Is Capital Punishment Wrong?

peakpilgrim

Hi

It is my own opinion that Capital Punishment is wrong in modern society
and Christians should strive to eliminate it in places like the U.S.A

Overblood

Ok.

Pompey Magnus

peakpilgrim wrote: »

It is my own opinion that Capital Punishment is wrong in modern society
and Christians should strive to eliminate it in places like the U.S.A

Do you think it is only wrong in modern society but was okay in, say, Old Testament times?

peakpilgrim

Charco wrote: »

Do you think it is only wrong in modern society but was okay in, say, Old Testament times?

Thats an interesting question.

Maybe we should not judge the way things were done in the past; thats the way things were done back then; I am looking to the future.

the_god_swan

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Thats an interesting question.

Maybe we should not judge the way things were done in the past; thats the way things were done back then; I am looking to the future.

Tell that to the child abuse victims... :rolleyes:

tfitzgerald

no . i say an eye for an eye but if its done it should be in public not behind closed doors

tfitzgerald

tfitzgerald wrote: »

no . i say an eye for an eye but if its done it should be in public not behind closed doors

Dr.King said an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.

I have no issue with someone favouring the death penalty as long as they do not condemn abortion at the same time. The arguments used to attack the latter are not consistent with supporting the former.

peakpilgrim

the_god_swan wrote: »

Tell that to the child abuse victims... :rolleyes:

Would you care to elaborate on that Pal ?

stevejazzx

He probably means that people who rape and murder kids deserve to die?
It's not a comfortable thought, I disagree with capital Punishment but you here stories sometimes where atrocities are committed and you can't help thinking that 'that person deserves to be killed' or 'society would be better off without that person'.
The problems are many, not least who gets to decide what punishment means death and when. History has showed that people are so prone to discrimination and error that taking someones life is not to be trusted to them and even it it were what kind of morally sophiscated culture kills it's killers - the objective is not produce killers in the first instance. However science tells that genetic predisposition and mental illness plays a huge role in the life of killer; moralisitic upbringing notwithstanding.
Ultimately that brings us back to what to with those who clearly have no hope for rehabilitation? Institutionalisation and study? Should we sink prescious public resources into caging & studying these people? Will it help?
Who knows, it's a question that possibly has two valid answers.

the_god_swan

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Would you care to elaborate on that Pal ?

A statement such as 'Maybe we should not judge the way things were done in the past; thats the way things were done back then; I am looking to the future.' in my view is riddled with a mindless 'what goes on behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors' old catholic hypocritical stance... The area to which you use such a statement is actually irrelevant; be it man made religions, work, life etc because a view point of one that does not judge and hence learn from the past is a dark dangerous place to be... A bit similiar to christianities (and all major organised religions for that matter) inability to move to the thinking of a modern society.

And for your information im no 'Pal' of yours.

peakpilgrim

the_god_swan wrote: »

A statement such as 'Maybe we should not judge the way things were done in the past; thats the way things were done back then; I am looking to the future.' in my view is riddled with a mindless 'what goes on behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors' old catholic hypocritical stance... The area to which you use such a statement is actually irrelevant; be it man made religions, work, life etc because a view point of one that does not judge and hence learn from the past is a dark dangerous place to be... A bit similiar to christianities (and all major organised religions for that matter) inability to move to the thinking of a modern society.

And for your information im no 'Pal' of yours.

Interesting extrapolation...Pal!

peakpilgrim

stevejazzx wrote: »

He probably means that people who rape and murder kids deserve to die?
It's not a comfortable thought, I disagree with capital Punishment but you here stories sometimes where atrocities are committed and you can't help thinking that 'that person deserves to be killed' or 'society would be better off without that person'.
The problems are many, not least who gets to decide what punishment means death and when. History has showed that people are so prone to discrimination and error that taking someones life is not to be trusted to them and even it it were what kind of morally sophiscated culture kills it's killers - the objective is not produce killers in the first instance. However science tells that genetic predisposition and mental illness plays a huge role in the life of killer; moralisitic upbringing notwithstanding.
Ultimately that brings us back to what to with those who clearly have no hope for rehabilitation? Institutionalisation and study? Should we sink prescious public resources into caging & studying these people? Will it help?
Who knows, it's a question that possibly has two valid answers.

