Hermenuetics

Comments

My objection to the death penalty has always been rooted in the last paragraph. As a secular argument, saying that someone is beyond redemption does not make a lot of sense. But I think within the Christian world, it should hold more weight than it does.

As a secular argument, I do not understand how the overwhelming evidence of a tainted death penalty system makes sense. We know that a large number of people that have been on death row have been found to be innocent. We know that poverty and race play a huge role in how someone is charged, convicted and sentenced.

A system that is not just should not have authority over life and death.

Posted By: Adam Shields | April 12, 2011 12:29 PM

Only God has the authority to determine life and death of a person. Anyone who takes a life usurps God's authority. It should not be surprsing that a human justice system would commit miscarriages of justice, because it is designed and administered by fallen human beings. Only God's justice is perfect. Therefore, it is imperative for Christians to defend life from conception to natural (i.e. not human-caused) death, and oppose the death penalty in all forms and places.

Posted By: Andrew | April 12, 2011 2:26 PM

This is possibly the best argument I've ever heard against the death penalty.

Although we can't agree on the morality of executing a person, perhaps we can agree on the immorality of perpetuating a flawed system that, in its extremity, may take the life of an innocent human being. This is particularly true if the outcome is affected by how rich the accused is or the color of his skin. We can try to rectify the damage to a wrongfully convicted person by freeing him from prison and making financial restitution, but death cannot be undone.

I know this is a complex and emotion-packed issue, and appreciate this interesting approach. Thanks.

Posted By: Suzy | April 12, 2011 2:35 PM

Any government that refuses to put murderers to death is disobeying the mandate given after the flood. Romans 13 is clear that rulers are God's avengers and do not carry the sword in vain. Any one who rejects that rejects God's word.
On the other hand, no government is obligated to put someone to death if there is doubt about his guilt.
Anyone who rejects the death penalty as wrong in itself rejects God's government itself and the centerpiece of our redemption. The unjust death of Jesus was God's decreed means to save sinners. Every child of Adam is under a death sentence and will never live unless he/she receives life in and through Jesus by His death which occurred because God has established a death penalty. He is light and there is no darkness in Him. His ways are holy, true, just and right.

Posted By: Noble Vater | April 12, 2011 3:15 PM

Through the years I have heard Christians quote the Old Testament to defend capital punishment and was unconvinced that it was a defensible position for Christians. When it became certain in more recent years that innocent persons were being put to death by a flawed system, there was no longer any doubt in my mind that Christians and any other right thinking persons could not defend capital punishment. Life imprisonment without possibility of parole is burdensome on the taxpayers but there are cases in which it is the best option for the prisoner and for the public.

Posted By: Richard Edwards | April 12, 2011 3:29 PM

Why should a system that is not just have authority over whether or not people are imprisoned, especially for life? Death penalty cases have more safeguards against injustice than any others. If the system is flawed in death penalty cases, it is even more flawed in all other cases. Eliminating the death penalty does nothing to make the system more just. By this logic we should never send anyone to prison because they might have been wrongly convicted. “No one flippantly says, "Well, I don’t mind if an innocent person is imprisoned."

Posted By: John | April 12, 2011 3:40 PM

As someone who used to believe strongly in the death penalty because it is clearly biblical (see Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4), I believe that the following statement by Governor Quinn represents the best argument there is against capital punishment. "Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it." As a long-time judicial activist who has seen horrific abuses in our criminal justice system, I can long longer defend capital punishment. It is simply too easy for an innocent person to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

Posted By: Julie | April 12, 2011 3:42 PM

Any one who stands in favor of the death penalty has no real understanding of the Bible and the grace of God that has been extended to all who believe. To think that there are Christians favoring the Death Penalty is merely proof that they are unaware of the truth to be discovered in the scriptures.

