ONLY ON MOD-BLOG: Death Penalty Debate

I think the Death Penalty debate going on in the comments of the "is it a Deterret" posting is one of the most interesting and respectful ones we have had in a while here on Mod-Blog. Rather than leaving it buried in comments, I thought I'd bring it out as a posting. It really shows that while sometimes Mod-Bloggers seem one-sided, we are a fairly diverse community. Feel free to add your two cents in the comments to this thread as well. After all, I doubt Ward will let me have the last word on this.

(Disclosure: I did make a few tweaks to my comments to reflect what I was thinking but did not make it into the original posting. Feel free to make fun of me for that.)

WACKO! said...

I've struggled with my beliefs over the death penalty topic...unfortunately, it has yet to be settled for me.
Wacko!

NICK said...

I think it is biblical as a punishment for the most serious crimes (taking life).

As for being a detterent... doesn't matter, but it is interesting. I always thought that it must be one... if you knew (know) that if you killed someone you would die... pretty big deterent I think.

The major problem we have now is that if someone does end up getting the death penalty, they end up sitting on death row for years. Without the fear of immenent death, the detterent effect is mitigated.

Now, I know, there have been mistakes. In certain cases it is pretty open and shut though.

SEAN said...

I struggle with the death penalty as a punishment. If we are truly pro-life, then killing someone - no matter what they have or haven't done - doesn't seem consistent to me. I know there are some biblical warrants for it, but they all seem to be pre-Christ - hence pre-grace. I tend to be against it, no matter how it's framed. 'Thou shall not kill' doesn't have any loopholes to me.


NOMAD said...

My opinion is that Pro-Life is a positive way of phrasing "Anti-Abortion" and not a general philosophy for many. Too many want to make it seem like a hypocritical move to both support the Death Penalty and be against Abortion. But being against the taking of innocent life, and being for the taking the life of a person proven guilty of taking the life of another is NOT inconsistent.

That being said, it is not inconsistent either to be purely "Pro-Life" in the sense of "always looking to preserve life and never take it." But one must wonder if someone who is purely "Pro-Life" can support War in any case, since it almost always requires the taking of at least some lives.


NICK responded...

Annanias and Saphira lied about giving all of their money to the church, and they both died immediately.

So, apparently there are some instances where God still calls for a death post-Christ. Combine it with Romans 12 (all authorities are established by God to punish and protect) and I think you have an argument.

Also, even in the OT, it says "thou shalt not kill" but then later on (in what could be called an elaboration on the 10 overarching principles) it calls for the community to stone people for various crimes. So I would argue there are loopholes.


SEAN responded...

with Annanias and Sapharia, God did the killing which is distinctly different from humans doing the killing. Also, you have to look at what they did - lie to the Holy Spirit, which is also distinctly different from anything else. So, the Acts 5 case is moot because in every instance it's different from the death penalty being doled out by humans.

Yes in Romans 12 God says that authorities are established by God, but the question is whether or not those authorities should be killing someone. Just because God established them, doesn't mean they're going to act Godly.

While it does talk about people being stoned in the OT there are no instances in the post-incarnation portion of the scriptures that point to killing someone as a good or proper option.

This brings us back to Nomad's argument that there is a difference between killing an innocent and killing a murderer. I'd argue there's not. If killing people is wrong, then why is killing someone as punishment right. Because they've done something we view as the ultimate crime against humanity, that gives us the right to do the same thing to them. It's a viscous cycle. Purposefully killing someone is wrong, no matter how you look at it. Because we all have a reason to punish someone for some tragic thing they've done. Heck that's the reason behind much of the Islamic terrorism in the world, to punish the non-Islamic world for their sins against Islam. We in the west think this is wrong, but in many cases they're doing the same thing in punishing us as we are to murderers in principle.

And yes, I do have an issue with war. I think that in some cases it is a necessary evil, but should be avoided if at all possible.


QUIZWEDGE responded...

"If killing people is wrong, then why is killing someone as punishment right."

What if we change the words?

If spanking your child for no reason is wrong, then why is spanking your child when they do wrong okay? (Hoping this doesn't spark a "should you spank your child debate". This was just the best example I could think of at the time. Feel free to insert your own action that is wrong, but okay as punishment.)


NOMAD responded...

The "rights" argument falls apart almost immediately. If the most fundamental right is "Life", then the second most fundamental must be the "Right to Self Defense". And if you have right to defend your own life, that right must extend to the killing of another to preseve your right. And extending that right to the Society at large is essentially the argument for the Death Penalty.

I do not think the Biblical model is a strong argument, simply because every society we see pictured in the Bible - including those set up by God - allow Capital Punishment and even require it for extreme offenses. And the "grace" modelled by Christ is largely a personal and God-centered affair. It is never extended to governance or the secular state.

But the "vicious cycle" argument - that a society that tolerates the killing of the guilty makes it morally easier to kill the innocent - is one that bears consideration. That being said. I am not sure the case has been made effectively by anyone I have heard. Michael Moore made essentially this argument (or at least asked the question) in Bowling for Columbine when comparing the USA to Canada. The USA has far more murders and violent crimes per capita, even when you take gun ownership into account which is hardly rare in our neighbor to the north.


WARD responded...

"And the "grace" modelled by Christ is largely a personal and God-centered affair. It is never extended to governance or the secular state."

I don't know if there is anything that you and I consistently butt heads over more than this, lol. If what Christ did was supposed to change us as 'personal' beings, then how could it not logically extend to goverance and the state?

But either way, life is life. I am opposed to taking it in any context. Sometimes people have to do what they 'have to do' but I don't beleive that necessity removes us from the blame that we must own as our own if we take a life. If someone intrudes into my house late at night with intent to harm my family, of course I will defend my family with necessary force. But that does not, in any way, free me from the ramifications of my actions. Sin is sin, rather intentional or unintentional and rather of free will or under duress. Situational ethics have no place in the Christian life.


NOMAD responded...

[[If what Christ did was supposed to change us as 'personal' beings, then how could it not logically extend to goverance and the state?]]

Simply because the needs of the individual and the needs of the state ARE NOT COMPARABLE. If I compel you to pay me at the point of a gun, it is stealing even if I am meeting a real need of my own. If the State compels me at the point of a gun, that is taxation and NOT stealing. Likewise, Christ came TO SAVE THE LOST, not to save the governmental structures of all. They are not the same thing.

That is not to say that my faith should not influence my view of government - especially in a democratic form like we have. It should. But quite simply what is wrong for me is not necesarily wrong for the State. And vice versa.

Look at the OT. God dealt with individuals on one level, and the Nation of Israel on another. Both were capable of sin, but not always of the SAME sins. 

[[But either way, life is life. I am opposed to taking it in any context.]]

Again, as I said for Sean, I respect that position, though I do not hold it myself. I can see Biblical evidence for it, though I also see evidence for the Capital Punishment view.

[[Sin is sin, rather intentional or unintentional and rather of free will or under duress. Situational ethics have no place in the Christian life.]]

With all due respect for your superior educational accomplishment (and Sean's), this is wrong. At least as you have stated it. Consider Christ's example:

Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Luke 6:3,4

Eating the bread was UNLAWFUL. But God accepted it in this case, because the situation demanded it. It is not that ethics is relative, but that we have competing Laws here (ceremonial law vs natural law of survival) and one won out.