Hi

I agree; a hundred years ago most ordinary folk had to struggle to put food on the table; it wasn't possible to lock people up for life; we should take this into account when we assess how they treated their criminal element.

Nowadays we have the resources to lock murderers up for life and study them; but should we try to rehabilitate them for release back into society.

There have been several instances of released murderers murdering a second time; to most people that is unacceptable.

DTrotter

tfitzgerald wrote: »

no . i say an eye for an eye but if its done it should be in public not behind closed doors

Ooh, biblical punishment, just like Saudi Arabia.

peakpilgrim

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

I agree; a hundred years ago most ordinary folk had to struggle to put food on the table; it wasn't possible to lock people up for life; we should take this into account when we assess how they treated their criminal element.

Nowadays we have the resources to lock murderers up for life.

You think in 1909 life imprisonment was not a viable option?

robindch

DTrotter wrote: »

Ooh, biblical punishment, just like Saudi Arabia.

Chop-chop square in Riaydh's the place to go. Ten minutes' taxi ride from the city center and a cracking place to spend a Friday evening!

who what when

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Interesting extrapolation...Pal!

I thought he said he wasnt your pal:(
Im confused

peakpilgrim

who what when wrote: »

I thought he said he wasnt your pal:(
Im confused

So am I!

peakpilgrim

Deleted User wrote: »

You think in 1909 life imprisonment was not a viable option?

I do not want to judge how people treated their criminal element in the past; I do not think it is fair to them; when looking into the past there is tendency to judge people using modern outlooks on life.

'The past is a foreign country and no-one knows the language'

JimiTime

I am Christian, and I am for capital punishment. Unfortunately, I don't trust authorities to dish it out fairly, so in that way I'd be against it. I'd prefer to see certain criminals put to death, but I'm not sure if it would be wise to give corrupt politicians and police forces such a power. I was raised in a fairly rough area, and have no confidence in the Gardai or Justice system, to put it very mildly.

studiorat

Interesting that some seem to think that "people" should be allowed decide whether another person lives or dies. Or would prefer to see certain crimes punishable by death.

Is that not "God's job"?

BrianCalgary

I'm against Capital Punishment.

It takes away the opportunity to bring the convicted into a saving relationship with Christ.

Húrin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I'm against Capital Punishment.

It takes away the opportunity to bring the convicted into a saving relationship with Christ.

I agree because I think this is a strong argument. It's not very secular but it is very true, and very important for Christians.

paddyboy23

yes anyone who would even think about hurting a child should be put to sleep,simple as that them people dont deserve any better.

DublinWriter

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I'm against Capital Punishment.

It takes away the opportunity to bring the convicted into a saving relationship with Christ.

I find it interesting how US Christians square a principal commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' with many of their states policies on capital punishment.

...or even most Christians who bleat "hang all paedos" with the Christian tenant of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'.

philologos

From a Christian perspective, my view is this. No person should ever be put to death for a sin against God as of the New Covenant. Jesus gave us mercy, and as Christians we're obligated to do the same in our personal relationships and in our personal encounters with other people. The difference between a Jewish and a Christian understanding is this, mercy takes a role above the law in Christian faith. Christians are saved by grace. However this grace is subject to our repentance. I'm a second chance person in my faith, because I know I've screwed up and I know that I am deserving of God's wrath for what I have done, but yet I have been spared it.

In Romans chapter 13 we are told that the State is ordained by God. God has given people rise to power at certain times. The State will have its law to which we are to be obedient except where it severs our religion and our faith with God. If we are not obedient to the law of State the State has every right to impose it's judgement on us, even if that is death.

I personally think the State should be merciful in all judgement, and due to my political pacifism it is what I would aspire to as a human being. I also recognise human error in matters of court, and in matters of decree. As such I think punishments should be based on reforming people to new roles within society instead of being based on mere punishment without a second chance attitude. Rehabilitation and a second chance system seems to be the most consistent with Christianity, but the State has authority in the Christian faith to use the death penalty when people are guilty of violating the law.

JimiTime

Something to bare in mind when we think about loving our neighbour and enemy. There is mercy, and there is stupidity. is it loving our neighbour to let a rapist out after 'serving his time' only for him to put another woman through such horror? Is it 'mercy' or loving to allow a murderous man out to inflict his evils on another innocent person? Personallyt I think punishment should not be about punishment, but about protection.

