The Death Penalty

[McBell]

Let me know if you want a list.

Speaking only for myself...
I would like the list.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The blame is shared, IMO. Tony Roach's execution would not have happened if he had not committed his crime AND if the State of Texas had not chosen to pursue the death penalty. The State had a choice, and therefore bears responsibility for that choice.

The Texas capital-murder statute, which reads in applicable part:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02 and:

* * *​

(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of
committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery,
aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or
terroristic threat under Section 22.07)[.]


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=app/12717&invol=1


If the state did not pursue the death penalty, it would be an injustice.

 

[McBell]

The blame is shared, IMO. Tony Roach's execution would not have happened if he had not committed his crime AND if the State of Texas had not chosen to pursue the death penalty. The State had a choice, and therefore bears responsibility for that choice.

So where do you draw the line?
Do you also blame his parents for the conception?
His grand parents?
How far do you take this share the blame?
The jury for finding him guilty?
The victim for being there?
The maker of the belt?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Speaking only for myself...
I would like the list.

Here you go:

So you DO regularly frighten animals as "commanded" in Genesis 9:2?

Verse 9 states that shedding the blood of man is wrong because man is made in the image of God. If a criminal is a man, and therefore made in the image of God, how can you reconcile this verse with the idea that it's acceptable to spill his blood?

What Muhammed did was despicable, but that doesn't necessarily make him more dangerous to other inmates than many people in prison for non-capital crimes.

And again, do you have any data to back up your claim?

Note: "Muhammed" in the above quote refers to Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammed, and this was in reference to Poisonshady's claim that capital offenders present a greater risk to fellow inmates than non-capital offenders.

As of June 30, 2007, according to the US DOJ, there were more than two million people in jail and prison in the US. 1,100 people in more than 30 years isn't even within the margin of error of the overall prison population, I'd bet.

According to the Death Penalty Info Center, there were 3,263 death row inmates in the US as of Jan/Feb 2008. 3,263 out of 2,299,166 works out to 0.14% of the prison population.

Again... do you really think there's a "flood" of capital criminals?

Why does the mere fact that the person is a criminal enter into the argument? It seemed like your position was that a prisoner serving a life sentence would have no hope of ever living a normal life in society again, and therefore should die. A patient in a hospital could also have no hope of ever living a normal life in society again, so why shouldn't your logic apply consistently?

If your argument actually reflects the reality of the situation, one would expect to see that in places without the death penalty, people serving life sentences without parole would be much more likely than other inmates to commit offenses while in prison.

I await data to back up your claim. If you're right, it should be a simple matter for you to support it.

-----------------------------------

The Texas capital-murder statute, which reads in applicable part:

I failed to see in the "applicable part" where it states that death is the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime.

So where do you draw the line?
Do you also blame his parents for the conception?
His grand parents?
How far do you take this share the blame?
The jury for finding him guilty?
The victim for being there?
The maker of the belt?

For Roach's execution and his family's resulting loss of a husband/father/son/brother/etc. (not sure how many of those are applicable)?

I'd extend the blame, at least in part, to anyone who knowingly contributed to it and had a choice not to. I wouldn't include his parents (unless they set out to breed a murderer), the victim, or the belt maker.

The jury... depends. If all they did was pronounce a verdict as required by law in accordance with the facts of the case, then I'd say no. If it was their decision whether to hand down a death sentence or not, then I'd say yes, they bear part of the blame.

 

[McBell]

Here you go:

Thats a long list.

For Roach's execution and his family's resulting loss of a husband/father/son/brother/etc. (not sure how many of those are applicable)?

I'd extend the blame, at least in part, to anyone who knowingly contributed to it and had a choice not to. I wouldn't include his parents (unless they set out to breed a murderer), the victim, or the belt maker.

The jury... depends. If all they did was pronounce a verdict as required by law in accordance with the facts of the case, then I'd say no. If it was their decision whether to hand down a death sentence or not, then I'd say yes, they bear part of the blame.

