Does God Play a Role in the DP?

[The R]

I know this topic of the DP is debatable enough already, but I wanted to ask the readers here their opinions or feelings on a couple questions. I'd be most interested in hearing the opinions of people from places the DP is practiced but obviously all are welcome!

Most know that the eye-for-an-eye system of punishment has been around since the time of Hammurabi.....my question is this: Does God (or a supreme creator) play a role in the DP? If we base our belief of the DP on religious tenants, does it mean that the precepts in the Bible, etc. aren't valid? For instance, the Bible tells us that God pledges vengence, for us not to take part. Does that say something about the faith of those who believe what the Bible says but then support the DP also?

I don't intend to inflame with this question but am genuinely interested in how others may answer or view this.

Thanks and ALLMO,
R

[Jayy]

Since there is no God the answer is no.

[drola3]

Originally Posted by The R

I know this topic of the DP is debatable enough already, but I wanted to ask the readers here their opinions or feelings on a couple questions. I'd be most interested in hearing the opinions of people from places the DP is practiced but obviously all are welcome!

Most know that the eye-for-an-eye system of punishment has been around since the time of Hammurabi.....my question is this: Does God (or a supreme creator) play a role in the DP? If we base our belief of the DP on religious tenants, does it mean that the precepts in the Bible, etc. aren't valid? For instance, the Bible tells us that God pledges vengence, for us not to take part. Does that say something about the faith of those who believe what the Bible says but then support the DP also?

I don't intend to inflame with this question but am genuinely interested in how others may answer or view this.

Thanks and ALLMO,
R

Good question. My pro-DP stance isn't one based on God, or anything that I've read in the Bible. I believe that it is necessary for the safety of our society. To me, it is society's way of saying "we will not tolerate cold-blooded murder". It has nothing to do with God.

[beaky]

I think god plays a part if you believe in god...

The DP is kind of like people washing their hands of another person ..but leaving their soul for god to sort out...Like they are only killing the body not the complete person..

Aren't western societys laws based on christian beliefs..then the ten commandments apply ..

I don't know the bible...but does god mention any form of penalty for breaking or not conforming to his laws..?

[WarmNCozy]

No, I don't believe God plays a part in the DP any more than he plays a part in war.

The 911 terrorists were praying to God as they smashed those planes into the Towers.

The allies were praying to God against the Germans who were also praying to God.

God leaves us to our own devices. When judgment comes, we will certainly find out if we were right or wrong in our choices!

[Luke Davis]

Originally Posted by WarmNCozy

No, I don't believe God plays a part in the DP any more than he plays a part in war.

The 911 terrorists were praying to God as they smashed those planes into the Towers.

The allies were praying to God against the Germans who were also praying to God.

God leaves us to our own devices. When judgment comes, we will certainly find out if we were right or wrong in our choices!

That sounds right to me.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by beaky

............

I don't know the bible...but does god mention any form of penalty for breaking or not conforming to his laws..?

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[beaky]

Thats interesting...does it say what a sin actually is...are there different levels of sin...can you do a sin against other people or only do one against god ??I haven't got a bible...but I was wondering if the laws of people are different in importance to the laws of god...

I'll stop now ..This is getting too theological..

Almost forgot...that point about the war and 9/11..man has free will..doesn't he...so he is free to highjack gods name and use it to further his own ends....with god on your side you can't lose...so everyone says god is on their side...JMO

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by beaky

Thats interesting...does it say what a sin actually is...are there different levels of sin...can you do a sin against other people or only do one against god ??I haven't got a bible...but I was wondering if the laws of people are different in importance to the laws of god...

I'll stop now ..This is getting too theological..

Almost forgot...that point about the war and 9/11..man has free will..doesn't he...so he is free to highjack gods name and use it to further his own ends....with god on your side you can't lose...so everyone says god is on their side...JMO

You should get a Bible. Interesting reading. I would suggest one that has multiple translations, such as the Amplified Bible or a good study bible. However, the internet has most anything you'd like to know. Here's just one good page on sin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

I'm glad you asked the question. I learned a lot from reading the wikipedia page, for instance, the Major 70 Sins in Islam. So, ask away....we make need to start a new thread though.

[beaky]

Some great reading there...thanks..

Bibles that I have seen are all written in a strange way...I might look for one that has some sort of explanation to go along with the wording.

I am going to do some reading up....Interesting that with adam and eve they start by breaking the rules ....was the writter saying something about human nature there.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by beaky

Some great reading there...thanks..

Bibles that I have seen are all written in a strange way...I might look for one that has some sort of explanation to go along with the wording.

