Capital Punishment

[Melody]

My beliefs are based on the Bible and to be honest, as much as I think some people are just asking for the death penalty, the New Testament speaks very clearly against the taking of life and as far as I know it doesn't make the distinction between killing an innocent person and killing a murderer.

I know the OT talks about "an eye for an eye", but there are verses in the Bible that suggest that we are no longer to follow the laws of the OT but are to follow Jesus who is the "Word made flesh". I interpret that to mean we abide by the laws of the NT.

 

[No*s]

I know the OT talks about "an eye for an eye", but there are verses in the Bible that suggest that we are no longer to follow the laws of the OT but are to follow Jesus who is the "Word made flesh". I interpret that to mean we abide by the laws of the NT.

Here's one for you: rather than "an eye for an eye" being a sanction and call for veangance, maybe it's a limitation. That is, rather than having long, protracted family feuds, it limits retaliation that people can take. That would allow the teachings of Christ to harmonize quite well with the Law.

EDIT: I think that this will harmonize quite well with your opposition of the death penalty. I think my post sounded like I thought you were advocating it.

 

[Melody]

Here's one for you: rather than "an eye for an eye" being a sanction and call for veangance, maybe it's a limitation. That is, rather than having long, protracted family feuds, it limits retaliation that people can take. That would allow the teachings of Christ to harmonize quite well with the Law.
QUOTE]

Interesting way of looking at it. I'd not considered the possibility before.

 

[No*s]

I hadn't until my professor for "Pentatuech and the Former Prophets" brought it to my attention. After she said it, it kind of just made sense.

 

[robtex]

When yall qoute scripture it suggests to me that the context of the meathod of judgement by man (which runs the institution and the death penatly) does not impact your decision and that the parameters under which the institution exists carry no weight either. I base this theory on the fact that you have projected the values of a 2000 year old text upon today's judical system thus negating qualfiying factors present in today's system so that the biblical system could be superimposed upons today's american system.

Having stated that and saying that your decison is made in a vaccum how is it that general (as opposed to specific) circumstances can carry no weight in your decision and what would have to happen for present circumstances to bear weight in your future decisions regarding the death penalty?

I am trying to get a perspective on your ranking of priorites on your decison cause I inversly put the circumstanences under which the system is adminstered as the highest priority in my decision and a decision reached through the exact opposite of my critera interesting.

 

[Melody]

When yall qoute scripture it suggests to me that the context of the meathod of judgement by man (which runs the institution and the death penatly) does not impact your decision and that the parameters under which the institution exists carry no weight either. I base this theory on the fact that you have projected the values of a 2000 year old text upon today's judical system thus negating qualfiying factors present in today's system so that the biblical system could be superimposed upons today's american system.

Having stated that and saying that your decison is made in a vaccum how is it that general (as opposed to specific) circumstances can carry no weight in your decision and what would have to happen for present circumstances to bear weight in your future decisions regarding the death penalty?

I am trying to get a perspective on your ranking of priorites on your decison cause I inversly put the circumstanences under which the system is adminstered as the highest priority in my decision and a decision reached through the exact opposite of my critera interesting.

The perception that my decision was made in a vacuum is yours, not mine. My decision is based on God's Word (and so how else can I respond?), which I believe in, and not the fickleness of human nature.

Even if you do not believe in God or the Bible, logic says that capital punishment is a ridiculous institution. It has already been proven that it does not deter people from committing murder; therefore, it appears that capital punishment is just a tool for revenge or to get elected. State sanctioned murder is still murder. One wonders how many people would keep or reinstitute capital punishment if it became law that every citizen had to take their turn "pushing the button" up close and personal instead of just sitting on a jury where their button is less impersonal.

 

[robtex]

Ok Mel, we reached the same conclusion but I did it by looking at the pros and cons of the death penalty in our present society and based my decison upon the constraints and boundries of the legal system and on nothing else (see my long winded prior posts on this thread).

What I am asking did you reach the same conclusion with the the critera I just listed and the Bible or just the Bible and if so which one beared the greatest weight on your decison and why?

In the post I made before I stated that to transplant the laws and their applications of the Bible to modern times you could only super impose them by dimishing the impact of the parameters that make up the current justice system as it is practiced in the United States. The legal system in the NT is incapable of being consistant with today's cause of advances in criminology the judicial system and implimentation of judicial directives. So I am thinking to accomodate the intragration of the NT on today's law one would have to lessen the priorty given to the structure of the current system at least as it impacts their decsions on legal adminstarations of stated laws....in this case the death penalty. Is that a fair statement and if it is

which carried a higher priorty in your decion ..the bible or the current stats on the death penalty and if it does not how do you intrigrate laws of 2000 years ago into the judicial system today without redefining or dimishing priorties of the current system in place?