Posted By: Sherwood MacRae | April 12, 2011 3:44 PM

Advocates for the death penalty (and I am one) often refer to the Biblical sanction of the practice. However there are a few problems inherent with this. For one thing, the death penalty was coupled with the most severe penalty for perjury imaginable: one who perjured himself would incur the very penalty at issue in the trial. In other words a false witness in a capital case would incur a capital punishment. If we were to implement this principle and extend it to DA's, police and others who think of conviction rates more than justice it might do much to redress the system.
The other difficulty in attempting to replicate the Biblical system is that the Mosaic law made no provision for any prison system. Prisons existed in Gentile culture but were not included in God's plans for His own people. The principle instead was restitution, which in a practical sense would often result in involutary servitude, in other words, slavery. In a system such as this, capital punishment was the only appropriate means of dealing with murder, because there could be no restitution for murder.
Since the prison system will continue in our world, a sensible reform might entail no capital punishment for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence or even on eyewitness testimony unless multiple confirmations exist.
The vast majority of convictions are certainly valid and the percentage can only increase if the perjury statutes were to be more stringent as suggested before.
The Biblical argument for the death penalty is grounded in God's own high regard for human life; that a murderer's life should be forfeit is a principle which agrees with the revelation of God's character in the Bible. Contra Andrew's comment, God has in fact delegated the authority to take life and given the responsibility to the human governing authorities. If it becomes necessary to hold the practice in abeyance until abuses are addressed, so be it. I fear that abolition of the death penalty will ultimately cause more harm.

Posted By: Bob S | April 12, 2011 4:04 PM

Bob, I would think it is true that the vast majority of death penalty cases would be proper as well. But Illinois shows that is not true. Roughly 50 percent of all convicted death penalty cases in Illinois since it was enacted, has been later shown to be wrongful conviction on appeals.

And it is not cheaper to give people life time prison without parole. There is a case in GA right now where the defense (state paid) is over $2.5 million (not including the prosecution) for a case where a man shot and killed a judge in courthouse. Everyone knows he is guilty. And life without parole is an option. But the prosecution is demanding the death penalty even though pretty much everyone agrees that mental health issues will prevent a death sentence from being carried out. The very option of death penalty is being used as a political tool and several outside groups have raise question about why the death penalty is being pressed and more importantly, the fact that high cost of the defense for this one case is eating into the needs for defense in dozens if not hundreds of other cases.

Death penalty has been shown to have virtually no effect on crime, in large part because such a large percentage of murders are committed by people that are drunk or on drugs or with mental issues, the very type of people that rational arguments are going to have little effect on.

So death penalties do not reduce murder, do not save money and seem to be wrongly convicting people and take way too long. It would seem that there is no justification other than going back to Old Testament reasons.

Posted By: Adam Shields | April 12, 2011 4:41 PM

While I'm not a champion of the death penalty, this avenue for dodging the issue seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest about the nature of the world and about the responsibility of a government.

When the death penalty was phased out (and then eliminated) in the U.S., homicide rates skyrocketed. When the number of executions made it back up around 40/year (nationally), homicide rates plummeted. If you want to check this out, go to the Bureau of Justice statistics website and look carefully at the charts on the following two pages:
1) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/hmrt.cfm.
2) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/exe.cfm

The numbers I'd note are these: as executions fell below 20(in 1964), the homicide rate moved from 4.9 per 100,000 population to 9.8 by 1974. For 20 years, homicide rates ranged between 10.2 and 7.9. In 1993 (while the homicide rate was 9.8) the total number of executions made it up to 38. As executions totalled between 31 and 98, homicide rates dropped each year until 2000, in which it hit 5.5. Since that time, the homicide rate has stayed under 6 per 100,000.

Calculate, quickly, what this seems to suggest. In the 35 years that executions were low or eliminated, we spared the lives of roughly 1400 persons convicted of murder (and, no doubt, some of those persons were innocent). But, at the same time, the increase in the homicide rates claimed an additional 350,000+ American lives.

While correlation does not prove causation, it is surely irresponsible to ignore such correlations. The execution of an innocent person is a terrible thing--and, if any misconduct led up to it, then it is especially heinous. A government should do everything reasonably possible to keep from prosecuting, convicting, imprisoning, or executing innocent persons. But what a government should not do is to throw in the towel regarding the most basic protections of the citizenry. I see nothing honorable, courageous, or compassionate about refusing to ponder an obviously terrible moral issue--namely, the death penalty.

