Carrying out the death penalty

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Since there are so many justice methods, does the bible say which method of killing a person is right and which is wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Russia is worse, though they barely qualify as "developed':

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-rates-by-country.html

We are rated 89th.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

Not a good argument. Is putting people in jail for crimes vengeance also? Though asking if the death penalty rather than life imprisonment, for example, is effective in deterring crime is a different question. I would have to research if the death penalty deters murder. I think depending on the person analyzing this, there are opposing views on this. but even if the death penalty does not deter murder, personally I would not call that vengeance. It would be a mistaken use of an attempt for deterrence of murder.

 

[Glaurung]

That's a good point. But we, as citizens have agreed to give the State the monopoly on force.

To say I have 'agreed' to that is somewhat untrue. I don't recall ever being asked about whether or not I consent to the state's existence. And there's not a (livable) landmass on Earth that isn't subject to one state or another. I'm not an anarchist, I accept the necessity of the state and Australia is far from the worst state to be subject to, but the claim that I have 'agreed' to the state and its laws isn't really true. I am compelled to be under the state and its laws.

The force is used only when it is necessary. That is as self-defense. It is not used by the police to torture criminals.

Who said anything about torture? But I agree force should only be used when necessary.

So executing them is useless, because in jail they are inoffensive.

That's where we part ways. Take Anders Breivik as an example. The man murdered seventy-seven people and his punishment is twenty-one years confined to a Norwegian prison cell that looks as good as a small apartment. Is it 'inoffensive' to you that he could be released at some point in the not far too distant future? (Although, I doubt they'll ever release him).

And yes, Breivik is an extreme example. But I bring him up because if anyone deserves the death penalty it's him. There's no doubt as to his guilt and there should be no forgiveness, no rehabilitation for a crime of his magnitude. Why should he continue to breathe the air he denied to over seventy-seven others? To borrow a Biblical phrase; does not their blood cry out?

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

But this is where I part ways with most of this forum. Vengeance is a legitimate consideration of justice at least when it comes to grave crimes. Sure, seek rehabilitation when you can but the idea that the state owes unrepentant mass murderers the prospect of rejoining society (should that state refuse to use the death penalty) is ludicrous. Pope Francis complains that even life sentences deprives criminals of the 'right' to hope. He fails to consider that the worst criminals don't deserve hope. There is such a thing as irredeemable. Even God recognizes that according to the religion he is the head of.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not a good argument.

You say this and you admit you've not well researched this?
*giggle snort*

Is putting people in jail for crimes vengeance also?

If that's all you do then pretty much. Mistakes should be resolved and amended, and restitutions made. Criminals should be rehabilitated and helped to succeed and avoid the circumstances that lead to criminal activity.
Further killing works towards none of this.

Though asking if the death penalty rather than life imprisonment, for example, is effective in deterring crime is a different question. I would have to research if the death penalty deters murder.

It doesn't work as a deterrent. If anything it may incentive killing witnesses, as there has been seen a trend of homocides decreasing after the abolishment of the death penalty.
It also sometimes puts innocent people to death.
Enjoy the reading.
States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates | Death Penalty Information Center
Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States | Death Penalty Information Center
A Clear Scientific Consensus that the Death Penalty does NOT Deter – Amnesty International USA
https://www.aclu.org/other/death-penalty-questions-and-answers
And also the death penalty is very violent and painful. Even lethal injection, the procedure is a wide awake nightmare.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And yes, Breivik is an extreme example.

Why should we sink to his level?

 

[Glaurung]

Why should we sink to his level?

I reject the implicit premise.

Not all killing is morally equivalent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I reject the implicit premise.

Not all killing is morally equivalent.

If it's unnecessary then it is ultimately unnecessary. Self defense is of course appropriate, but if killing isn't needed then it is wrong.

 

[Glaurung]

but if killing isn't needed then it is wrong.

And that's where we'll have to disagree. I think there are crimes so severe that a person who commits them forfeits the right to live. Such persons can be killed by the civil authority in justice.

Now, whether modern states in our times should avail themselves of the death penalty is another question. I'm happy for the Church to teach that the death penalty isn't prudent in our modern circumstances. In fact I'm inclined to agree. But I will not accept the idea that the principle retributive justice is itself morally suspect or illicit. And it's a blatant contradiction for the Church to suddenly claim such (as it effectively has under Francis) no matter how often Church apologists claim otherwise. A contradiction is a contradiction.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And that's where we'll have to disagree. I think there are crimes so severe that a person who commits them forfeits the right to live. Such persons can be killed by the civil authority in justice.

Now, whether modern states in our times should avail themselves of the death penalty is another question. I'm happy for the Church to teach that the death penalty isn't prudent in our modern circumstances. In fact I'm inclined to agree. But I will not accept the idea that the principle retributive justice is itself morally suspect or even illicit.

Modern times? Many of the past had no death penalty and they did just fine. The pagan Germanic tribes, for example, held the belief that only the gods may sentence someone to die. Being made an outlaw was their worst punishment.
And what is solved with further death? What amends are made? How can a wrong be made right when the same act is repeated again.
Justice must be based on facts and evidence to be just. The facts just do not support any good reasons to have the death penalty.

 

[Aštra’el]

The supreme God I worship embodies ultimate Creation. Ultimate Destruction. Divine Order over primordial Chaos.

Creating and upholding laws that prohibit certain forms of human behavior is Order over Chaos. Arresting and punishing criminals is Order over Chaos. Ending those who commit severe crimes is Order over Chaos.

Developing discipline to control your natural human emotions, to make better choices and to navigate the complexities of life despite whatever challenges you might endure, is Order over Chaos.