So you are a supporter of "snowball blame?"

 

[Poisonshady313]

So you DO regularly frighten animals as "commanded" in Genesis 9:2?

It's not a command to actively frighten animals, but a general statement that animals have an instinctual fear of humans.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Verse 9 states that shedding the blood of man is wrong because man is made in the image of God. If a criminal is a man, and therefore made in the image of God, how can you reconcile this verse with the idea that it's acceptable to spill his blood?

"By man shall his blood be shed" That's how.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Those who commmit capital crimes aren't always serving capital time (i.e. being on death row). Those who have committed first degree murder are more likely to be dangerous than those sentenced for grand theft auto. It's not something that needs to be backed up... it's common sense. Violent criminals are more likely to be violent than non-violent criminals.

Want support? Here's support:
Lemuel Smith and Johnathan Pollard... both serving life sentences.

Smith killed almost 20 people before coming to prison.
Pollard killed nobody. He gave information to Israel to save them from an impending attack... info that the US was required, by agreement, to give... yet because it was being kept secretive (illegally), pollard uncovering this info was considered to be an act of a spy.

Pollard has still not killed anybody.
Smith raped and dismembered a prison guard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are a supporter of "snowball blame?"

I'm a supporter of the idea that people are responsible for their consequences of their choices when those consequences are reasonably foreseeable.

I think it's important to say that I do think it's important to look at the decision in terms of the "big picture": if some action creates some harm in one regard but benefit in some other regard, then the net effect should be taken into account. Also, the range of options available should be considered.

How do you define "snowball blame"? I haven't heard the term before.

It's not a command to actively frighten animals, but a general statement that animals have an instinctual fear of humans.

Ah... so some verses in Genesis 9 are statements and some are commands, right?

You say that verse 2 is a statement, not a command. Verse 6 follows a very similar structure to verse 2; why do you consider it to be a command and not a statement of the state of the world? Why do you interpret it to be God's instruction for humans to execute murderers, and not as God's statement that He has arranged things so murderers receive punishment as a matter of course (or from the hand of God directly)?

I see nothing in the verse that states that humans should execute people (in fact, it explicitly condemns shedding of blood generally). It only says "it will happen", not "do it for Me".

 

[Poisonshady313]

The patient in the hospital... the fact that they won't experience a normal life in society is NOT coupled with the fact of being guilty of first degree murder with any of various aggravating factors.

A murderer is.

A murderer is put in the position of being removed from society because of a crime he committed. A hospital patient doesn't ask to be put in that situation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"By man shall his blood be shed" That's how.

Which condemns the executioner as strongly as the executed.

Those who commmit capital crimes aren't always serving capital time (i.e. being on death row). Those who have committed first degree murder are more likely to be dangerous than those sentenced for grand theft auto. It's not something that needs to be backed up... it's common sense. Violent criminals are more likely to be violent than non-violent criminals.

Please re-read:

The distinction was capital vs. non-capital, not violent vs. non-violent.

Want support? Here's support:
Lemuel Smith and Johnathan Pollard... both serving life sentences.

Smith killed almost 20 people before coming to prison.
Pollard killed nobody. He gave information to Israel to save them from an impending attack... info that the US was required, by agreement, to give... yet because it was being kept secretive (illegally), pollard uncovering this info was considered to be an act of a spy.

Pollard has still not killed anybody.
Smith raped and dismembered a prison guard.

Anecdotes are not data.

 

[PureX]

It's my opinion.

So you have no reasonable justification for this opinion except that it's your personal knee-jerk reaction to violent crime. I understand.

Rehabilitation is a lost cause. Anybody who works in a prison will tell you that.

Rehabilitation isn't happening because our prison system is not practicing it. Our whole criminal justice system is based on the knee-jerk emotional desire for vengeance. We don't even try to rehabilitate prisoners because all we're concerned with is punishing them. And it's this lust for punishment that is so ineffective at changing anyone's hearts and minds.