Finally, I would note that, the last time I checked, some of the "exemplary" countries that don't use the death penalty (such as the Netherlands) had frightfully high homicide rates. Any country that courts international favor by adopting a fashionable facade of goodwill--while paying for it in human lives--may be a country that is failing to recognize Moloch even while sacrificing to him.

Society surely has multiple avenues for influencing rates of violence--and the death penalty is, at most, just one part of this greater effort. But while the bar for the use of the death penalty should be high, it should not be so high that we feel good about throwing our own general population under the bus.

Posted By: Kevin | April 12, 2011 4:54 PM

Kevin, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The Netherland's murder rate is .93 per 100,000 while the US is down to 5.0 And the US murder rate has been dropping since the late 90s/early 2000 when a number of states started abolishing the death penalty again.

Posted By: Adam Shields | April 12, 2011 5:10 PM

Adam,

I've obviously written the wrong country or I stumbled onto a very flawed source--but either way, what a mistake. I'm glad you caught it.

It is certainly true that some states have abolished the death penalty. I assume that you're not suggesting that that is what's pulling down homicide rates, however, since the last time that the use of the death penalty was widely curtailed, the homicide rates went up pretty drastically. What will be interesting to see (and hopefully it won't cost innocent lives) is whether, when the execution total in the country dips below 40/year (as it did after 1962), the homicide rate starts to climb again. I will be nothing but relieved if it doesn't.

It may well be that potential murderers keep track of whether they're in a DP or a non-DP state. If they really keep track, then state by state data could be very telling. It remains possible, however, that even some non-DP states enjoy a bit of spillover effect from the DP states--at least among the potential murderers who don't know the approach taken by their own states.

The death penalty debate is not something that I'm determined to win, I largely just want to know what the actual truth of the matter is. For instance, when we look at the stats on a state by state basis, I'd agree that things look very odd at times--and don't give us any clear answer. For instance, Texas (using the DP heavily) cut its murder rate in half. Yet, in the same period, New York appeared to cut its rate even more radically--but without use of the DP.

Still, I am not content to gamble that the death penalty is irrelevant to the homicide rate in society. Even relative to the Texas/New York example, several options seem to pop up quickly:
1) Perhaps the death penalty perhaps doesn't deter OR
2) Perhaps New York (led by people like Guiliani in NYC) came up with alternate effective strategies. If this second option turned out to be true, it would carry yet another possibility in its wake:
3) Perhaps we'd be especially effective in dealing with crime if we adopted both of the alternatives, above.

Obviously, also, 5 murders/100,000 is not ideal. At the turn of the century, the U.S. rate was 1.2/100,000. In 1905, it was 1.3--but then in 1911, it hit 5.5 (and, by 1921, it was 8.1/100,000). I have absolutely no reason to believe that the DP (sanely used) could get us back to 1.2. There've got to be additional factors that made that possible.

Posted By: Kevin | April 12, 2011 6:21 PM

It's good that we are discovering before it's too late the innocent on death row. By all means, let's do more. No reasonable or rational person wants the innocent executed. And for cases where there is doubt, lock them up until we are sure. But what about those who are caught in the very act of capital murder? Like the guy who sexually assaulted the little toddler before killing and cannibalizing him. His dad said when that scumbag is released from jail, he is going to hunt him down and kill him. Do you blame him? Or how about the jerks that broke into the Conn. dr.'s home, raped and killed the mom in front of her 11 year old daughter and then raped the 11 year old and set her on fire while still alive. My answer for them: get a rope. And the concern that the condemned will never have the chance for redemption - that problem is easy to solve: explain the gospel to them and give them the opportunity to receive Christ before they swing. (I'm sticking with the hanging metaphor here.) Bleeding heart liberals need to take medication for their mental illness.

Posted By: Dan | April 12, 2011 8:44 PM

I'll give up the death penalty if the Left will give up abortion.

Posted By: sally | April 12, 2011 9:12 PM

For ALL WHO WISHED TO PERCEIVE IT, the abuse has always been there. There must be a reason why millionares hardly ever appear on death row rosters, and why persons of color appear in disportionate numbers.