Paedophile: I'm really sorry I raped those kids.
Judge: I truly hope you are, but unfortunately I can't take the risk that you are lying. The fact is, you raped children. Noose please!

I can't see how anyone in good concience can seek for people like this to be freed or 'given another chance'. When you say 'given another chance', you have to realise what such a thing entails. A reoffence means another 'child' gets raped and scarred for life. Where is the mercy in this position? In my opinion, such 'mercy' is misguided. There are times when 'mercy' is a selfish self righteous act IMO. I personally see no valid reason for example, why a child rapist should be freed to reoffend. We as humans cannot see into the hearts of others, so we must take situatrions on their merit. Mercy does not mean being fools.

philologos

JimiTime: That's why a prison sentence is preferrable to death. You have a few years to assess a prisoners behaviour.

Amalgam

Mild NSFW - In as much as your employer might find the site content 'odd'. There are pictures of gallows.

---

If you want a good historical overview of Capital Punishment in the UK and Ireland.. and further abroad, there's none better than the following site:

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/contents.html

Very, middle-of-the-road, matter-of-fact about the preparation and processes that take place. 1700's to the present day.

---

Mild NSFW - In as much as your employer might find the site content 'odd'. There are pictures of gallows.

PDN

I am not opposed to the death penalty per se, but am opposed to it being used in most of our societies (including Ireland) in the Twenty First Century.

The two major problems I see with the death penalty are:
a) The penalty is not applied equally, but reflects the inequalities, bias and prejudices of those who hold power in the judicial system. This can be seen in the US where a rich white murderer will invariably be able to hire lawyers that get him a deal whereas those on death row are predominantly poor and black.
b) The consequences of making a mistake, and killing the wrong person, are truly irreversible. We see enough convicted murderers winning appeals through new evidence (DNA etc) to demonstrate that some people are innocent even when proven guilty.

The only context where I would favour the death penalty is where the consequences of not implementing it outweigh the problems I have outlined above. These contexts existed more in ancient times (eg when the Israelites were possessing the Promised Land and surrounded by hostile tribes) and I can only think of a few situations in my own lifetime where they would apply anywhere (I'm thinking possibly in Somalia or somewhere similar, or with the Ceaucescu's in Romania after the Revolution).

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

JimiTime: That's why a prison sentence is preferrable to death. You have a few years to assess a prisoners behaviour.

How can a paedophile be assesed in prison as to if he'd reoffend? Also, think of the consequence if those assessing him getting it wrong. Also, Prisons are not these places where prisoners are rehabilitated. They are holdings for criminals. These criminals are pretty much left to their own devices. In fact, many who come out of prison, hold their 'time' as a badge of honour. The justice system is a failure, from the incompetant dis-interested gardai, to the pathetic courts. It is a completely emasculated system that does not put fear into wannabe criminals. I witness it on a daily basis. Too much 'victim' talk. He's a victim of bad parenting. He's a victim of poverty. He's a victim of the drug dealer. I thank God that I am not a victim of such things, but those who have been, who in turn harm others, should not be relieved of 'any' responsability for their actions. I am all for mercy. I am not into innocent people becoming victims for an unrealistic ideal though. In saying that, that in itself is an ideal, for I don't trust mankind to govern justly, so its a bit of a catch 22. PDN's point about justice being dished out fairly is the crux of the matter, so in turn, this just turns into me having a bit of a rant.

There are certain people who simply should not have contact with others! Prison, death, whatever. My ideal, is to protect the people who just live their lives without wanting to abuse others. If that means putting to death those who wish to terrorise the innocent, then so be it. Unfortunately, there is much grey area though. One things for sure though, 'Something' needs to be done.

[/end rant]:)

BTW: In my time, A 10 year old was raped by a scumbag, who now is still a scumbag who 'served his time'. I witnessed him attempt to relieve a young tourist of her jewelery with a syringe. 'Served his time' indeed.
A young girl murdered by a scumbag, who got 8 years, and now is still a scumbag who roams the streets, while that girls parents have to see him free.
A man 'kicked' to death, and the guilty ones out now.
There's plenty more.
On monday night, my nephew and his 2 friends just walking back from the cinema are assaulted by 15 teenagers with bottles etc. They scarpered when one of the assaulted guys went into a fit. His two front teeth were gone at this stage, from a bottle to the face, and they danced on his head! The police get called, and in hearing of the young man in hospital unconcious get the copter etc out. As soon as the man comes round, and is found to have had a 'lucky' escape, they practically call off the search??!!?