I am going to do some reading up....Interesting that with adam and eve they start by breaking the rules ....was the writter saying something about human nature there.

IDK, but when I opened my home page, refdesk.com, and read the thought of the day, I thought of this thread. I don't remember reading anything about the Seven Deadly sins on the link. Were they on there?

"The avenues in my neighborhood are Pride, Covetousness and Lust; the cross streets are Anger, Gluttony, Envy and Sloth. I live over on Sloth, and the style on our street is to avoid the other thoroughfares." - John Chancellor

ETA: You won't find them in a list form (like the 10 commandments) in the Bible.

[beaky]

Accordn2me...

The 7 sins are on a see also section...I liked your thought for the day...
I found this...

The origin of individual sins is defined in James 1:14&15 - "(14)but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. (15)Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."(NIV)

When you look at someone like Bundy it fits well...Little crimes first, then bolder until killings begin...

Would it be a legal defence ?.."Desire made me do it"...

But seriously ..can a criminal be guilty of something if they don't have the willpower to overide some twisted desire that they have..Like a smoker that can't quit....If they sought psychiatric help is it likely that it would be made available & within their financial means.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by beaky

Accordn2me...

The 7 sins are on a see also section...I liked your thought for the day...
I found this...

The origin of individual sins is defined in James 1:14&15 - "(14)but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. (15)Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."(NIV)

When you look at someone like Bundy it fits well...Little crimes first, then bolder until killings begin...

Would it be a legal defence ?.."Desire made me do it"...

But seriously ..can a criminal be guilty of something if they don't have the willpower to overide some twisted desire that they have..Like a smoker that can't quit....If they sought psychiatric help is it likely that it would be made available & within their financial means.

I love it! You are looking up sin.....and what the Bible says about it, no less! That's awesome! The New International Version is a good one (translation) for you to look at. It (the language) shouldn't seem "strange" to you. After the New International Version came out, the New Revised Standard Version came out. I believe this one was supposedly a more accurate transcription, according to academic circles, than the NIV. Since then, there is the New American Standard Bible. Read what wikipedia says about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ame...Standard_Bible

IMO, nothing is a defense. My position (more radical than most you'll encounter) is that if you commit a capital offense, you should get the death penalty....no excuses!

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Eurydice

Then in keeping with the bible, should people's hands get lobbed off for stealing? Should people be stoned to death? If not, why not.

Keeping with the Bible is just fine with me.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Eurydice

At least your and Muslim beliefs will have a lot in common.

PEACE to you and yours.

Thank you for the lovely peace dove. Peace be with you.

IMO, our justice system is mostly set up to punish, not deter. I wonder about the crime rate...just take stealing for instance....in societies where your hand gets chopped off if you are caught. Is it a deterrent?

[Lili007]

Back to the original question.

I have always been against the DP, even though, sometimes, I think it should be enforced. But it's like avenging a killing with another. I think people who kill should spend their life in prison, but not the old gallows or even "humane" injections of some drugs or other. I don't believe there's anything :humane" about it.

Having said that, I've watched some shows lately on CI Australia which make Scott Peterson look like a choir boy. To me, it's unbelievable what people do to each other. The thing I'm appalled about is that these monsters actually get to go out on parole. One specific example is one that I happend to tune into, today. This guy killed his wife because she got pregnant with a second baby and he didn't want it. He got so enraged that he bought a spear-gun and shot her to death with it. But that wasn't enough. A few days later he used that spear gun to shoot his toddler as well, after he put her in her crib.

I can't imagine what sort of sick and distorted minds these people have. Or why.

JMO

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Eurydice

Only as interpreted and and translated many times by people. I've long ago stopped believing the telephone game gives us the same word that we started with.

People is what makes this world what it it is. Would you like this world without "people"?

Yes, it WAS written and translated by people, that's how historical records came about. Who else would you think would do it? What about the library at Alexandria? Why did the Egyptians carve their hierogliphics, the Greeks and Romans layed the foundations for the very language we communicate with?

God gave us the power of thinking. We use it. Well, most of us do. Whether you believe it or not is your personal choice.

The telephone game has nothing to do with it whatsoever. It's a child's game, like hide and seek, like pin the tail, or whatever, and that's all it's meant to be. But I suppose it's also a way of learning language and social skills in the very early growing up period. Obviously you don't believe in that.

If you're into translating and interpreting, good for you.

I just hope you won't use children or children's stories or growing up stages to carry your message, whatever it is. Children are entitled to their childhood, wherever they come from, whatever faith they are brought up in. If they want to play games, so they very well should. Just let them be. If you can't nurture them, leave them alone. If you think their world is all "wrong" somehow, that's your opinion only. Just let them be.

