1

Just so I understand what you are saying, Joe:

(1) you believe that Genesis 9:6, which refers to whoever "sheds the blood of man," mandates the state execution of murderers; and

(2) you believe that no government is able to carry out this task perfectly.

Therefore, you believe that the execution of innocent people is an acceptable price -- indeed, a necessary price -- for "professing Christians" to pay for abiding by God's mandate.

I'm going to frank about this. I think this reading of the Bible makes a complete joke out of Jesus Christ. Given your statement that you believe that life imprisonment is sufficient punishment, it shocks me that you would allow yourself to be convinced by a bunch of pointy headed religious scholars that Jesus has mandated the death penalty. Read the Bible for yourself, Joe! Think about what Jesus taught us!

The "state" -- at least in a democracy such as ours -- is nothing more than human beings carrying out tasks assigned to them by other human beings. Jesus told us to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to forgive our trespassers. I must have missed the part where Jesus told us to that we have to kill every murderer and few innocent people as well or God will be dissatisfied (because for some reason He can't want to bothered with killing murderers himself). On the other hand, I do remember Jesus stopping a bunch of people who were ready to carry out the proscribed death penalty for adultery.

I think this pro-death penalty position is a terrible one for "professed Christians" to take, especially when some talk out of the other side of their mouths about the "culture of life" they want to create. It takes some twisted logic to argue that more executions -- which clearly do NOT deter murder, as every study on the subject has shown -- creates a culture of life.

Finally, I highly doubt that the obvious corollary to all this -- that women who have abortions (and some women who have miscarriages but are found guilty by some jury of having an abortion) must be executed -- is going to help Christians succeed in getting abortions criminalized. Please recognize that I am not arguing that Christian beliefs should be predicated on what is politically realistic. My point is that the support in the Bible for the view that God MANDATES the death penalty is so weak, and the alternative view so compelling, that I am shocked whenever I come across pro-death penalty Christians.

Dead people, after all, can't be born again.

God bless.

2

I've asked many of my liberal friends if they'd be willing to trade -- my support for the death penalty for their support for abortion. We could both be "pro-life" across the board.

No takers so far. I'm not sure what that means, but it means something...

3

Hey Richard,

Therefore, you believe that the execution of innocent people is an acceptable price -- indeed, a necessary price -- for "professing Christians" to pay for abiding by God's mandate.

No, not at all. As I said before, while the death penalty may be God’s penalty for murder, it still has to be applied justly.

I'm going to frank about this. I think this reading of the Bible makes a complete joke out of Jesus Christ.

As I understand it, Jesus was God. Why then would I think that taking what God says makes a joke out of Christ?

Read the Bible for yourself, Joe! Think about what Jesus taught us!

I did, which is why I came to that conclusion. Can you find anything that says Jesus repealed the covenant established with Noah?

I must have missed the part where Jesus told us to that we have to kill every murderer and few innocent people as well or God will be dissatisfied (because for some reason He can't want to bothered with killing murderers himself).

I’m not sure where you get the idea that killing innocent people is justified, but as for the rest you can find where Jesus said it right where I pointed out: Genesis 9.

On the other hand, I do remember Jesus stopping a bunch of people who were ready to carry out the proscribed death penalty for adultery.

For an offense of the Mosaic Law, which as I said already, doesn’t apply under this particular mandate.

I think this pro-death penalty position is a terrible one for "professed Christians" to take, especially when some talk out of the other side of their mouths about the "culture of life" they want to create.

The “culture of life” is the idea that all humans are made in the image of God and that life is sacred. So sacred, in fact, that the ultimate penalty must be paid for destroying that image.

It takes some twisted logic to argue that more executions -- which clearly do NOT deter murder, as every study on the subject has shown -- creates a culture of life.

First of all, I admitted already that the purpose of capital punishment was not to deter murder. But as for the logic involved, it is rather evident.

Please recognize that I am not arguing that Christian beliefs should be predicated on what is politically realistic. My point is that the support in the Bible for the view that God MANDATES the death penalty is so weak, and the alternative view so compelling, that I am shocked whenever I come across pro-death penalty Christians.

Perhaps you can explain why God’s covenant is no longer applicable?