So I can't stand by the softly, softly approach to crime. Sometimes, brute force is what is required! Sometimes mercy is irresponsible.

Fanny Cradock

Maybe there was a time and a place when it was justified, but I don't see the need for it nowadays in the "civilised" west.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

How can a paedophile be assesed in prison as to if he'd reoffend? Also, think of the consequence if those assessing him getting it wrong. Also, Prisons are not these places where prisoners are rehabilitated. They are holdings for criminals. These criminals are pretty much left to their own devices. In fact, many who come out of prison, hold their 'time' as a badge of honour. The justice system is a failure, from the incompetant dis-interested gardai, to the pathetic courts. It is a completely emasculated system that does not put fear into wannabe criminals. I witness it on a daily basis. Too much 'victim' talk. He's a victim of bad parenting. He's a victim of poverty. He's a victim of the drug dealer. I thank God that I am not a victim of such things, but those who have been, who in turn harm others, should not be relieved of 'any' responsability for their actions. I am all for mercy. I am not into innocent people becoming victims for an unrealistic ideal though. In saying that, that in itself is an ideal, for I don't trust mankind to govern justly, so its a bit of a catch 22. PDN's point about justice being dished out fairly is the crux of the matter, so in turn, this just turns into me having a bit of a rant.

There are certain people who simply should not have contact with others! Prison, death, whatever. My ideal, is to protect the people who just live their lives without wanting to abuse others. If that means putting to death those who wish to terrorise the innocent, then so be it. Unfortunately, there is much grey area though. One things for sure though, 'Something' needs to be done.

[/end rant]:)

BTW: In my time, A 10 year old was raped by a scumbag, who now is still a scumbag who 'served his time'. I witnessed him attempt to relieve a young tourist of her jewelery with a syringe. 'Served his time' indeed.
A young girl murdered by a scumbag, who got 8 years, and now is still a scumbag who roams the streets, while that girls parents have to see him free.
A man 'kicked' to death, and the guilty ones out now.
There's plenty more.
On monday night, my nephew and his 2 friends just walking back from the cinema are assaulted by 15 teenagers with bottles etc. They scarpered when one of the assaulted guys went into a fit. His two front teeth were gone at this stage, from a bottle to the face, and they danced on his head! The police get called, and in hearing of the young man in hospital unconcious get the copter etc out. As soon as the man comes round, and is found to have had a 'lucky' escape, they practically call off the search??!!?

So I can't stand by the softly, softly approach to crime. Sometimes, brute force is what is required! Sometimes mercy is irresponsible.

Hard cases make bad law.

Looking at it objectively, people should not be put to death for a crime, no matter how heinous that crime. We are a highly evolved race and quite frankly we should be beyond it.

Looking at it subjectively, if anyone hurt one of my children, I would want them to get the death sentence, even though deep down I know it would be wrong.

There are some criminals that will nover be rehabilitated. The state should make sure they are never ever in a position to harm anyone again, but they should do this without ending the persons life.

You speak of mercy. Personally between life in prision with no hope of freedom and the death penalty, I think death is the merciful option.

MrP

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

Hard cases make bad law.

Thats sounds alright, but unfortunately in some areas, cliché ideals are not enough. People feel isolated. The system passes them by. They get words but little action.

Looking at it objectively, people should not be put to death for a crime, no matter how heinous that crime. We are a highly evolved race and quite frankly we should be beyond it.

You speak of mercy. Personally between life in prision with no hope of freedom and the death penalty, I think death is the merciful option.

Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree about death being the merciful option. Yet does this not contradict the statement above it? I really don't care much about punishing criminals. That to me is secondary to protecting the innocent. Someone who has tortured, raped and any other disgusting thing you can think of, I still don't necessarily want that person to suffer. I just want others, to be protected from that person. If the prison system cannot contain all the criminals we have, so as to let the 'softer' criminals go, then we have a problem! I'm not saying, so lets kill them. However, 'something' needs to be done.

