perhaps it's possible that even the Church can learn and grow. The election of Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII), and John Paul I (Albino Luciani) may be examples. And, in my view, Jorge Mario Borgoglio (Francis I) may well be examples of the Church struggling to do exactly that.

But, if the Church really believes in the immortal soul (unlike the people they are so desperate to please) then it should know the premature loss of physical life is far from the worse thing that can happen to a person. Heck, Aquinas argued the death penalty can be medicinal, as facing imminent death may drive a person to repentance which then leads to the saving of that persons immortal soul.

This, in my personal view, is the very ugliest part of the Christian religion. How easily we've been able to condemn people to death over the millenia, because we presumed (without evidence) that there was lots more after that.

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." said Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric (military commander of the Crusades) in the assault on Béziers. We may translate that, I think, as "kill then, for the Lord knows who is his."

 

[Debater Slayer]

Also, it seems to me that the Catholic Church may well be exercising inconsistent posturing in this case. The same organization whose policies regarding reproductive rights and birth control, LGBT issues, and child abuse have contributed to large-scale suffering for decades is now pretending to believe in the "sacredness of all human life." Perhaps the Church should focus more on addressing its continuing contribution to suffering if it wants to opine on the "sacredness of all life" in any serious capacity.

The Vatican and two members of Congress from Missouri had urged Parson to grant clemency.

“His Holiness wishes to place before you the simple fact of Mr. Johnson’s humanity and the sacredness of all human life,” Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the Vatican’s ambassador to the United States, wrote on Oct 1.

It seems that the Catholic Church believes in the sacredness of all human life--unless it is a victim of the HIV epidemic, a victim of the clergy's sex abuse scandals, or an LGBT person affected by outdated and harmful teachings from the Church.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Today, just after 6 in the evening, Missouri executed prisoner Ernest Lee Johnson, who is intellectually challenged. (This has led many people to presume that the execution is unconstitutional, although SCOTUS declined to grant a stay). Members of Congress and the Pope requested that he not be put to death, though he did murder three people during a 1994 robbery.

I am still implacably opposed to the death penalty. I do not, I cannot understand how people who believe in a "merciful God" can reconcile their belief with their desire for such a revenge.

Debate or don't, I don't care. Americans tire me out.

I'm not implacably opposed to the death penalty. I am...I dunno...reluctantly opposed?
The risk of mistakes is too great, and it has no proven deterrent value I'm aware of.
I wouldn't be supportive of it in any sense in this type of case, to be clear.

Dunno...no real point, but I'm neither American nor religious, so just thought it worth flagging that it might not be such a simple issue as that.

 

[Glaurung]

Funny, really, that you added that parenthetical "innocent," which did not exist in the post to which I replied. There, you merely said "human life is inviolable."

Yes, and you're missing the point. Human life is inviolable, so those who take it without good reason merit their destruction as a matter of justice. If human life is really that sacred than its deliberate (and unlawful) taking must be unforgivable.

Or perhaps it's possible that even the Church can learn and grow. The election of Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII), and John Paul I (Albino Luciani) may be examples. And, in my view, Jorge Mario Borgoglio (Francis I) may well be examples of the Church struggling to do exactly that.

It's one of the reasons I have become disillusioned with the Church. The Church claims to safeguard the faith (given once and for all time) and as such it cannot be altered by the whims of fashionable opinion. Yes, how that faith is understood and presented may have room for expansion and development, but the teaching of the Church can never come to mean the opposite of what was taught before. Truth cannot contradict truth.

So it is one thing for the Church to teach as a matter of prudence, that modern states should refrain from using the death penalty. It is another to teach that the death penalty is immoral in principle, which is a blatant reversal of previous teaching. If the Church was wrong about this one thing then what else is up for reversal... I mean 'development'?

This, in my personal view, is the very ugliest part of the Christian religion. How easily we've been able to condemn people to death over the millenia, because we presumed (without evidence) that there was lots more after that.