JMO

[Wichita]

What a thread! Our entire human history is based on a belief in God. Sin is merely disobedience to God's will, or commandments. The original sin committed by Adam and Eve was: "But of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat; for in the day ye eat thereof, ye shalt surely die." So, the first disobedience was committed, which was passed on to all of humanity when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. They did not know they were naked, until they ate of the forbidden tree. They "Chose" to eat, which means we are given the freedom to choose. Even after the expulsion, there was no law until God gave it to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The rules men lived by until that time were based on the whims of the rulers of the day.

Western society's laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. So are many of the eastern societies. One of the greatest stumbling blocks for some people who refuse to accept God's teachings are His condemnations of people who refuse to abide by His commandments. There are hundreds of examples of God killing those who deliberately disobeyed Him. Some people cannot accept the idea that a loving God would kill his own people, therefore, He cannot be real. In the new testament, in the book of Romans, it is written: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord." The 13th Chapter of Romans also teaches us our responsibility to government, and government's role toward transgressors. In speaking of the powers that be, "they bear not the sword in vain."

If I steal from Beaky, I have sinned against Beaky, God, and society. I owe a debt to Beaky, God, and society. If I am never caught by society, and if I ever accept God, then I must make it right with Beaky, too. If I truly want to make it right, I would turn myself in to the authorities, and accept whatever punishment might be forthcoming. If I am caught, then I should repay Beaky, ask God to forgive me and refrain from stealing in the future. Then I must pay the price society demands for my violation of the law. If that is jail, so be it. If I lose a hand, so be it. Society sets such rules as are considered just by the rulers of the people. If we disagree with the punishments, then we change them to suit our own moral code. Many believe the DP is wrong, but a majority believe it is just. God allows us to choose, but he also holds us accountable for our choices. If we kill murderers, it is to be done by the government in accordance with the rules, not by the individual for revenge. When a murder occurs, it is not just the victim who is victimized. It is the family, friends, and the rest of the community, which reaches to the entire society. Therefore, in order for justice to be done, the murderer must be held accountable for the sake of ALL the victims, beginning with the one who was murdered, and running all the way through the rest of the community.

Whether one believes in God or not, the DP is a just punishment, morally. So is life without parole. How can anything else even be close to justice? Murderers are not to be tolerated in society, regardless of whether our law is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. As I have said before, the DP is an act of self defense carried out by society, based on the proven behavior of the condemned, imo.

[beaky]

Great post...
My question is...If a criminal Sins against the victim...god...and society...Is this taken in to account by a court sentence...Is there a spiritual aspect to the sentence...Or is that part left to hope..

A criminal can repay or compensate a victim...(in some crimes)...Can carry out community service on probation for the society.... what about the god part ??

[WarmNCozy]

Originally Posted by Wichita

What a thread! Our entire human history is based on a belief in God. Sin is merely disobedience to God's will, or commandments. The original sin committed by Adam and Eve was: "But of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat; for in the day ye eat thereof, ye shalt surely die." So, the first disobedience was committed, which was passed on to all of humanity when Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. They did not know they were naked, until they ate of the forbidden tree. They "Chose" to eat, which means we are given the freedom to choose. Even after the expulsion, there was no law until God gave it to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The rules men lived by until that time were based on the whims of the rulers of the day.

Western society's laws are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. So are many of the eastern societies. One of the greatest stumbling blocks for some people who refuse to accept God's teachings are His condemnations of people who refuse to abide by His commandments. There are hundreds of examples of God killing those who deliberately disobeyed Him. Some people cannot accept the idea that a loving God would kill his own people, therefore, He cannot be real. In the new testament, in the book of Romans, it is written: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord." The 13th Chapter of Romans also teaches us our responsibility to government, and government's role toward transgressors. In speaking of the powers that be, "they bear not the sword in vain."

If I steal from Beaky, I have sinned against Beaky, God, and society. I owe a debt to Beaky, God, and society. If I am never caught by society, and if I ever accept God, then I must make it right with Beaky, too. If I truly want to make it right, I would turn myself in to the authorities, and accept whatever punishment might be forthcoming. If I am caught, then I should repay Beaky, ask God to forgive me and refrain from stealing in the future. Then I must pay the price society demands for my violation of the law. If that is jail, so be it. If I lose a hand, so be it. Society sets such rules as are considered just by the rulers of the people. If we disagree with the punishments, then we change them to suit our own moral code. Many believe the DP is wrong, but a majority believe it is just. God allows us to choose, but he also holds us accountable for our choices. If we kill murderers, it is to be done by the government in accordance with the rules, not by the individual for revenge. When a murder occurs, it is not just the victim who is victimized. It is the family, friends, and the rest of the community, which reaches to the entire society. Therefore, in order for justice to be done, the murderer must be held accountable for the sake of ALL the victims, beginning with the one who was murdered, and running all the way through the rest of the community.