Dead people, after all, can't be born again.

True, but then again, neither can the murderer’s victim. Why should we allow the murderer to retain an opportunity to be “born again” when they took that away from someone else? Besides, wouldn’t God have thought about that when he gave this command? Are we smarter than God?

4

Well, this is going to be an interesting thread.

5

Well, this is going to be an interesting thread.

I'm just waiting to see how many comments it will take before someone starts bashing President Bush.

So far this makes comment #5 and still no "Worst President Ever!" rant. This must be a new record. ; )

6

Richard,

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not God "mandates" the death penalty in this day and age, your reasoning does not seem to take the biblical data into account. Genesis 9:6 certainly ALLOWS the death penalty if not mandating it.

God did issue the Old Testament decree, and it was to be carried out by imperfect men. Unless you are going to charge God with wrongdoing in originally issuing the decree, the argument that imperfect governments are barred from enforcing the death penalty holds no water whatsoever.

It is precisely because man is created in the image of God and infinitely valuable that so harsh a penalty is placed on murder. This is why it is perfectly consistent to favor the death penalty rightly applied and oppose abortion, while it is ridiculously inconsistent to oppose the death penalty and support abortion. One side believes the guilty should be punished and the innocent spared; the other believes the innocent should be punished and the guilty spared.

The death penalty has never been used in this country for any and all taking of life. It has always been instituted in special circumstances, such as multiple victims, cold premeditation, etc. Nobody has argued that a woman who has an abortion should receive the death penalty any more than they've argued that drunk drivers who kill pedestrians should receive it.

But there's something seriously wrong with a culture that values the lives of murderers above those of infants.

7

Justice is the balancing of the scales. What is equal to a human life but another human life? A society that is truly just will execute those who commit murder.

8

Joe,

I think you do the issue disservice by not dealing with The Beatitudes. Particularly, Mt 5:21 on Murder and Mt 5:38-48 on Eye for an Eye and Loving your enemies. I have discussed this issue with many fellow believers who argue that those sections deal with personal relationships rather than government but you have to talk about it! Do not just ask what Jesus did not say but talk about what he did say.

Grace and peace

DAN

9

Joe --

Just to keep this as focused as possible -- I do not claim that Jesus ever expressly said "The state shall not execute murderers." My claim is that the Bible, which includes the Gospels of Christ our Savior, does not MANDATE the execution of murderers by the government.

If we are going to go thump our Bibles at each other, Joe, let me state for the record that I do not recall the verse in Genesis where God created governments by the way. Governments were created by people. Governments, in fact, are nothing more than an organization of people, as I stated above.

Jesus clearly laid to rest the righteousness of the Old Testament "eye for an eye" style of justice. I think we can all agree that Jesus rebuked this concept over and over again. Every child, even non-Christian children, knows this and knows the parables which Jesus used to make his points. If Joe wants to phrase the issue in terms of whether Jesus' teachings trump some vaguely worded verse in Genesis, then I'll take Jesus any day of week. Jesus never said that the verse in Genesis which Joe cites means that God MANDATES that governments must execute murderers or God will be unhappy. One could just as easily argue that the verse in Genesis means only that those who make war are likely to be killed in war.

Joe, you asked:

"I’m not sure where you get the idea that killing innocent people is justified"

Joe, I didn't say "justified" -- I said it was a "necessary" and "acceptable" corollary. I do not believe that the death penalty is the only form of justice for murder that God accepts -- that is your belief. I gather this is your belief from the two statements I wrote in an attempt to understand your position. Do you agree with the statements? Once again:

(1) Genesis 9:6, which refers to whoever "sheds the blood of man," mandates the state execution of murderers; and

(2) no government is able to carry out this task perfectly.

How can you logically believe in these statements and not accept the death of innocent people as a necessary (i.e., inevitable) outcome? Below I discuss why your view has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with your faith in your interpretation of a passage from the Bible. I interpret that passage differently, and I believe that my interpretation is more consistent with Jesus' teachings than yours. I can justify this latter statement logically (and I believe that I have).

For the record, Joe, yours was the most flippant dismissal of John's story of the adultress which I have yet heard.