If we punish people by removing them from society... kinda... by keeping them in prison, and they're never going to see the light of day again because they can't be trusted to live with the rest of us, what's the difference if he dies now or 40 years from now?

I imagine it's a very big difference to the men and women you want to kill. Not to mention that in killing them we make ourselves no better than them. And in many ways we make ourselves even worse. After all, it's one thing to commit a crime against another human being in a moment of passion, or blind rage, or blind stupidity, or under the influence of drugs and alcohol. It's a whole other thing to deliberately kill another human being, with malice and forethought, and completely sober.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Ah... so some verses in Genesis 9 are statements and some are commands, right?

You say that verse 2 is a statement, not a command. Verse 6 follows a very similar structure to verse 2;

It doesn't say that the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth BY YOU... (i.e. as a result of you bringing it about)... but that this is the condition. Commentary says "The fear of you... Lest Noah be afraid that the few surviving people would be in constant danger from the hordes of animals in the world, God assured him that He had implanted in animals an instinctive fear of human beings.

why do you consider it to be a command and not a statement of the state of the world?

the preceding verse leads into it.

However, your blood which belongs to your souls I will demand, of every beast I will demand it; but of man, of every man for that of his brother I will demand the soul of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

Why do you interpret it to be God's instruction for humans to execute murderers, and not as God's statement that He has arranged things so murderers receive punishment as a matter of course (or from the hand of God directly)?

For humans to execute murderers IS how God arranged murderers to receive punishment as a matter of course.

Otherwise, you have a situation where if an executioner is put to death, someone must put to death the executioner's killer, and someone to kill him, and someone to kill him.

In general, (as is stated explicitly by Abraham) God is a God of Justice... and I can't very well see an endless chain of execution being justice.

If a person commits murder, he is executed, and the matter is done. The executioner carried out the will of the Lord, and therefore need not be dealt with.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I imagine it's a very big difference to the men and women you want to kill. Not to mention that in killing them we make ourselves no better than them. And in many ways we make ourselves even worse. After all, it's one thing to commit a crime against another human being in a moment of passion, or blind rage, or blind stupidity, or under the influence of drugs and alcohol. It's a whole other thing to deliberately kill another human being, with malice and forethought, and completely sober.

What is your justification for this opinion? Or is it your personal knee-jerk reaction to the death penalty?

 

[McBell]

I'm a supporter of the idea that people are responsible for their consequences of their choices when those consequences are reasonably foreseeable.

I understand this.
What I do not understand is how you decide where to draw the line.
When to stop snowballing the blame.

I think it's important to say that I do think it's important to look at the decision in terms of the "big picture": if some action creates some harm in one regard but benefit in some other regard, then the net effect should be taken into account. Also, the range of options available should be considered.

I can agree with this.
It should be a case by case basis.
It seems that we may disagree on the effects, though.

How do you define "snowball blame"? I haven't heard the term before.

To spread the blame, or 'share of the blame', to those who had nothing to do with the crime.

I see nothing in the verse that states that humans should execute people (in fact, it explicitly condemns shedding of blood generally). It only says "it will happen", not "do it for Me".

Please see post #128

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the preceding verse leads into it.

However, your blood which belongs to your souls I will demand, of every beast I will demand it; but of man, of every man for that of his brother I will demand the soul of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

I fail to see how the preceding verse makes it into a command for execution.

For humans to execute murderers IS how God arranged murderers to receive punishment as a matter of course.

Otherwise, you have a situation where if an executioner is put to death, someone must put to death the executioner's killer, and someone to kill him, and someone to kill him.

Yes, that's the logical conclusion of the verse you cited, but you don't seem to see it.

In general, (as is stated explicitly by Abraham) God is a God of Justice... and I can't very well see an endless chain of execution being justice.