Looking at it subjectively, if anyone hurt one of my children, I would want them to get the death sentence, even though deep down I know it would be wrong.

Yet you say its more merciful than life in prison?

There are some criminals that will nover be rehabilitated. The state should make sure they are never ever in a position to harm anyone again, but they should do this without ending the persons life.

If this can be done, then fine. I'm all for it. I don't think the death penalty is wrong though.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe there was a time and a place when it was justified, but I don't see the need for it nowadays in the "civilised" west.

why?

diverdriver

Because killing other human beings is barbaric, whatever way you justify it. Whether they 'deserved' it or not is irrelevant because we humans can justify killing by setting laws that mandate execution for anything they choose be it murder or stealing a loaf of bread. Thus the executioner or killer can wash their hands of the deed and say 'It's the law'.

It's notable how many Christians and other religious people have no trouble justifying killings despite their religious scruples and belief in a merciful God.

It's significant that the commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill' is a misquote. The actual words are: 'Thou shalt not murder'. This allows any form of killing as long as the motive is not murder. So killing in war and execution of people who fail to meet some arbitrary standard of behaviour is not only acceptable but desirable.

I don't agree with the death penalty because I do not believe any human has to right to take the life of another, except in the usual self defence situation.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats sounds alright, but unfortunately in some areas, cliché ideals are not enough. People feel isolated. The system passes them by. They get words but little action.

That says more about the people that think other people should be executed than the state that is or is not executing them.

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree about death being the merciful option. Yet does this not contradict the statement above it? I really don't care much about punishing criminals. That to me is secondary to protecting the innocent.

Well yes it is. A lot of people seem to think that capital punishment is the ultimate righteous punishment. I am merely point out that if punishment is what you want the death sentence is letting people off lightly.

JimiTime wrote: »

Someone who has tortured, raped and any other disgusting thing you can think of, I still don't necessarily want that person to suffer. I just want others, to be protected from that person. If the prison system cannot contain all the criminals we have, so as to let the 'softer' criminals go, then we have a problem! I'm not saying, so lets kill them. However, 'something' needs to be done.

Well, they do suffer. They suffer the loss of their freedom. Simply because the system does not work properly does not mean we should start executing people. A criminal does not need to be executed in order to protect society. Keeping him locked up for the rest of his life is as effective.

What do you mean by softer criminals? I think it is possible that we put people in prison that really should not be there. Once someone goes to prison a lot of the option they may have had in life are taken away from them. For someone who is, or was going to be a career criminal, this is not so much of an issue. But I would guess that there are a large number of people in prison that have made a stupid mistake or have been so affected by their journet through the justice system that even without a prison sentence would never commit a crime again. By putting people like this in prison we are ensuring that they lose option open to the rest of us and potentialy force them down a road where crime is there only option.

There are a large number of people that do belong in prision. There is a smaller number of people that need to never leave prison. Add to this the people that could potentially be punished and rehabilitated in a way other than prison and we have an overcrowding problem.

The justice system needs a fairly major overhaul and update. More effort should be made to rehabilitate those that have to potential to be rehabilitated and give them a chance to be productive members of society. We need to be a bit more imaginitive than "chuck them in prison" particularly when the prisons are over crowded and it give some the excuse to say, "well, if we just executed this lot, we would not have an overcrowding problem..."

JimiTime wrote: »

Yet you say its more merciful than life in prison?

Well yes. Objectively I know that is the case. But I reckon that if someone hurt my children the last thing I would be thinking is objectivity.

JimiTime wrote: »

If this can be done, then fine. I'm all for it. I don't think the death penalty is wrong though.

Obviously you don't. That seems to be quite common amongst the religious.

MrP

philologos

JimiTime: The thing about death is that it is permanent. If you make a mistake, there is no going back. In the history of capital punishment a large amount of mistakes have been made. As such I prefer the prison method because it allows for correction of mistakes should things have gone wrong. You have to be 100% sure before you pull the death penalty on anyone. If the margin of error wasn't there I would see it as being at the discretion of the State whether or not to put someone to death. I personally don't advocate it though.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

JimiTime: The thing about death is that it is permanent. If you make a mistake, there is no going back. In the history of capital punishment a large amount of mistakes have been made. As such I prefer the prison method because it allows for correction of mistakes should things have gone wrong. You have to be 100% sure before you pull the death penalty on anyone. If the margin of error wasn't there I would see it as being at the discretion of the State whether or not to put someone to death. I personally don't advocate it though.