Posted By: Dr. Jim Vickrey | April 12, 2011 10:32 PM

I agree with Dan. But moreover, I think it's reasonable to apply the death penalty in cases where there can be no doubt. Not the instances where the confession was extracted or the evidence is circumstantial. We can't have perfection, but we can come pretty close with DNA evidence and other evidence gathering methods.

But what I don't understand is why people seem to settle for the idea that it's not so bad to incarcerate the innocent for 20 years if we just let them out when we find we made a mistake. To tell the truth, if I were wrongly convicted of murder, I'd rather be executed quickly than spend all my best years in jail. There is no way to get that time back and no remedy that would even come close to making things right.

Posted By: Christine | April 12, 2011 10:32 PM

Suzy
I hope you never find yourself in a situation of being wrongly accused without ability to disprove the charge.....And how vicious your God.....................

Posted By: hilary | April 12, 2011 11:59 PM

Hilary

I think you have me mixed up with someone else. The name of the poster is after the post.

Posted By: Suzy | April 13, 2011 7:11 AM

CT-

To avoid confusion, you might consider changing your format and putting the divider line after the name, so it is clear who wrote the post. thanks.

Posted By: Suzy | April 13, 2011 7:13 AM

I agree with Dan and Christine. Aren't we throwing out the baby with the bath water? Don't we need tighter restrictions on the evidence that sentences someone to the death penalty? And on the evidence that sentences someone to jail, for that matter? What consolation is it for an innocent person to escape the death penalty but spend life in jail - probably getting raped too, according to the CT article last week on the 80,000 instances of prison rape yearly? As Dan said, disgusting crimes DO happen that the courts are 100% sure about. And as for murderers not getting a chance to hear the gospel, why not share it with them while they're on death row? Then when they face God they can have no excuse and say they did not hear.

Posted By: Nadine | April 13, 2011 8:25 AM

I've always thought that the death penalty is wrong. First of all, "Thou shalt not kill" must surely apply to those in the justice systems around the world as well as to everyone else. Secondly, I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than know that 1 innocent man is put to death (or imprisoned, for that matter).

