Execution

[Jainarayan]

Jesus was completely innocent of the charges brought against Him. He is the ultimate symbol representing in His person all victims of executions, whether guilty of crimes or not.

I know how it worked but was it wrong that he was executed, whatever the reason? He was human, killed by other humans. Caiaphas was prompted to say “better that one man die than the whole nation perish”.

What I’m getting at is that I don’t think it’s ever as cut and dry or black and white as all that. He was necessarily killed for the greater good.

 

[Vouthon]

I know how it worked but was it wrong that he was executed, whatever the reason? He was human, killed by other humans. Caiaphas was prompted to say “better that one man die than the whole nation perish”.

What I’m getting at is that I don’t think it’s ever as cut and dry or black and white as all that. He was necessarily killed for the greater good.

It was certainly "wrong" that he was, firstly, convicted of crimes He didn't commit. Secondly, it was "wrong" that the mob was stirred up to scapegoat Him and chant for his brutal, humiliating execution in the way that Caiaphas described, his logic essentially amounted to this - "let's execute this guy and use him as a scapegoat for the problems in our society, let's give the rabble a hate figure to unite around, better he die than a general crisis break out". Thirdly, it was "wrong" that He was ultimately executed because of these trumped up allegations by a kangaroo court and the scapegoating fury of a baying mob hungry for blood.

He gave himself up to these corrupt authorities and the baying mob, to expose how evil the whole process was, to show mankind what their sins would result in - the horror of the innocent, tortured, scapegoated victim nailed to the cross to the mad scorn of the crowd screaming, "crucify him, crucify him!". All human culture and societies have been founded upon the scapegoating of others, at some point. Jesus pulled the rug from under their feet by exposing it through itself. Inverting the scapegoating mechanism.

That doesn't make His death "justified" or negate the fact that it was supremely wrong of the people who killed Him to have killed Him. The whole process was horrendous and that was the point: He gave himself into the hands of sinful men to expose the sin. That "greater good" doesn't make the "sin" right, it just makes the sin plain for all to see and forces you to reflect. The end doesn't justify the means.

He died from a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Jainarayan]

He gave himself into the hands of sinful men to expose the sin. That "greater good" doesn't make the "sin" right, it just makes the sin plain for all to see and forces you to reflect. The end doesn't justify the means.

He died from a miscarriage of justice.

Yet without all that Christians believe mankind would still be in sin.

 

[Vouthon]

Yet without all that Christians believe mankind would still be in sin.

Yes and how sad is that? The only way to get the mob to stop the cycle of collective violence was for a supremely innocent person to freely surrender Himself into the clutches of the mob and have a group of fervent supporters write four books vindicating His innocence after His death, via the miracle of His resurrection.

That's the "necessity". It was mankind that made it inevitable. There should have been a better way but the sin of man made it such that the only way to expose the sin was to let the sin play itself out on a willing victim of impeccable innocence (God Himself in the flesh), to expose it once and for all.

Jesus explained this by means of His parable of the tenants in the vineyard:

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
​

Only when the husbandmen (sinful humanity) murdered the beloved son of the householder (God), after having killed numerous other of His servants (victims of collective violence throughout history), was their sin exposed.

 

[Jainarayan]

That's the "necessity". It was mankind that made it inevitable.

Then there was a time it was necessary to execute someone. The reason is not important, that it was necessary is, and overrides the belief that killing is never necessary or justified. Again my point: it’s not black and white.

 

[Vouthon]

Then there was a time it was necessary to execute someone. The reason is not important, that it was necessary is, and overrides the belief that killing is never necessary or justified. Again my point: it’s not black and white.

You seem to misunderstand the fact that Jesus was willingly trying to destroy the process that leads to scapegoating and death by surrendering himself to it.

He wanted to stop it, by subverting it.

By continuing to kill people in the way his generation killed Him is to fail to understand why He died - to stop that very process of bloodletting.

See, this letter from Pope St. Nicholas the Great to Khan Boris in 866:

"....Chapter LXXXVI.

If a thief or a robber is apprehended and denies that he is involved, you say that in your country the judge would beat his head with lashes and prick his sides with iron goads until he came up with the truth. Neither divine nor human law allows this practice in any way, since a confession should be spontaneous, not compelled, and should not be elicited with violence but rather proferred voluntarily. ...

You claim that it is part of the custom of your country that guards always stand on the alert between your country and the boundaries of others; and if a slave or freeman [manages to] flee somehow through this watch, the guards are killed without hesitation because of this....