I can't see ANY execution being justice, so can we use my suppositions about the nature of a Just God as the basis for scriptural interpretation?

If a person commits murder, he is executed, and the matter is done. The executioner carried out the will of the Lord, and therefore need not be dealt with.

Except that the will of the Lord is that shedding of blood requires shedding of blood, apparently.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I fail to see how the preceding verse makes it into a command for execution.


Yes, that's the logical conclusion of the verse you cited, but you don't seem to see it.


I can't see ANY execution being justice, so can we use my suppositions about the nature of a Just God as the basis for scriptural interpretation?


Except that the will of the Lord is that shedding of blood requires shedding of blood, apparently.

So you're saying that according to Genesis 9:6, the natural consequence that God will permit as a result of man shedding man's blood is that his blood will be shed by someone else whose blood will be shed, for eternity?

How is that more just than a one time retribution?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I fail to see how the preceding verse makes it into a command for execution.

I will demand it. Not "I will take it"... not "I will exact it"... I will demand it. i.e. You do it.

Yes, that's the logical conclusion of the verse you cited, but you don't seem to see it.

If it's God's will that a man be put to death for murder, it is not logical that the one who carried out God's will be considered a murderer... especially because the distinction between "killing" and "murder" is whether it's lawful (Yes, Hebrew has this distinction.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand this.
What I do not understand is how you decide where to draw the line.
When to stop snowballing the blame.

The blame stops where knowing action ends. If a consequence is not reasonably foreseeable, the decision that led to that consequence isn't culpable, IMO.

I can agree with this.
It should be a case by case basis.
It seems that we may disagree on the effects, though.

You mean generally, or in this specific case?

I think the effects of the death sentence are pretty clear, generally: Roach dies. This implies that his family loses the benefit of his company, as well as a number of more minor effects (e.g. his cell gets freed up).

What the effects are is a matter of fact, IMO. What value we place on those effects is where I think the disagreements occur: whether Roach dying a good thing in its own right, and how important the effect of his family is relative to other factors... that sort of thing.

To spread the blame, or 'share of the blame', to those who had nothing to do with the crime.

The decision in question was the sentence, IMO, not the crime. The crime itself is a major part of that (after all, there would be no death sentence without the commission of the crimes in the first place), but there were other choices available to the key decision-makers. The particulars of this specific case and defendant would have been well-known to the judge, jury and prosecution. Even before that, it would have been a reasonably foreseeable to those who enacted and maintained the capital punishment laws in the State that people with families would be executed under it. I'm sure that they would say that the "good" of killing heinous criminals outweighs the harm to families (and you may agree... I don't know), but it's still a deliberate decision made with informed consent, and those who made it bear responsibility for it.

Please see post #128

None of which are the verse that Poisonshady specifically cited to support his claim.

I agree - Leviticus and Deutoronomy support the death penalty for a range of offenses. Genesis does not... in fact, I think that Genesis 9 contradicts the idea of judicial execution presented in the other books of the Old Testament.

Also, I note that for many of the "offenses" punishable by death you listed, if a person were to take it upon themselves to carry them out in the United States, there's a good chance they might end up being sentenced to death for them in turn. It would appear that Mosaic Law doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on the laws of the United States of America.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will demand it. Not "I will take it"... not "I will exact it"... I will demand it. i.e. You do it.

God demands a few things in that verse:
- the blood of beasts
- the soul of man

He does not ever say that it's man's responsibility to provide these things. He also places just as much emphasis on the demand of blood of beasts as He does on the demand of souls of man.

If it's God's will that a man be put to death for murder, it is not logical that the one who carried out God's will be considered a murderer... especially because the distinction between "killing" and "murder" is whether it's lawful (Yes, Hebrew has this distinction.)

Is that distinction in verse 6? Neither "killing" nor "murder" is in the verse. The phrase is translated as "shedding of blood"... is there a distinction in Hebrew between "judicious shedding of blood" and "unlawful shedding of blood"?