I think we may be in agreement. I see no issue with the executing of certain criminals. However, if mistakes are made and later discovered (Birmingham 6), then if execution has taken place, its a bit late. As I've already mentioned, in a corrupt and unjust world, the death penalty is probably unwise. As I said though, 'something' must be done to protect the innocent, because the system is a failure. Prison IMO, is not the answer. Not in its current format anyway.

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

That says more about the people that think other people should be executed than the state that is or is not executing them.

That wasn't said in that context. For a community that see's their children murdered, their children assaulted, their homes terrorised etc by the same thugs. They just want protecting. They are 'not' protected, so whatever needs to be done, then it should be done. If there is not enough room in the prisons, then something needs to be done.

Well yes it is. A lot of people seem to think that capital punishment is the ultimate righteous punishment. I am merely point out that if punishment is what you want the death sentence is letting people off lightly.

Punishment is not what I'm after. In fact I've re-iterated that its protection of the innocent which I want. As you say though, it is more merciful to end someones life, than to cage them for the rest of their days.

Well, they do suffer. They suffer the loss of their freedom. Simply because the system does not work properly does not mean we should start executing people. A criminal does not need to be executed in order to protect society. Keeping him locked up for the rest of his life is as effective.

I agree. The quetion is then about making the system work better. Maybe certain criminals could be given the option of life in prison, or death. If the criminal says they'd prefer death, then grant them that mercy.

What do you mean by softer criminals?

Yobs who terrorise communities, Burglers, Muggers. People who viciously assault others etc. I certainly don't see it as soft crime, but the authorities do.

I think it is possible that we put people in prison that really should not be there.

Maybe we do.

Once someone goes to prison a lot of the option they may have had in life are taken away from them. For someone who is, or was going to be a career criminal, this is not so much of an issue. But I would guess that there are a large number of people in prison that have made a stupid mistake or have been so affected by their journet through the justice system that even without a prison sentence would never commit a crime again. By putting people like this in prison we are ensuring that they lose option open to the rest of us and potentialy force them down a road where crime is there only option.

The thing is, if we take the rehabilitation route, it cannot be the half @rsed political approach we usually see. It must be real. This is extremely difficult to achieve. Also, a line must be drawn as to the chances people are given.

There are a large number of people that do belong in prision. There is a smaller number of people that need to never leave prison. Add to this the people that could potentially be punished and rehabilitated in a way other than prison and we have an overcrowding problem.

Again, so 'something' must be done. All the while, the innocent must be the priority, not the guilty.

The justice system needs a fairly major overhaul and update. More effort should be made to rehabilitate those that have to potential to be rehabilitated and give them a chance to be productive members of society. We need to be a bit more imaginitive than "chuck them in prison" particularly when the prisons are over crowded and it give some the excuse to say, "well, if we just executed this lot, we would not have an overcrowding problem..."

Again, I agree. I would much prefer to see people repent and never reoffend. Again though, we are speaking in ideals. In the real world, some criminals don't get what they deserve, and continue to prey on the innocent. While folk get all haughty and political and talk about ideals etc, innocent people are being stabbed, beaten, robbed etc etc.

Well yes. Objectively I know that is the case. But I reckon that if someone hurt my children the last thing I would be thinking is objectivity.

Well in all honesty, I'd just want such a person not to be in a position to hurt someone else. Hurin has a great quote in his sig from the father of a victim of the warrington bomb. That father is forgiving and merciful, but you can be guaranteed, he would not want the persons responsible blowing up someone elses child. This to me is the line. We should be merciful, we should be forgiving. We should 'not' be idiots and chumps. At the moment, IMO, we are idiots.

Obviously you don't. That seems to be quite common amongst the religious.

MrP

Well by your own definition, its more merciful. So I accept such a declaration. However, my advocation of the death penalty is not, 'yeah, lets have it'. If you read my posts, you can see a very real conflict in me. It is 'certainly' not wrong. It may however, be unmanageable in such a corrupt and unjust world. The fact that the system is so full of incompetance and corruption, I would be very reluctant to have the death penalty.