Posted By: Laura | April 13, 2011 9:03 AM

Many Christians today are guilty of a major inconsistency in their thinking concerning the issues of life and death. While proclaiming the sanctity of life in their opposition to abortion, they support the degradation of life by championing capital punishment. Calling themselves pro-life while seeking to protect the unborn, they lose much of the impact of their banner by failing to protect the unloved. The absence of consistency in this regard is too glaring to ignore. It probably results from a failure to evenly apply the word of God to both issues.
There are many reasons to explain the support given to capital punishment by its defenders. Perhaps the most prominent is an overriding fear of crime and/or criminals. This was clearly demonstrated with the sharp impact of the "Willie Horton" ads in the presidential election campaign of George Bush. In addition, there are those who feel that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime while others believe it is simply right and just to insist on a major payment for a major wrong. Indeed, some Christians go so far as to claim God demands it! Their desire to be His avenging agent is greater than their desire to be His servant of mercy. Unfortunately, some merely want revenge.
One might ask, “What difference does it make how I feel about capital punishment? It doesn't really matter." But in a democracy it does matter what we think because our thoughts control our votes which, in turn, influence public policy. We are called to be "salt" and "light" in our societies and doing so is made easier and, therefore, takes on added significance, in a democratic country.(Matthew 5:13-16) We help to set the moral tone of the nation by both our actions and our votes. And as Christians we base our morality squarely on God's word.
Even a casual reading of the Old Testament reveals that the laws God gave to the Israelites included capital punishment. For many Christians that is enough. They claim this authorization as God's endorsement of the practice and claim further its universality in time. Hence, they say, all right-thinking Christians have a duty to insist on the use of the death penalty in the societies in which they live. On the surface their case seems sound. But we must not treat such an important issue so casually.
Consider the story of Cain. He was guilty of history's first recorded murder. It was premeditated; it was his own idea; the victim had not wronged him; he knew it was sin; he did it anyhow. He then lied to God and disclaimed any responsibility. As far as we know he never repented. And what was God's response? He declared that Cain was guilty of the sin of murder; He banished him from society; and He became Cain's protector.
Cain had quickly realized that just as he, a man, was willing to take human life, others, angry and seeking revenge, would surely take his. In his despair, but without contrition, he called on God to remedy his predicament. God responded by granting what amounted to a safe conduct pass by placing a mark on Cain. Its purpose was to warn all who would see him that God considered human life, even that of the murderer, Cain, so precious that no mortal would be allowed to take it. Indeed, God promised severe punishment for any violation of Cain's right to life.
How odd God's actions must seem to those who support capital punishment. God had a perfect opportunity to establish, once and for all, the principle of an eye for an eye; to state clearly and "on the record" that such was His will. He didn't do that. Some would argue that He did so later and, therefore, it makes no difference that He failed to do so with Cain. They overlook, however, one of the great truths about God: He is unchanging -— the same yesterday, today, and always.(1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 102:27; James 1:17) It was man who changed.(Genesis 6) Men became increasingly wicked; so much so that God decided to, in a sense, start over. But man was still imperfect and Noah was told:” Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."(Genesis 9:6)
If that statement was the only one to be considered, the issue could be concluded. But in my Bible it appears on page 18; my Bible continues to page 1950, and taking the whole counsel of God is important. For example, we read in Matthew 19 that some Pharisees questioned Jesus about the matter of divorce. Jesus had told them that divorce was wrong in spite of the fact that the Law of Moses permitted it. He pointed out that God, the Creator, had intended for two to become and remain one; but due to the hardness of their hearts the practice of divorce was instituted. God's nature had not changed —— this was merely an accommodation to man's spiritual state. So it is with the death penalty.
Sometimes in reading the Old Testament we forget that the Israelites were a nation and, as such, needed rules to govern their behavior. At times we are tempted to equate the nation of Israel with either our own nation or the church. When we read the various rules God prescribed for them and their society we think perhaps these should apply to our fellow citizens and/or our fellow Christians. This is easily done because we can envision a better country or church if only everyone would comply with whatever regulation we find enticing. What church treasurer has never thought about how much easier his job would be if all members were required to tithe? But America is not the new Israel and the church is not bound by the Law.
Old Testament laws called for the death penalty for each of the following: murder(Numbers 35:16-21), adultery(Leviticus 20:10), incest(Leviticus 20:11,12,14), bestiality(Leviticus 20:15,16), sodomy(Leviticus 20:13), promiscuity(Deuteronomy 22:21), rape of a betrothed virgin(Deuteronomy 22:25), blasphemy(Leviticus 24:16), kidnapping(Deuteronomy 24:7), witchcraft(Exodus 22:18), offering human sacrifice(Leviticus 20:2-5), striking or cursing one's father or mother(Leviticus 20:9), disobedience to parents(Deuteronomy 21:18-21), Sabbath desecration(Numbers 15:32-36), prophesying falsely or propagating false doctrines(Deuteronomy 13:1-10), sacrificing to false gods(Exodus 22:20), refusing to abide by the decision of the judge and/or priest(Deuteronomy 17:12).
How is it possible to claim a Scriptural mandate to execute offenders in some of the above categories and not all? And what father would want to see his daughter marry her rapist merely
because she was not engaged when attacked?(see Deuteronomy 22:28,29) Clearly, modern Christians are not interested in being subject to the Old Testament legal code.
Admitting this, those who uphold the practice of capital punishment turn for support to the thirteenth chapter of Romans. "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer."(Vv. 1-4) Several questions are answered in these verses:
Are Christians to obey their governments? Yes, (for exception see Acts 5:29)
Why? Because governments have been established by God for our welfare.
How do they help us? They maintain peace and order. May they use force to do so? Certainly.
And this is the key point: force is sometimes necessary to restore tranquility so that people may live in safety without fear of loss of life. The state is called on to secure and uphold life —— not to terminate it. We know, as Paul did, that a police officer may have to kill to prevent harm from coming to the innocent. But who would condone the execution of the one arrested on the way to jail? Should we pardon the officer for slaying his handcuffed prisoner after the threat had passed? These verses make it clear that the state has a right to punish any person who violates the law. But there is no reference to what penalties should be enforced. The propriety of the death penalty simply is not mentioned.
We read in Deuteronomy 25:3 that giving a criminal more than forty lashes degrades him. Doesn't the death penalty degrade its victims even more? Are we not tempted to see those being put to death as little more than animals? Is that right, or healthy? "Do not repay evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 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. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."(Romans 12:17-21) Jesus was subjected to capital punishment. Was justice done? And what was the motivation of His accusers? Are mistakes still made when we condemn someone to die?
We've all heard it said that we are to hate the sin, but
love the sinner. Can we claim that the death penalty is an expression of our love?(l Corinthians 16:14) If taking a life is wrong, then how can Christians support it? Compassion for the sinner in no way diminishes our sympathy for the one sinned against (or their family).
Some would argue that it's not human nature to forgive those who commit great crimes. That is true -— but it is God's nature to do so. "You have heard that it was said,’ Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."(Matthew 5:43-48; 6;14,15) We are called to be like Christ, called out and away from the world's passions. He expects it.(Ephesians 4:17-24) Fear, anger, hate, a desire for revenge —— all of these must be rejected.(Ephesians 4:31) The Christian's view of life has at least two parts: earthly and eternal. We say that the unborn die sinless and, therefore, are welcomed into Heaven. Yet, we know that if they were allowed to live that all would sin and many would perish. Should we then encourage abortions so that grace might abound? Of course not! When we oppose abortion we do so on the basis of the sanctity of God-created human life. When we engage in capital punishment we extinguish human life on this earth and deny any additional opportunity for the one executed to gain eternal life in Heaven. Perhaps the underlying motivation for those who insist on death as punishment in this life is their fear that God will somehow "let them off." "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord, Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"(Ezekiel 18:21-23) "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. But the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."(2 Peter 3:8,9) That is the kind of God we have -— and the kind we are to emulate.
"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."(Matthew 7:12) Knowing what we do about the judgment yet to come, can any Christian honestly say that if he were on death row he would prefer execution to a continued life that holds the
possibility of salvation? And if we would prefer such an opportunity, can we in good conscience deny it to others?
And what of the one who is spared? If he accepts a new life in Christ, he may spend his remaining years ministering to those who are still as he once was: unsaved and unloved. Having been forgiven so much, his joy should be great and his witness powerful. Surely, such a person could be called pro-life in every sense of the term —- as all Christians should! "Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory."(Colossians 3:1-4) Amen.