Therefore leave such practices behind and heartily curse the things which you have hitherto done foolishly. Indeed, what fruit shall you have in those practices, of which you are now ashamed.

Far be it from your minds that you, who have acknowledged so pious a God and Lord, now judge so harshly, especially since it is more fitting that, just as hitherto you put people to death with ease, so from now on you should lead those whom you can not to death but to life. For the blessed apostle Paul, who was initially an abusive persecutor and breathed threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,[cf. Acts 9:1] later sought mercy and, converted by a divine revelation, not only did not impose the death penalty on anyone but also wished to be anathema for the brethren [cf. Rom. 9:3] and was prepared to spend and be spent most willingly for the souls of the faithful.[cf. II Cor. 12:15]

In the same way, after you have been called by the election of God and illuminated by his light, you should no longer desire deaths but should without hesitation recall everyone to the life of the body as well as the soul, when any opportunity is found. [cf. Rom. 7:6] And just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death, according to the saying of the most wise Solomon: Save those, who are led to death; and do not cease freeing those who are brought to their destruction. [Prov. 24:11]..."​

 

[Vee]

Are you willing to keep them alive with a place to live, and pay for their food and clothing and fund this high security jail to keep these people in?

Not at all. Prison is not meant to be a vacation. They should be put to work and pay for the expenses themselves.

 

[Jainarayan]

You seem to misunderstand the fact that Jesus was willingly trying to destroy the process that leads to scapegoating and death by surrendering himself to it.

He wanted to stop it, by subverting it.

By continuing to kill people in the way his generation killed Him is to fail to understand why He died - to stop that very process of bloodletting.

I’m not misunderstanding.

 

[Vouthon]

I’m not misunderstanding.

Then why are you asking that I nuance my position and open myself up to the possibility that it might be necessary or justifiable to execute people (i.e. criminals)?

Jesus died so that no one else has to.

 

[Jainarayan]

Then why are you asking that I nuance my position and open myself up to the possibility that it might be necessary or justifiable to execute people (i.e. criminals)?

Jesus died so that no one else has to.

I’m just trying to point out that there are indeed times when execution is necessary.

 

[Vouthon]

I’m just trying to point out that there are indeed times when execution is necessary.

I do not agree and moreover I think that trying to use the sacrificial death of Jesus, which was an attempt to stop people scapegoating and killing others by exposing the process for what it is, so as to end the cycle of collective violence and the sinful desires underlying it, is misplaced.

The only act of killing that is justified in my book is one committed in self-defence by a person apprehending immediate personal violence that would result in their own death or at least grievous bodily harm if they didn't lash out. Even then proportionality must be obeyed, where possible and practical. If self-defence can be effected without the death of the one assaulting then it should it be.

But execution in the absence of immediate threat to life, as an act of punitive violence by the state or a vigilante, is not something I approve of.

 

[Jainarayan]

I do not agree and moreover I think that trying to use the sacrificial death of Jesus, which was an attempt to stop people scapegoating and killing others by exposing it for what it is so as to end the cycle of collective violence, is misplaced.

I don't think it's misplaced at all. It was an execution under Roman law from a political standpoint, and a necessary sacrifice from a spiritual perspective. It resolved two issues. Either way, his execution was necessary.

 

[Vouthon]

I don't think it's misplaced at all. It was an execution under Roman law from a political standpoint, and a necessary sacrifice from a spiritual perspective. It resolved two issues. Either way, his execution was necessary.

It was a miscarriage of justice from a political standpoint and the tragic outcome of mankind's sinfulness from a spiritual perspective, by means of which the sin itself was ironically exposed (as if by exhausting or bouncing back on itself by reaching its crescendo) and the supremely innocent victim was ultimately vindicated through His Resurrection and Ascension, thereby opening up the last pathway for mankind to be definitely freed from the mentality of sin.

But that unique end did not justify the means. The means (scapegoating and killing someone) were still evil and the death of Jesus exposed that evil. That's why Catholics pray, "by my fault, by my most grievous fault".

To then countenance that evil is to betray the meaning of Christ's sacrifice. Just as it was wrong for people to murder Jesus, and Jesus Himself begged that they be forgiven for having done so, its wrong to do the same to others.

 

[Koldo]

Certainly it's not the only means to thwart an escape. I was merely suggesting an option. How would you thwart and escape?

Apprehend them and send them back to the island.

Then again I wouldn't want that kind of island to be created in the first place...