No, there is nothing about me worshiping the highest and greatest God, that conflicts with the fact that I am completely unopposed the lawful execution of those who through their own horrible actions have brought their fate upon themselves.

 

[Glaurung]

Modern times? Many of the past had no death penalty and they did just fine. The pagan Germanic tribes, for example, held the belief that only the gods may sentence someone to die. Being made an outlaw was their worst punishment.

The Germanic pagans weren't above human sacrifice, so I question the claim they were averse to killing. After all, the related Vikings were happy to rampage around the European coast butchering all in sight. Further, do you really want to go back to a world where the punishment for murder was a fine paid to the family?

And what is solved with further death? What amends are made? How can a wrong be made right when the same act is repeated again.

No justice on Earth can undo anything. That doesn't mean we can't hold people to the ultimate accountability possible.

Justice must be based on facts and evidence to be just. The facts just do not support any good reasons to have the death penalty.

That mass murderers have a right to live is not a fact, it's mere opinion.

 

[Estro Felino]

But this is where I part ways with most of this forum. Vengeance is a legitimate consideration of justice at least when it comes to grave crimes. Sure, seek rehabilitation when you can but the idea that the state owes unrepentant mass murderers the prospect of rejoining society (should that state refuse to use the death penalty) is ludicrous. Pope Francis complains that even life sentences deprives criminals of the 'right' to hope. He fails to consider that the worst criminals don't deserve hope. There is such a thing as irredeemable. Even God recognizes that according to the religion he is the head of.

I do agree. I perfectly agree. It is a human sentiment. Just let me name Totò Riina, the boss of the bosses, the most feared mobster ever.
Millions of Italians fiercely wish we still had the death penalty to execute subjects (I will not use the word person, he does not deserve it) like him.

But ...he received 70 life sentences if I recall correctly.
His family begged the Italian State to release him and bring him home to his family, for his final hours, when he was about to die
The magistrates rejected the request.

That was worse than the death penalty, he died in the jail hispital with nobody around. Of old age.
At least his family understood what kind of person he was.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Germanic pagans weren't above human sacrifice, so I question the claim they were averse to killing.

My claim was they had no death penalty. That is accurate.
Going on about this and that doesn't change that. Like the vikings. Of course we all know they were marauding rapists, thieves, and murderers. But not all Germanic peoples were vikings. That was more of a job position with a word that simply means pirate. But many were farmers and hunters.

No justice on Earth can undo anything.

If a child accidentally breaks a neighbor's window and through arrangements the window is replaced, the original window is still destroyed but restitutions have been made and a new window installed.
This is just. Money stolen that is repaid is just. Killing someone who killed doesn't restore anything. It prevents the ability for rehabilitation. It's also an irreversible mistake if an innocent is killed.

 

[Glaurung]

My claim was they had no death penalty. That is accurate.

And my response is so what?

Of course we all know they were marauding rapists, thieves, and murderers. But not all Germanic peoples were vikings. That was more of a job position with a word that simply means pirate. But many were farmers and hunters.

Never said they all were. But I am glad you see the Vikings for the barbaric thugs there were. Admittedly, judging them by the standards of modern warfare is anachronistic.

Killing someone who killed doesn't restore anything. It prevents the ability for rehabilitation. It's also an irreversible mistake if an innocent is killed.

I'm saying that in the worst cases, there can be no just rehabilitation. They don't deserve it. I'm talking of people like Anders Breivik, the Christchurch mosque shooter, the Las Vegas shooter (had he survived), ect.

I'm not saying the western world should reintroduce the death penalty for botched robberies (that kill someone) or for someone who accidentally kills someone in a fistfight. While I do accept the principle of the death penalty I have always been clear that I support it only for the most heinous of crimes where there is no question of guilt. It's not that I bay for blood, it's that I find the arguments against the death penalty (as a principle) to be unconvincing. I find the standard liberal arguments to be unconvincing, as I also find Pope Francis' arguments to be unconvincing.

 

[pearl]

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

But not God's justice.

Be it come from atheists on the internet or pope Francis.

Initially I think it was John Paul II who opposed the death penalty as reflected in the CCC. Justice Scalia openly opposed both and favored the death penalty.

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 does seem to be unconstitutional.
Intellectual Disability Supreme Court Cases | Death Penalty Information Center

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

Opposed as well. Does bad behavior require a bad response?

 

[Lain]

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.

I am opposed except if it is the only way to protect society from said person, and also I am opposed to life sentences in the same way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am opposed except if it is the only way to protect society from said person, and also I am opposed to life sentences in the same way.

I think you are quite correct.

Yes, obviously we must protect society -- even from the mentally ill, and that often means incarcerating people. But once you have them incarcerated, when you have them strapped helpless on the table awaiting the deadly needle, nobody is in danger from them. Rather, they are now in danger from us. So it is impossible to call that "defence of society." It is what it is -- murder.

It may turn out that there are a few who cannot be redeemed, who can't be treated so as to no longer be a danger, and in those very few cases, it's hard to see any real option to life-long interment. That is a pity, but the first priority is protecting the innocents in our society.

 

[Heyo]

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.

There are about a dozen good reasons to abolish the death penalty.
It doesn't deter murder.
There are too many false convictions.
It is racist.
It isn't even cheaper.
But the most important reason is, since it is a judicial method, that it should be unconstitutional (in the US). The preamble of the declaration of independence states that life should be an unalienable right. (It just hasn't been codified into law for 245 years.) "Unalienable" means that it can't be forfeited, sold or taken away by a judge and jury.
If you live in the US, realize that you don't have a right to live (like I do). If your government decides to kill you, it can do so without violating the constitution or the bill of rights. Are you OK with that?