My belief in human immortality isn't in and of itself motivated by Christianity. It's a personal conviction independent any religious doctrine. Personally, I think those who deny life after death have imbibed a horrendous untruth. Even if Christianity itself isn't 'the truth' it's closer to the truth than those who deny the soul and the existence of God. Yes, I unapologetically think the atheistic worldview is a lie far worse than traditional religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What did this latest execution accomplish? Not a ting. There is no "closure" for the victims. The crime was 27 years ago. and he was sentenced 26 years ago. I cannot think of one argument that could possibly convince me that this killing had any merit at all. Life imprisonment without parole should be the maximum penalty. One would almost think that if one could do an execution quickly that it would be justified, but the problem is there are too many mistakes in prosecution and if you kill a man that was not a murderer an "Oops" simply does not cover it. The families of victims of the crime should be satisfied with the miserable life that the person will face in prison. Every day will be a punishment.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I haven't got a very strong opinion about it, but I don't view it as worse than life imprisonment.

If you wish to uphold human life as sacred then you mustn't kill; but what are you doing instead when you slowly drive people mad and enslave them? Its difficult to argue that the death penalty is worse. From what I have heard prison is often a mind rape. Its not reformative. Its not even vengeance. It brings no honor to humanity, damages the souls of the guards. People die in prison all the time, live in fear for their lives. Many kill themselves.

Some reform. Some get educated. That's true. Many are just stuck.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

but I would counter that if you truly believe human life is sacred then the death penalty makes perfect sense as a matter of justice.

Wouldn't that be god's job?

If you hurt someone would you want a man to punish you or god?
(Who owns justice in christianity?)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Today, just after 6 in the evening, Missouri executed prisoner Ernest Lee Johnson, who is intellectually challenged. (This has led many people to presume that the execution is unconstitutional, although SCOTUS declined to grant a stay). Members of Congress and the Pope requested that he not be put to death, though he did murder three people during a 1994 robbery.

I am still implacably opposed to the death penalty. I do not, I cannot understand how people who believe in a "merciful God" can reconcile their belief with their desire for such a revenge.

Debate or don't, I don't care. Americans tire me out.

I'm heavily opposed to the death penalty because I don't see it as closure but revenge like yourself. I do lean towards @Brickjectivity point of view in that I've been a friend with someone whose mind has been torn through the government system. If I didn't have a place to return to I'd be part of it. So life imprisonment can make people mad. I agree 100% that many imprisonment makes people mentally worse but I don't agree with death penalty because its a form of revenge and if considering god in this I would assume that would be god's responsibility not "man."

 

[Glaurung]

Wouldn't that be god's job?

Christianity has always accepted the right of the civil authority to punish criminals. To wield the sword. That God exists and will right all wrongs ultimately, does not detract from the need for human law in the here and now.

 

[Estro Felino]

In Europe the death penalty was abolished because some philosophers of the XVIII century, (Beccaria especially) underlined that, from a merely rational, secular point of view (not religious) the State cannot put into action what It strictly forbids itself.
It is an aberratio juridica.

And that is why I am really against the death penalty. Not out of religious convinctions.
But as a secular jurist. When I am a jurist, I consider God irrelevant.

If a person is serial killer, or a mobster, and murdered so many people they deserve as many life sentences as the people they killed.

I do know that so many Americans think that the State should not spend so much money on supporting murderers in jail.
I do not agree. The State has a Central Bank which can print money, and btw the penitentiary system needs to be bettered.

 

[Glaurung]

In Europe the death penalty was abolished because some philosophers of the XVIII century, (Beccaria especially) underlined that, from a merely rational, secular point of view (not religious) the State cannot put into action what It strictly forbids itself.

Well, the state does not permit me to imprison people who wrong me, so under that reasoning the state has no right to punish any crime at all.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, the state does not permit me to imprison people who wrong me, so under that reasoning the state has no right to punish any crime at all.

That's a good point. But we, as citizens have agreed to give the State the monopoly on force.
The force is used only when it is necessary. That is as self-defense. It is not used by the police to torture criminals.
So executing them is useless, because in jail they are inoffensive.

That said, imprisonment has the main purpose to prevent criminals from repeating the crime.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Doesn’t the US have the highest murder rate in the developed world? And executes more of it’s own citizens than any country outside China? So the death penalty is clearly useless as a deterrent.