 

[Vouthon]

@Jainarayan I wish to make clear to you that I subscribe to the position of a number of the earliest Church Fathers in the Catholic tradition which deplores the death penalty, for instance the Christian apologist Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325):


Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/The Divine Institutes/Book VI/Chap. XX - Wikisource, the free online library


Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/The Divine Institutes/Book VI/Chap. XX

For he who reckons it a pleasure, that a man, though justly condemned, should be slain in his sight, pollutes his conscience as much as if he should become a spectator and a sharer of a homicide which is secretly committed.[4]And yet they call these sports in which human blood is shed. So far has the feeling of humanity departed from the men, that when they destroy the lives of men, they think that they are amusing themselves with sport, being more guilty than all those whose blood-shedding they esteem a pleasure.

I ask now whether they can be just and pious men, who, when they see men placed under the stroke of death, and entreating mercy, not only suffer them to be put to death, but also demand it, and give cruel and inhuman votes for their death, not being satiated with wounds nor contented with bloodshed. Moreover, they order them, even though wounded and prostrate, to be attacked again, and their caresses to he wasted[5] with blows, that no one may delude them by a pretended death.

They are even angry with the combatants, unless one of the two is quickly slain; and as though they thirsted for human blood, they hate delays. They demand that other and fresh combatants should be given to them, that they may satisfy their eyes as soon as possible.

Being imbued with this practice, they have lost their humanity. Therefore they do not spare even the innocent, but practice upon all that which they have learned in the slaughter of the wicked. It is not therefore befitting that those who strive to keep to the path of justice should be companions and sharers in this public homicide.

For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence,[6] which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself[7] which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.[8] ​

Pope Francis holds to this earlier understanding as well, which he wants to make mandatory for Catholics. I support him:


Pope Francis: revise catechism to show death penalty is ‘inadmissible’ | CatholicHerald.co.uk

The death penalty, no matter how it is carried out, “is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel,” Pope Francis said.

Marking the 25th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican on October 11, Pope Francis said the catechism’s discussion of the death penalty, already formally amended by St John Paul II, needs to be even more explicitly against capital punishment.

Capital punishment, he said, “heavily wounds human dignity” and is an “inhuman measure.”

“It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor,” the Pope said.

The death penalty, he said, not only extinguishes a human life, it extinguishes the possibility that the person, recognizing his or her errors, will request forgiveness and begin a new life.

In the past, when people did not see any other way for society to defend itself against serious crime and when “social maturity” was lacking, he said, people accepted the death penalty as “a logical consequence of the application of justice.”

“Let us take responsibility for the past and recognize” that use of the death penalty was “dictated by a mentality that was more legalistic than Christian,” Pope Francis said. “Remaining neutral today when there is a new need to reaffirm personal dignity would make us even more guilty.”

​

This is my religious and moral approach to the issue.

​

 

[metis]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

Only if there's no other way to protect life, which would be almost unheard of today. If "life is sacred", as many of us do believe, then incarcerate violent criminals and then let God decide what to do from there.

 

[maggie2]

I do not believe in the death penalty. There are many, many innocent men (and probably a few women) who have been on death row and been proven not guilty of the crime they have been accused of. Check out the Innocence Project. At one time the Governor of Illinois put a halt to executions because there had been 12 prisoners who were proven innocent who had been sitting on death row. There is always the chance that an innocent person will be put to death. Additionally, knowing that there have been so many proven innocent, one has to realize that there are obviously many innocent people who have been put to death unfairly. That alone is enough to make me totally against the death penalty.

In addition, however, I simply do not believe we have the right to take another life, no matter what the reasons. My thinking is not based on any religion, simply my own moral code of conduct. And I'm sure someone will bring up abortion so I might as well address that right now. I don't believe in abortion. However, that said, I DO believe in a woman's right to choose. I do not believe in abortion for ME, but I don't think I have the right to impose that belief on other people. It's a topic I find very difficult to come to terms with because I have such mixed feelings about it.

Marg

 

[Vancouversailor]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?
Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?

In my personal opinion the answer is NEVER.

The three driving forces behind judicial punishment are to create a deterrent for others, to protect public safety and in certain societal circles, retribution. All three can be accomplished through imprisonment. My main objection against execution is it's finality.

There have been numerous cases where convictions going back many years have been overturned due to newer methods of testing DNA, witnesses who have come clean about lying in court and police or prosecutors committing evidence tampering. It is rather difficult to apologize to a corpse for these miscarriages of justice. So I say, better that 10 killers escape the hangman's noose and spend their life in prison, then that one innocent person is hung.