Joe you also stated that

"I admitted already that the purpose of capital punishment was not to deter murder. But as for the logic involved, it is rather evident."

As I said above, there is no "logic" at all Joe. Your argument is simply that, according to your reading of Genesis, God has MANDATED that governments execute murderers.

My arguments is that, in light of the fact that (1) the death penalty has not been shown to deter murder in any of the multitude of studies conducted to date and (2) the death penalty inevitably results in the murder of innocent people by the state (or by whoever pulls the switch), and MOST IMPORTANTLY in light of Jesus' proscriptions against vengeance and his urging that we forgive our enemies, love your neighbors, not cast stones if we have not sinned, etc., that God could not possibly MANDATE that his followers pass laws which require their governments to execute murders.

"Why should we allow the murderer to retain an opportunity to be “born again” when they took that away from someone else?"

That someone else will be judged by Christ, as will the murderer be judged by Christ, as will we all. I am not questioning the judgment of Christ or his "intelligence." I am taking Jesus' words at face value (and, while I know this means nothing to you, I'm hardly alone among Christians in my understanding of what the Bible teaches with respect to mandated state executions).

10

So, what should we do to the murderers, then?

11

John said

"Nobody has argued that a woman who has an abortion should receive the death penalty any more than they've argued that drunk drivers who kill pedestrians should receive it."

John, I think that Joe certainly has made this argument, albeit implicitly.

If abortion is murder and if God mandates that states execute murderers, and if humans (and their governments) are imperfect, then it follows absolutely that women who have abortions (and some small percentage of innocent women who miscarry but who are found guilty by a jury of humans of having an abortion) MUST be executed.

I am not arguing that the above statement suggests that abortions should not be criminalized. I am just pointing out an issue that is obvious to me but that Christians who share Joe's views on the death penalty very rarely discuss.

"One side believes the guilty should be punished and the innocent spared; the other believes the innocent should be punished and the guilty spared."

John, other than sparing the innocents (which I agree with) this grossly misrepresents the view of those who are opposed to the death penalty. I do NOT believe that the guilty should be spared. They should be punished. Severely. Imprisoned for life, certainly. But murdered? By our government? When we know that it does not deter killing by others? When we know that innocent people will ultimately get caught in the trap? Once people are killed it is too late to discover that they were innocent, as as happened many times to convicted prisoners on death row.

These are only the logical arguments against the death penalty. My argument from faith rests on the teachings of Christ (who never said that states could not execute murders, but who said a quite a few things about love and forgiveness which I refuse to ignore).

12

So what teachings of Christ do you point to when you say they should be imprisoned for life? In your line of reasoning, wouldn't innocent people (those wrongly convicted) be sentenced to life in prison? When we know that life imprisonment doesn't deter killing by others?

13

Joe,

I certainly don't want to interrupt an interesting thread, but I think you write off the case for deterrence too quickly. Perhaps the death penalty is unChristian even in the event that it deters crime, but if deterrence would be sufficient moral justification for the policy, there is some interesting (and thorough) econometric research out of Emory University showing that there is significant deterrence. I read the paper a couple of years ago. I will see if it is online and post it here (or on my site) if I find it.

14

Joe, you have turned a light bulb on for me! I have not been savvy enough to see the difference between the Noahic law and the Mosaic law in that way. This line of thinking makes several questions and issues click for me. Thanks!

As to capital punishment, I have thought about it more from the practical viewpoint of human nature. We tend to need pratical symbolism in order to keep our focus.

There is, inarguably, a sliding scale concerning the seriousness of any given crime. Stealing a pack of gum from the grocery store is way down the scale from car theft. Both are the same basic act, but the consequences from a society's viewpoint are very different.

We punish according to our view of the seriousness of the crime. To turn that thought around . . . we derive our concept of how serious a crime is by the severity of the punishment.

That is how I arrive at the conclusion that Capital punishment is neccessary. Humankind is fickle. Sixty years ago, abortion was almost universally viewed as a horrific act. We removed the consequences of that act, and now it is simply a "right".

If murder is to continue to be viewed as a horrific act, the consequences must continue to be horrific. We have already managed to slip far enough down the slope over the last century that a single murder is seldom punishable by death. A murderer may not even see life in prison!