As a side note, it would be nice to keep the 'religion - atheist' point scoring thing out of this.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

why?

Because I think that maybe there was a time or circumstance where the end justified the means. By this I mean that maybe a great evil could be avoided by the execution of some despot, for example. This assumes, of course, that one believes in things like evil. I don't see the need for such measures in Ireland or any stable democratic country, and I just can't think of a scenario that would justify it beyond revenge.

From a Christian perspective, Brian is correct when he says that execution robs the criminal of the chance to repent and make some form of restitution - however inadequate. With regards to effectiveness, I've yet to be convinced that execution helps reduce crimes deemed worthy of death. Finally, if the State makes a mistake, what then?

peakpilgrim

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I'm against Capital Punishment.

It takes away the opportunity to bring the convicted into a saving relationship with Christ.

It not impossible for a convicted killer to be saved, according to the Catholic
Church; in the end, according to the church, that's up to God and the conscience of the killer.

There is an interesting case in France about a man who killed a policeman: 'Jacques Fesch' ( See Wikipedia Article ). He was executed in 1957.

Some have even proposed that he should be canonized; which is very controversial.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because I think that maybe there was a time or circumstance where the end justified the means. By this I mean that maybe a great evil could be avoided by the execution of some despot, for example. This assumes, of course, that one believes in things like evil. I don't see the need for such measures in Ireland or any stable democratic country, and I just can't think of a scenario that would justify it beyond revenge.

Revenge has nothing to do with what is being discussed. That is getting into motivations as to the death penalty. Honestly, i care nothing for revenge. Vengeance is Gods afterall. Protection of the innocent is the key.

From a Christian perspective, Brian is correct when he says that execution robs the criminal of the chance to repent and make some form of restitution - however inadequate.

I personally don't agree with this reasoning. I don't believe God to be a bearaucrat. He knows the hearts of men. This in my opinion should never enter the reasoning when one is working out the best way to protect the innocent from criminals. In fact, its one of the issues I have with the criminal justice system. That the mercy towards the guilty is at the expense of the innocent. IMO, that is not Christian.

With regards to effectiveness, I've yet to be convinced that execution helps reduce crimes deemed worthy of death.

You are probably right. I suppose what I really want to see, is a ferile law and order system, rather than the toothless illusion we have now.

Finally, if the State makes a mistake, what then?

Its one of the reasons why I'd be reluctant to have the death penalty.

What I can tell you, is that innocent people are becoming victims of known criminals who have 'served their time'. People are being terrorised by folk who are 'known' by the Gardai. So innocent people are becoming victims because criminals are being allowed to roam free. The death penalty may not be the answer we need, but we need something. Thats probably for another thread. Actually, that might be interesting. See what Christian consensus is on how the justice system should operate.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Revenge has nothing to do with what is being discussed. That is getting into motivations as to the death penalty. Honestly, i care nothing for revenge. Vengeance is Gods afterall. Protection of the innocent is the key.

I don't see what is being served by execution. If you are simply talking about protection of the innocent then locking them up in a cell for a very long time serves the same purpose and without the blood stained hands. Even here there is a chance that they may have an epiphany - religious or otherwise.

I personally don't agree with this reasoning. I don't believe God to be a bearaucrat. He knows the hearts of men. This in my opinion should never enter the reasoning when one is working out the best way to protect the innocent from criminals. In fact, its one of the issues I have with the criminal justice system. That the mercy towards the guilty is at the expense of the innocent. IMO, that is not Christian.

Again, a prison cell serves the same function; the innocent are protected. Yes, it might cause a heck of a lot more money (though I understand that it's an industry in itself in places like the US), but it isn't as morally debatable.

What I can tell you, is that innocent people are becoming victims of known criminals who have 'served their time'. People are being terrorised by folk who are 'known' by the Gardai. So innocent people are becoming victims because criminals are being allowed to roam free. The death penalty may not be the answer we need, but we need something. Thats probably for another thread. Actually, that might be interesting. See what Christian consensus is on how the justice system should operate.