Whether one believes in God or not, the DP is a just punishment, morally. So is life without parole. How can anything else even be close to justice? Murderers are not to be tolerated in society, regardless of whether our law is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. As I have said before, the DP is an act of self defense carried out by society, based on the proven behavior of the condemned, imo.

This is an excellent post! I agree completely!

[Wichita]

The sentencing parameters given to the court are written by the legislature in the form of discretionary limits. For example, in my state, First Degree murder is punishable by either death, or life without parole. There are other limits for 2nd degree, etc. If the majority of the legislators ascribe to the Judeo-Christian ethic as their guideline for what is fair, then yes, the spiritual aspect of sentencing is inherent in the penalty. If not, then it is inherent in the social mores which guide them. Either way, the penalty is handed down in conformance with what the government defines as just. The legislators are elected by the people, so the people are indirectly responsible for the decisions made by the legislators who write the law. The judges are appointed by other officials of government, and therefore, the people are indirectly responsible for the decisions. This is the problem some who disagree with the DP have. If a mistake is made, they don't want to be vicariously responsible for a wrongful death, which they deem to be murder. For me, I feel responsible when a murderer or rapist is deemed fit to be released, and murders and rapes again once released. Dru Sodjn is a perfect example. It is only murder, imo, if the penalty is carried out with knowledge that the condemned is innocent, and executed anyway. If the executed is exonerated post mortem, then it is not murder if it was carried out in good faith, under due process of law from charging, to trial, to conviction, to appeal, to execution.

The "God" part is an individual choice. I am not required by law to make peace with God as a part of my sentence, which would be an establishment of religion. It is a personal choice I make that gives me peace between God and me. I do this out of a belief, through faith, that he is real and that I will some day stand before him to answer for my deeds. For the government to force a convict to convert to a particular faith would not be constitutional in our system. Other countries, however, demand conversion or death. (Islam)

Some believe that religion is best left out of the equation. Our basic foundation, the constitution, was written mostly by clergymen who practiced Christianity. That is why our rules are based on the Bible. There had to be a place to start. In today's world, many interpreters of the constitution have broken away from the Judeo-Christian ethic, and have turned to secular humanism as their guide. This is the crux of the issue between Christians, and humanists. This is where the argument that human beings don't have the right to kill another human being under any circumstances stems from. My personal belief is that our current system is like a doting parent, always forgiving too soon, and thereby enabling the "children" to re-offend, instead of seriously holding them accountable. We are allowed to choose, notwithstanding our faith, how we wish to treat criminals. But, we live by our choices. Do we allow them to rape or kill again, or put them down? I really don't think it is a religious question at all, but we look for justification. Christians can find the justification, while humanists cannot.

[Joe Public]

Witchita,
I have read some good posts before, but I believe that these last two are about the best I have read. I couldn't agree more with your point. I do not believe that the DP has or should have anything to do with God. I believe this to be a tool use by people that feel many offenders can be rehabilitated and be upstanding citizens if even from prison. I have yet to see a comdenmed prisoner that contributes so much to society that they should not be put to death.

The one thing I have always wondered during this debate in the community and nationally is where is the compassion for the victim and their family that some want for the convicted? How can they advicate letting these criminals live in prisons on our expense when the victim and their family have no justice.

Once again all just my opinion.

[Chocoholic]

Originally Posted by Joe Public

Witchita,
I have read some good posts before, but I believe that these last two are about the best I have read. I couldn't agree more with your point. I do not believe that the DP has or should have anything to do with God. I believe this to be a tool use by people that feel many offenders can be rehabilitated and be upstanding citizens if even from prison. I have yet to see a comdenmed prisoner that contributes so much to society that they should not be put to death.

The one thing I have always wondered during this debate in the community and nationally is where is the compassion for the victim and their family that some want for the convicted? How can they advicate letting these criminals live in prisons on our expense when the victim and their family have no justice.

Once again all just my opinion.

The problem remains that people are wrongly convicted. Hence the question, is it morally and ethically right to put innocent people to death in order to avenge another person's crimes?

[Joe Public]

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

The problem remains that people are wrongly convicted. Hence the question, is it morally and ethically right to put innocent people to death in order to avenge another person's crimes?