Just as in war, innocent people die. That is truly heart-wrenching. I submit that the farther we go down the road away from capital punishment, the greater the number of innocents (i.e. society) that will pay the consequences.

15

Here is the link to the abstract. It is unrefuted as far as I know.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=386300

16

"If murder is to continue to be viewed as a horrific act, the consequences must continue to be horrific."

Do you really doubt that those of us who oppose the death penalty do not view murder as a horrific act? I wonder if people who oppose the death penatly commit more murders than people who support it. Somehow I doubt that is the case (though I've not seen any studies).

Unfortunately for your argument, the U.S. has one of the highest murder rates among Western industrialized countries, and is also one of the only such countries to have the death penalty.

Could you please cite some evidence to support your position that murder in states or countries which ban the death penalty is somehow considered less horrific by those countries? Or that a greater number of executions correlates with a low rate of murder or any other violent crime? I know there are many many studies which demonstrate the contrary.

As far as Paul Rubins econometric analysis is concerned, when Paul Rubins shows that his analysis ACCURATELY PREDICTS what will happen -- i.e., the percentage rate in rise or fall of murder -- in a state or country after it abolishes or adopts the death penalty each year over the course of say, five years, then I'll give it some creedence. This is the reason Rubin's model hasn't been "refuted" -- it has essentially been ignored as untested. Until Rubin's model is verified, I'll stick with the uncooked numbers which show no correlation between executions and murder rates in states and countries with and without the death penalty.

It seems quite obvious to me that countries and states which have banned the death penalty did so because they were horrified at the possibility of executing innocent people, the lack of any detectable effect of the death penalty on crime rates, and the sight of people struggling in the execution chamber or in the gallows as their executions were horribly botched.

In any event, I rely mainly on Jesus Christ guidance in this matter. The ugly facts about state execution only prove that He was right. Who can be surprised by that?

17

*ahem*

BUSH: WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
(one hates to disappoint) ;-)

P.S. I don't like the death penalty, either. It doesn't seem right. But then I think about what would be a just punishment for someone who murdered my family. I can see both sides. I guess other people will have to decide.

18

It seems to me that the argument made against the Death Penalty are really weak.

Quote: As Davey points out, there is simply no way to conclusively determine how many crimes the policy would prevent

Wrong. If the murderer is dead then he wouldn't be committing anymore crime whether he's in prison or not. I don't need a study to show me that if they less criminals there is less crime. Joe are you saying that murderers are not likely to every commit a crime again? I find that idea absurd. The death penalty deters the murderer from ever committing any crime again after the murderer's execution. Strike One!

Quote: If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".

Yup, Prison murder never happens. When we put a bunch of murders and violent criminals together into small spaces (Prison) they never ever try to kill each other. Yes, Prison is a place that "the concrete conditions of the common good" and that "is more in conformity to the dignity of the human person" is certianly true. After all being raped for years until you die of AIDs to so much more dignified than lethal injection. Stop living in fantasty land people! Strike Two!

Quote: The problem with the “payback model” is that it uses the legitimate authority of the state to achieve vengeance on behalf of a wronged party.

Let me start by quoting a line from a recent movie "this is punishiment not vengeance." Capital Punishment is just that: punishment. It is not an act on behalf of the wronged party it is a STATEMENT that says that society cannot allow someone who has stolen and destroyed the Image of God and has so disregarded human life keep his own. The only just punishiment is for the murder to foreit of his own life. If life is taken in this mannor (a certain and purposeful malicious destain for the humanity of the victim)the continuation of the life of the murderer says to Society that the victim's life is not truly worth another life or of truly equal value to that of the murderers or any other human being alive. The victim is rendered subhuman in virtue of being a victim. That is a cosmic injustice and we cannot allow it.

Strike Three! You're out!