Yes, certainly a debate for another thread, possibly on another forum. I don't, however, think that these "low level" criminals would be doing the crimes that would justify the chair or whatever. Your above point - one most would agree with, I think - seems to be a concern about the general effectiveness of the prison system, though.

Húrin

diverdriver wrote: »

It's notable how many Christians and other religious people have no trouble justifying killings despite their religious scruples and belief in a merciful God.

In fairness most of the Christians posting here are against the death penalty.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see what is being served by execution.

I see a few things. The person will never harm anyone again. Others will see that certain behaviour in society is met with an iron fist (Again, it would also have to show its mercy too). It free's up room for other criminals in the prison system. Its cheaper. There is no denying that there are benefits. Its a matter of weighing up the pro's and the con's.

If you are simply talking about protection of the innocent then locking them up in a cell for a very long time serves the same purpose and without the blood stained hands.

No, it doesn't at all. It serves its purpose for the amount of time that they are locked up for. That is a HUGE difference.

Even here there is a chance that they may have an epiphany - religious or otherwise.

Again, we are treating God as a bearaucrat. If God has plans for the guy, man will not get in the way. I personally think this is a poor reason to use against exectution.

Again, a prison cell serves the same function; the innocent are protected. Yes, it might cause a heck of a lot more money (though I understand that it's an industry in itself in places like the US), but it isn't as morally debatable.

I personally don't have a moral objection to execution. My objection to it is on the grounds of man being corrupt and incompetant. As for it serving the same purpose, it only serves that purpose if the criminal is 'never' freed 'Or' he's freed but truly rehabilitated. The second one, is very difficult to assess.

JimiTime

Húrin wrote: »

In fairness most of the Christians posting here are against the death penalty.

Including, may I add, myself. I'm just not against it on moral grounds. Its telling though that someone would ignore all the christian posters who are against it. Choose my view, which seems to stand alone amongst the Christian posters here, and use it as an example for the 'religious'. An honest reading would show that the Christians here are against the death penalty. Some however, are against it on moral grounds, others on practical grounds.

pts

I'm with Gandalf on this one:

Gandalf wrote:

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends"

It still leaves the the question on how to punish people. Maybe some kind of Island where they have to fight each other to the death......

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

Including, may I add, myself. I'm just not against it on moral grounds. Its telling though that someone would ignore all the christian posters who are against it. Choose my view, which seems to stand alone amongst the Christian posters here, and use it as an example for the 'religious'. An honest reading would show that the Christians here are against the death penalty. Some however, are against it on moral grounds, others on practical grounds.

I'm with Jimi on this. I have grave reservations about its use here, due to the corruption of the judicial system - but as a general principle, capital punishment is THE appropriate penalty for murder.

1. It is the God-given sentence; In the OT:
Genesis 9:5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.


In the NT:
Romans 13:4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

The objection that it deprives the guilty of an opportunity to repent is negated by:
a. The guilty have no right to an opportunity to repent.
b. But they do have one - from the time they commit the crime to the time of their execution.

The only other sentence that anyway approaches the issue is imprisonment for whole of life. But that too is very rare, even in the most horrible of incidents. 10-15 years seems the norm. What does that say about the value we put on human life?

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

Interesting that some seem to think that "people" should be allowed decide whether another person lives or dies. Or would prefer to see certain crimes punishable by death.

Is that not "God's job"?

No, for as you will see from my previous post, God has committed that to our fellow-man in both OT and NT.

AdamusAdonis

I don't agree with Capital Punishment myself. Obviously the idea of removing a threat from society is key to it's survival but what's more "moral" in locking a person up for life? Aside from the moral aspect, there's the resource usage too...

Perhaps there is no right answer for the society we live in as it stands.

dvpower

AdamusAdonis wrote: »

I don't agree with Capital Punishment myself. Obviously the idea of removing a threat from society is key to it's survival but what's more "moral" in locking a person up for life? Aside from the moral aspect, there's the resource usage too...

Perhaps there is no right answer for the society we live in as it stands.

Executions tend to work out more expensive than life imprisonments because the very long and expensive judicial process that tend to come with capital cases. I can't see any practical reason for the death penalty; maybe as a deterrent, but I'm not too sure what the evidence is on that.

I'm against. I'd need an overwhelming case to be made to support the deliberate taking of another persons life in cold blood.