Being convicted by a jury of your peers doesn't automatically send you to the death chamber right then. These convicts have appeals. Doesn't matter how quickly I or others think these convicts should die. The CJS has a standard set of appeals that keep these fools alive longer than their victims. Now if they happen to be innocent I would hope that they get a better lawyer to argue their appeals to set them free. If by some chance an innocent man is put to death the ONLY thing we can do as a society is to find the real killer. This isn't about seeking vengance. It's about justice. And the death penalty is also a deterant for future murderers. We give these convicts enough chance to get out of jail, personally I don't see the need for a debate.

Just my opinion.

[Wichita]

I agree that the emphasis for justice should be toward the direct victim first, then the indirect victims, such as the surviving family and friends, then toward society. I think opponents of the DP have become ensnared in a philosophical trap by arguing that the DP is revenge as opposed to justice. It is ludicrous to feel like a murderer when a murderer is euthanized ever so gently after torturing, hacking, and destroying a victim. It would be murder by the state if the evidence clearly showed reasonable doubt, and the accused was, nevertheless, put down. That is not the case, even if it is later discovered that the condemned was innocent, if due process of law was followed to the letter, and there was no evidence of a state sponsored frame.

If we are to be considered murderers as proponents of the DP, then why aren't we considered guilty when we release them and they kill again? Just for the sake of argument, I would submit that some people who are in favor of state funded abortion, are also opposed to the death penalty. What's the deal with that? It seems like catch 22. We are either vicariously guilty of murder on the one hand, or vicariously guilty of murder on the other.

If I am going to be considered guilty of murder, let it be for those convicts who were put to death, not for the victims murdered by them after we paroled the little darlings, or for unborn children executed with my tax dollars.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Wichita

I agree that the emphasis for justice should be toward the direct victim first, then the indirect victims, such as the surviving family and friends, then toward society. I think opponents of the DP have become ensnared in a philosophical trap by arguing that the DP is revenge as opposed to justice. It is ludicrous to feel like a murderer when a murderer is euthanized ever so gently after torturing, hacking, and destroying a victim. It would be murder by the state if the evidence clearly showed reasonable doubt, and the accused was, nevertheless, put down. That is not the case, even if it is later discovered that the condemned was innocent, if due process of law was followed to the letter, and there was no evidence of a state sponsored frame.

If we are to be considered murderers as proponents of the DP, then why aren't we considered guilty when we release them and they kill again? Just for the sake of argument, I would submit that some people who are in favor of state funded abortion, are also opposed to the death penalty. What's the deal with that? It seems like catch 22. We are either vicariously guilty of murder on the one hand, or vicariously guilty of murder on the other.

If I am going to be considered guilty of murder, let it be for those convicts who were put to death, not for the victims murdered by them after we paroled the little darlings, or for unborn children executed with my tax dollars.

AMEN!

[Chocoholic]

Originally Posted by Joe Public

Being convicted by a jury of your peers doesn't automatically send you to the death chamber right then. These convicts have appeals. Doesn't matter how quickly I or others think these convicts should die. The CJS has a standard set of appeals that keep these fools alive longer than their victims. Now if they happen to be innocent I would hope that they get a better lawyer to argue their appeals to set them free. If by some chance an innocent man is put to death the ONLY thing we can do as a society is to find the real killer. This isn't about seeking vengance. It's about justice. And the death penalty is also a deterant for future murderers. We give these convicts enough chance to get out of jail, personally I don't see the need for a debate.

Just my opinion.

Facts about the DP being a deterrent appear to contradict your opinion.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...eswithvwithout

States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates - A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)

[Chocoholic]

Originally Posted by Wichita

I agree that the emphasis for justice should be toward the direct victim first, then the indirect victims, such as the surviving family and friends, then toward society. I think opponents of the DP have become ensnared in a philosophical trap by arguing that the DP is revenge as opposed to justice. It is ludicrous to feel like a murderer when a murderer is euthanized ever so gently after torturing, hacking, and destroying a victim. It would be murder by the state if the evidence clearly showed reasonable doubt, and the accused was, nevertheless, put down. That is not the case, even if it is later discovered that the condemned was innocent, if due process of law was followed to the letter, and there was no evidence of a state sponsored frame.

If we are to be considered murderers as proponents of the DP, then why aren't we considered guilty when we release them and they kill again? Just for the sake of argument, I would submit that some people who are in favor of state funded abortion, are also opposed to the death penalty. What's the deal with that? It seems like catch 22. We are either vicariously guilty of murder on the one hand, or vicariously guilty of murder on the other.