Lastly, Let me say this the anti-death penalty position is extremist. If the death-penalty is wrong then by definition the taking of the life any murderer life is also wrong. Therefore, there is no crime, or level of disregard for the lives of others that would justify the loss of human life to correct that inhumanity toward the victims. In other words, even Hilter, Stalin, and Mao are not so bad as deserve to be killed for killing millions. This prompts the question if society can't justify killing the murderer in order to punish him for his actions because it would cost the murderer his life then wouldn't it follow that if stopping a murder would cause the death of an innocent (A Pat Tillman) that too would be unjustified? So in order to be consistant I must be Pacifist. A true extremist in every sense of the word.

19

Septeus,

Joe are you saying that murderers are not likely to every commit a crime again? I find that idea absurd.

Of course not. But since the same goal could be attained by keeping the prisoner in solitary confinement, this becomes a weak justification.

20

I think a question needs to be addressed first in this debate is whether, biblically, it is always considered evil to kill another human for ANY reason?

Considering the Laws of Moses, the Noahic Covenant already mentioned and numerous wars that God ordered the Israelites to wage, I think it is not possible to defend the assertion that killing another human is always an evil act.

Given that, we need to ask in what conditions is it acceptable(i.e. not evil) to take anothers life? Surely, as our life is God's to decide, the only answer is that we are allowed to kill when God has given us instructions to kill.

The noahic covenant gives one such timeless instruction. Paul also mentions that the Governments, being put in place by God, 'Bear the sword'. A clear indication to taking life in context.

Now, if God has instructed the government to take a life in certain circumstances, then if, according to our best practices and knowledge, we carry out those instructions (and indeed, God knowing our fallability) Then those people can be seen to have had the last of their 'alloted days'. If they are executed in error, then those who caused that error by commision or ommision will be held accountable for it (By God). God Judges the heart, and allots our days. We can only accept his word and do our best to implement it.

Now as to verses regarding vengeance, and turning the other cheek and repaying evil for evil, I would ask... Are we talking about vengeance or justice/punishment? - There is a big difference. Are we talking about insults (Which is the context of the day in which 'turning the other cheek' and 'striking you on the cheek' is used). Do those that advocate following this passage literally as a basis for avoiding capital punishment also feel that we should, in fact, cut of our hands and cast out our eyes to avoid sinning, as Jesus says a few verses prior? Is capital punishment evil? If not, then how can talk of repaying evil for evil apply?

God Bless

21

All,

Romans 13:1-5

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

"Why should we allow the murderer to retain an opportunity to be “born again” when they took that away from someone else?"

A murderer did not "take" the "opportunity" for someone to be "born again" nor the State for that matter. Wow! The power man assumes for himself by dethroning God's. I can't believe some "Christians" think a murderer has the power to send people to hell. (...poor old God sitting idly by watching all these little 'gods' decide each other's fate). America's 'Churchianity' paints Christ as such a little passive weakling. Listen up. Christ will not lose one the Father has given him. (yes, even if you or the mean ol' murderer thinks otherwise).
He's also the avenger brothers and sisters. He's also going to terrorize (read Isaiah) the Earth in those last days. And upon judgment, no one will be confused on what God's holiness, justice, and wrath is. Don't let yourselves be deceived by focusing on one attribute (love) of God and ignoring the rest of them.
Maybe we should spend time learning about God in his revealed entirety rather than focusing our entire mind on the love and compassion of Him by his Son.

22

Quote: But since the same goal could be attained by keeping the prisoner in solitary confinement, this becomes a weak justification.

First, no one is going to put all murders in solitary in this society. That is a practical reality and your theoretical argument is moot because the argument being defended is forceful due to the practicality of it not the morality of it. Compare like to like.

Second, A lifetime of solitary could be considered cruel and unsuaual punishment and therefore inappropriate. How can a lethal injection be cruel, inhumane and unjust and a lifetime virtually without human contact also not be considered cruel, inhumane and unjust? And So your counter arguement goes down a moral slippery slope because there is no way you can keep life on hand and let it be taken on the other and say justice has been done.

23

"And So your counter arguement goes down a moral slippery slope because there is no way you can keep life on hand and let it be taken on the other and say justice has been done."

Ah the moral slippery slope. I'm so scared of those slippery slopes!

Here's a slope for you septeus: when you succeed in passing laws criminalizing abortion, how many young women each year do you suppose you're going to have to execute? Just take a guess.