This standard is not connected to any religious or spiritual belief but stems from the rational thoughts of a civilized person.

 

[Thornbrier]

In my personal belief 'execution' would require some fairly extreme conditions to be met.
1) The person must be known, absolutely, for sure, no 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts' to be the guilty party. The burden of proof here is quite extreme because there is no 'take-backsies' with an execution, no possible apology that would ever bring them back. This is HUGE!
2) The persons continued life must be a clear danger to others.
*2.1) They must still be of a mind to seriously harm or kill people.
*2.2) AND They must pose a significant risk of being able to carry out said harm/killing.
*2.2.1) That means if they escape or have means established from outside to execute an escape, that's a pretty big factor. I like to call this the Joker Rule after all the times Joker broke out in the Batman series.
*2.2.2) Or if they are still able to command their goons to commit such crimes for them. I call this the Lex Luther Rule.
3) Any execution must not be torturous. I'm a bit more broad on how exactly that's defined, especially if the first two points are already taken into account.

These rules allow for both a 'street level execution' of someone currently engaged in killing/harming others as well as the execution of seriously dangerous prisoners. While 'street level' would be more common with these rules it does not allow for the current 'I felt threatened' bull**** that cops are using to kill black men right now.

 

[Koldo]

@Jainarayan I wish to make clear to you that I subscribe to the position of a number of the earliest Church Fathers in the Catholic tradition which deplores the death penalty, for instance the Christian apologist Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325):


Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/The Divine Institutes/Book VI/Chap. XX - Wikisource, the free online library


Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/The Divine Institutes/Book VI/Chap. XX

For he who reckons it a pleasure, that a man, though justly condemned, should be slain in his sight, pollutes his conscience as much as if he should become a spectator and a sharer of a homicide which is secretly committed.[4]And yet they call these sports in which human blood is shed. So far has the feeling of humanity departed from the men, that when they destroy the lives of men, they think that they are amusing themselves with sport, being more guilty than all those whose blood-shedding they esteem a pleasure.

I ask now whether they can be just and pious men, who, when they see men placed under the stroke of death, and entreating mercy, not only suffer them to be put to death, but also demand it, and give cruel and inhuman votes for their death, not being satiated with wounds nor contented with bloodshed. Moreover, they order them, even though wounded and prostrate, to be attacked again, and their caresses to he wasted[5] with blows, that no one may delude them by a pretended death.

They are even angry with the combatants, unless one of the two is quickly slain; and as though they thirsted for human blood, they hate delays. They demand that other and fresh combatants should be given to them, that they may satisfy their eyes as soon as possible.

Being imbued with this practice, they have lost their humanity. Therefore they do not spare even the innocent, but practice upon all that which they have learned in the slaughter of the wicked. It is not therefore befitting that those who strive to keep to the path of justice should be companions and sharers in this public homicide.

For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence,[6] which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself[7] which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.[8] ​

Pope Francis holds to this earlier understanding as well, which he wants to make mandatory for Catholics. I support him:


Pope Francis: revise catechism to show death penalty is ‘inadmissible’ | CatholicHerald.co.uk

The death penalty, no matter how it is carried out, “is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel,” Pope Francis said.

Marking the 25th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican on October 11, Pope Francis said the catechism’s discussion of the death penalty, already formally amended by St John Paul II, needs to be even more explicitly against capital punishment.

Capital punishment, he said, “heavily wounds human dignity” and is an “inhuman measure.”

“It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor,” the Pope said.

The death penalty, he said, not only extinguishes a human life, it extinguishes the possibility that the person, recognizing his or her errors, will request forgiveness and begin a new life.

In the past, when people did not see any other way for society to defend itself against serious crime and when “social maturity” was lacking, he said, people accepted the death penalty as “a logical consequence of the application of justice.”

“Let us take responsibility for the past and recognize” that use of the death penalty was “dictated by a mentality that was more legalistic than Christian,” Pope Francis said. “Remaining neutral today when there is a new need to reaffirm personal dignity would make us even more guilty.”

​

This is my religious and moral approach to the issue.

​

Only if there's no other way to protect life, which would be almost unheard of today. If "life is sacred", as many of us do believe, then incarcerate violent criminals and then let God decide what to do from there.

I would certainly question in what sense 'life is sacred to God', considering he often goes around in the OT either killing people or ordering others to do so.