If I am going to be considered guilty of murder, let it be for those convicts who were put to death, not for the victims murdered by them after we paroled the little darlings, or for unborn children executed with my tax dollars.

Let's not bring abortion into the conversation which brings about a whole different set of issues. We'll save that for another board?

I have stated that IMO if we can be positive that a person is guilty of a crime, and the prison term is life, then s/he should spend life behind bars, and hopefully that person can be productive in some way shape or form. I would never want the death of an innocent person who received the death penalty on my shoulders. However, science is still fickle and DNA tests aren't perfect. What right do I have as a human being to sentence an innocent person to death based on possible incorrect information/science? Imo none! I do not have the right to make life or death decisions if that person doesn't want me to.

I'm no scholar of the bible, but doesn't it teach forgiveness? Does the bible not teach that revenge should be left to God?


Revenge

Revenge should be left in God's hands. It's in the Bible, Romans 12:19, NIV. "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is Mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." Proverbs 20:22, NIV. "Do not say, 'I'll pay you back for this wrong!' Wait for the Lord, and He will deliver you."

We should resist revenge in favor of love. It's in the Bible, Matthew 5:38-39, TLB. "The law of Moses says, 'If a man gouges out another's eye, he must pay with his own eye. If a tooth gets knocked out, knock out the tooth of the one who did it.' But I say: Don't resist violence! If you are slapped on one cheek, turn the other too."

Do not be happy when your enemy stumbles. It's in the Bible, Proverbs 24:17-18, NIV. "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the Lord will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him."

I'm no big believer of the bible, but many are. How does the DP sit with the scriptures above? Hard to compute.

[Wichita]

Go to www.deathpenaltyinfo.org for statistics on individual states. There are many other interesting articles and facts surrounding the issue of the death penalty. No offense, but the NY Times is not known for its unbiased reporting.

I visited the web page I listed above, and did some unscientific research of my own. I found it interesting that the lack of a death penalty is not a deterrent to murder, especially in Michigan. It seems that in Washington DC, with no DP, the murder rate is 29.1 per 100,000. In NY, it is 4.8, in MI, where they are proud of not having the DP, the rate is 7.1. In Texas, the state that puts more to death than any others, it is 5.9 per 100k, CA is 6.8, and FL is 6.2. So much for Michigan's pride in the lack of the DP.

Since NY is lower than TX, CA, and FL, one could spin the data to show that the DP is not a deterrent to murder. Since DC, and MI are higher than CA, TX, and FL, one could spin the data to show that the DP is a deterrent to murder.

The deterrent affect of the DP applies only to the executed. The executed criminal will never commit another crime. Crime is deterred when criminals are locked up, and incapable of victimizing society. Yet, when they are free, they commit crime. Therefore, prison is a deterrent to the extent that they cannot victimize us while they are locked up, except through lawsuits and assistance by the ACLU. Dead criminals are the reliably rehabilitated in the system.

This question truly is an individual, philosophical belief in whether it is morally correct to put murderers to death. There are no statistics to prove which point of view is morally correct. There is no data that will support rehabilitation v punishment. There just is no 'one size fits all' solution.

[Chocoholic]

Originally Posted by Wichita

<snipped for length>

This question truly is an individual, philosophical belief in whether it is morally correct to put murderers to death. There are no statistics to prove which point of view is morally correct. There is no data that will support rehabilitation v punishment. There just is no 'one size fits all' solution.

Witchita, thank you as always for your very respectful responses.

Yes the question is an individual, moral and ethical issue. It's not that I take issue with brutal beasts having to pay for their crimes. It's that I have seen cases where innocent people have been put on death row, or have been executed, when later it was found that these people were truly innocent.

I don't put my beliefs in the bible only. I believe that globally it's believed that killing another human being breaks all moral and ethical boundaries, most especially when science is still not exact, even where DNA is concerned.

I would rather that a person who is supposedly guilty of a crime be alive and be forced to work than that an innocent person is put to death by an imperfect syste.

The likes of Ted Bundy with proper security would never have gotten out of jail. The Green River Killer should never get out of jail. If they wish to hang themselves, let me provide some rope. It's their choice, not ours. I do not believe that we can make life and death decisions about other people's lives.

[Wichita]

I am no bible scholar, neither am I the epitome of Christian example. I am a student of the bible, and although I am a Christian,a sinner saved by grace, I am a perfect example of hypocrisy. Having said that, I will share that no human being, regardless of his spiritual beliefs or religious leanings, is capable of living outside the realm of hypocrisy. Even secular humanists, imo.