 

[Melody]

So I am thinking to accomodate the intragration of the NT on today's law one would have to lessen the priorty given to the structure of the current system at least as it impacts their decsions on legal adminstarations of stated laws....in this case the death penalty. Is that a fair statement and if it is which carried a higher priorty in your decion ..the bible or the current stats on the death penalty and if it does not how do you intrigrate laws of 2000 years ago into the judicial system today without redefining or dimishing priorties of the current system in place?

For me, the higher priority will always be the Bible because I believe it to be God's Word and His word will always take precedence over man's law. It doesn't even come into play whether I am redefining the existing system since the system is man's...not God's and my allegiance is to God, not man.

There are many topics in the Bible where it is not so clearly written (and I'm struggling with them), but this isn't one of them.

 

[firstsamuel]

Thanks.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Even if you do not believe in God or the Bible, logic says that capital punishment is a ridiculous institution.

I like you Melody, but I'm going to have to disagree on this one. Logic says (in and of itself) absolutely nothing about the institution of capital punishment. If you wish to present a premise or two, and draw your conclusion, I'll be glad to discuss them with you.

It has already been proven that it does not deter people from committing murder; therefore, it appears that capital punishment is just a tool for revenge or to get elected.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Capital Punishment is the absolute deterrent. Gary Gilmore, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy have all summarily stopped murdering people - I would say that they have definitely been deterred. Now, as to whether their being put to death has deterred anyone else from committing murder, I cannot say with any degree of certainty - nor can you. If even one person that would have committed murder has been deterred because of the preceding people being put to death, then it is "icing on the cake". If no other person has been deterred, well, that's a shame - but the three I mentioned (along with many others) have undeniably been deterred.
As for being a tool for revenge, I'll agree with that. Then again, I don't look upon revenge as necessarily being a bad thing.
As for being a tool to get elected, I'm not sure that I can agree. It would seem to me that it might well cost a politician as many votes as it would likely garner for him. Then again, in a democracy, if the majority of the people choose to vote for a given politician for this (or any other) position, they have the right to do so. I was in the minority, in that I did not vote for Bush, but I will live with the consequences, as we all will.

State sanctioned murder is still murder.

No - that is an appeal to emotion on your part. When the state puts a person to death via the death penalty it is called capital punishment. Notice the lack of emotion in that phraseology.

One wonders how many people would keep or reinstitute capital punishment if it became law that every citizen had to take their turn "pushing the button" up close and personal instead of just sitting on a jury where their button is less impersonal.

Wonder no more - I have addressed this in an earlier post - I would be more than happy to "push the button" when the facts are irrefutable. In my opinion (and I realize that I may be in the minority or the majority - it does not matter), these people have forfeited their right to live in a society of law-abiding citizens. I, for one, have no desire to feed, house, clothe, educate, and try to "save" or "improve" these people - they are leeches on mankind (again, in my opinion). The money that is used to support these people for the rest of their natural lives should be spent on providing housing for the poor, feeding the hungry, forgiving student loans, or to finance disaster relief.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Sunstone]

My main problem with capital punnishment is that there doesn't seem to be any way of guaranteeing that the state doesn't execute a wrongfully convicted innocent man.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

My main problem with capital punnishment is that there doesn't seem to be any way of guaranteeing that the state doesn't execute a wrongfully convicted innocent man.

A good point, and I believe it to be the biggest problem that Robtex has with Capital Punishment as well. I do not disagree that this is a real (not imagined) flaw in the system. That is why I stated previously that the death sentence should only be possible when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt. After that burden of proof has been met, then my statements are (in my opinion) valid and my position has merit.

What I am NOT advocating, is the enforcement of the death penalty in cases where a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence (strong though it may be).

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Scuba Pete]

That is why I stated previously that the death sentence should only be possible when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt.

Hind site can be 20/20 which it often is AFTER the sentence has been carried out.

BTW, Britain repealed their death penalty after such a posthumous revelation of "non-guilt". I believe their crime rate has decreased since this happened.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

BTW, Britain repealed their death penalty after such a posthumous revelation of "non-guilt". I believe their crime rate has decreased since this happened.

Britain repealed the death penalty in 1965, but completely repealed it (including the crimes of treason and piracy) in 1998. Oddly, they enacted a gun law in 1997. There are many that would argue (obviously not the NRA) that the passing of the gun law is the reason for the drop in crime, not the repeal of the death penalty.

For what it is worth, the statement "the crime rate has decreased" is almost useless. We have to define what types of crime we are talking about, over what time span, and how we are going to measure the crime rate (i.e. by occurence, by crimes reported, by conviction, by length of term, etc.). That said, NetDoc, I understand the point you are trying to make.

Thanks,
TVOR