If one does not believe the in bible, then my efforts to answer the questions will likely not be accepted. Be that as it may, it is no simple matter to answer these questions from a biblical perspective without laying the proper foundation.

The law, as referred to in your post was handed down to Moses, and is found in the book of Exodus. The law concerning personal injuries begins in Chapter 21:12 "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. (13) And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place to which he shall flee. (14) But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. (15) And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."
(16) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (17) And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. (18) And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed; (19) If he rise again, and walketh abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be clear: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
(20) And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he shall continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.
(22) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follows: he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23) and if any mischief follows, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

This is not the end of the law, it is just the beginning. Thankfully, we were made free from the burden of His law with the crucifixion of Christ. We were under a death sentence, because we are incapable of obeying the law. The death sentence we were under was the sentence of eternal separation from God, in a place of torment, or a spiritual death. However, we are still under law in our relationships with one another. The scriptures you mentioned to support your belief that the DP is wrong according to God, is not applicable to government. It is applicable to individuals. Notice the use of the pronoun "I", or "I'll", which is "I will". That particular proverb is instructing us not to seek individual revenge. This is why we make it illegal for us to individually stalk, and kill those who murder and rape us and our loved ones. Yet, we allow others, from an objective position, investigate, and bring charges against the one who committed the crime.

The instructions not to laugh at our enemies when they stumble, are relevant to our individual walk with God. The instruction is for us to trust Him to deal with those who individually hurt us. He uses the government to do this, but we reap what we sow, as a matter of the law of reciprocity which is also authored by God. What goes around comes around. The Buddhists call it Karma. It's really no different than God using doctors to heal our infirmities. He realizes that we are weak, and many of us do not trust in things we cannot see, such as Him. So, he gives us government to do his will, doctors to do his will, and instructions on how we should get along with one another in the process.

The law, as quoted above, has been fulfilled because of the crucifixion of Christ. By fulfilled, I mean that those who believe in Christ, no longer individually seek revenge. No more eye for an eye, but a trust that the government will seek justice on their behalf. However, in Romans Chapter 13, it says: " Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whoseover, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will thou, then, not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore, you must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (6) For this cause pay ye tribute also (taxes) for they are ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (7) Render, therefore, to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to its neighbor: therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." (My post is too long. It is continued right behind this one.)

[Wichita]

The above means this to me, and this is just my own interpretation and opinion: If the government uses the dp as punishment for evil, as a Christian, I am to abide by the government's power. If the government does not use the dp as a punishment, then I am to abide by the government's power. The federal government, military, and 34 individual states in our union use the dp. The rest do not. If I individually disagreed with the dp, I would move to a state that did not apply it in their justice system, and vice versa. I have no personal responsibility for the decisions of government if I honor its decisions one way or the other. Therefore, I don't understand the personal sense of responsibility one may feel if an innocent convict is put to death. As I have said before, my anger and sense of guilt is more riled when a criminal is released to offend again. This absolutely happens more often than the remote possibility that an innocent is sentenced to death.

Love is the key, and you are no doubt wondering how I can say I love and forgive when I seemingly have no compassion for a condemned killer. I will use Karla Faye Tucker as an example. She murdered two people by hacking them to death with a mattux. A mattux is a tool with an ax blade on one end, and an entrenching tool on the other end of the head of the tool. She was in a drug crazed state when the murders were committed, and she was condemned to death. While on death row, missionaries went to death row to comfort the inmates, and to teach them that they are forgiven by Christ for their sin of murder. That means they are no longer under the spiritual penalty of death, if they confess, and believe that Christ can and will deliver them.

The missionaries also teach them Romans 13, which clearly establishes a New Testament standard of civil government, replete with the sword, which is not borne in vain. In other words, the death penalty. Karla Faye Tucker accepted as the truth the words of Christ, and accepted Him along with his forgiveness. However, she also clearly understood that she deserved the penalty she received. She accepted her fate, through faith, and testified to millions that she was deeply sorry for her sin against God and man. She learned the Lord's Prayer in sign language, and performed for television cameras in order to witness to others her acceptance of His will for her life. All of the law of Romans 13 was fulfilled in her arrest, conviction, condemnation, conversion, and temporal death at the hands of the government. The families of the victims were moved, and some of them forgave her. I prayed for her, and thanked God for sharing her conversion with the world for the sake of Christ. The performance of the Lord's Prayer by her in sign language was one of the most moving things I have ever witnessed.

Yet, she did not beg for clemency. She did not ask for lenience. She calmly admitted that she deserved death, and her only regret was that she could not bring back those she murdered. This is what it is all about. This is the love that we are supposed to have. We can love them, and forgive them, realizing that what we are doing is right and in accordance with scripture......if we believe in scripture. That is what I meant earlier in this thread when I said Christians can find justification, while humanists cannot. Humanists look for human answers to spiritual issues, and are constantly disappointed. I am not condemning humanists, I'm just pointing out a simple truth.

Therefore, my understanding of the scriptures we shared allows for government sanctions, including the dp, for crimes committed by individuals against individuals. If people's motive for the death penalty is revenge oriented, and in disagreement with the scriptures you shared, it is an individual sin we must ask forgiveness for from God. It is not grounds for not using the DP. I am guilty, because just today, I posted on another board how I hoped Carl Watts was being sodomized by a demon as we speak. This is a prime example of "laughing when thine enemy stumbleth", and I am guilty. Should Carl Watts be resurrected? God forbid! I will pay for my sin through the law of reciprocity "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 7-9

I also need to love the victims, and their families and friends, not just the accused. I need to love them enough that I don't allow myself to be dissuaded from holding the criminal accountable, even to the extent of death if appropriate. If Karla Faye were to be spared because of her remorse, it would have been a mockery to her victims. If that had happened, I would have accepted it, because God instituted the government under which I live, according to scripture. As I said at the beginning, if one doesn't believe in the scripture, none of this will make a bit of difference.

[Wichita]

I understand your point, and I respect it. I have this discussion with my father-in law ever so often because he agrees with your pov. He is a devout catholic, and we have some pretty interesting discussions about the dp, and other social issues.

The book of Proverbs is one of my favorite in the bible. The words are so full of wisdom. They are not so much "preaching" as they are admonitions of King Solomon to his son in order for his son to avoid many of the tribulations of life by making poor decisions. Every time I let my mouth get me in trouble I am reminded of 17:28 "Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."

I try to refrain from being a smart ass, but sometimes I pop off, like with the comment on the Monks.

[Joe Public]

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

Facts about the DP being a deterrent appear to contradict your opinion.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...eswithvwithout

Please be careful what you reference as fact. Because for evey postion on any issue that a reference lists as a "fact", we can find another that states the opposite.
i.e. - http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#B.Deterrence

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

<snipped>It's that I have seen cases where innocent people have been put on death row, or have been executed, when later it was found that these people were truly innocent.<snipped>

I'm sincerely interested in learning of such cases. Perhaps one or two true such examples could change my mind regarding the DP. Please cite links to: "cases where innocent people have been put on death row, or have been executed, when later it was found that these people were truly innocent." TIA

[Joe Public]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

I'm sincerely interested in learning of such cases. Perhaps one or two true such examples could change my mind regarding the DP. Please cite links to: "cases where innocent people have been put on death row, or have been executed, when later it was found that these people were truly innocent." TIA

I'm sorry that I missed that post. I too would like to know of such cases. TMK no cases of innocent people being executed have been proven. I stand to be corrected though.

[Chocoholic]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

I'm sincerely interested in learning of such cases. Perhaps one or two true such examples could change my mind regarding the DP. Please cite links to: "cases where innocent people have been put on death row, or have been executed, when later it was found that these people were truly innocent." TIA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../07/wdna07.xml

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/pro2.htm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,7244555.story

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html

You're welcome.

[Joe Public]

Originally Posted by Chocoholic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../07/wdna07.xml

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/pro2.htm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,7244555.story

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html

You're welcome.

I appreciate the links. And if true, they are sad stories. But what we were asking is, are there any cases that have been proven in a court that someone else committed these crimes? All I see in these articles are speculation by people with different points of view. These convicted killers were judged guilty by a jury of their peers based on evidence shown in court. Do you have any cases that prove your point by stating in court that these guys are innocent with provable evidence to support these claims?

[Chocoholic]

Originally Posted by Joe Public

I appreciate the links. And if true, they are sad stories. But what we were asking is, are there any cases that have been proven in a court that someone else committed these crimes? All I see in these articles are speculation by people with different points of view. These convicted killers were judged guilty by a jury of their peers based on evidence shown in court. Do you have any cases that prove your point by stating in court that these guys are innocent with provable evidence to support these claims?

A person can't be tried for the same crime twice. Hence, if there is evidence to show that the person is innocent, the case doesn't go to trial, the person may be pardoned.

[Mishell1383]

Wichita, I must say your posts are the most intelligent, thought out little tidbits of information that I have EVER read. I greatly enjoy reading your posts, ad I look forward to reading and learning from you alot more. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I am highly impressed