Posted By: Keith Fillinger | April 13, 2011 10:15 AM

Laura, please note that the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" is most accurately translated as "You shall not murder." Even before the Law of Moses, God commanded the death penalty for those who would take innocent human life (Genesis 9:6). Furthermore, the Law of Moses commands the death penalty for a variety of offenses, including murder. This does not mean, however, that Christians living under the New Covenant should support the death penalty today. While Romans 13:4 can be interpreted as justification for capital punishment, I believe that it is better to err on the side of mercy, especially considering the numerous flaws and abuses inherent in our criminal justice system today.

Posted By: Julie | April 13, 2011 12:54 PM

There will always be a death penalty as long as abortion is legal. And that's in spite of the fact that unborn babies commit exactly 0% of all crime and never get trials.

Posted By: JayRenn | April 13, 2011 3:37 PM

Keith,

You claim that there is an inconsistency in seeking to protect the unborn while executing a murderer. There is no inconsistency, here. In both cases, the acceptable principle of justice is to protect the innocent from wrongful death. A just society should protect the unborn from abortionists and, at the same time, protect other innocent persons through the deterrent effects of justly exercised executions.

Christ's call to be salt and light are not calls for us to march to the beat of current moral sentiments. Nietzsche suggested that moderns would probably end up feeling more pity for condemned murderers than for their already dead victims. He in no way thought that this was because modernity would become more "Christian." Rather, he didn't expect much of anyone really to be Christian--he thought we'd just drift along with the pieces of the old Christian value system that we found to be most comfortable and soothing. He was wrong about the death of Christian belief, but he was right about much of the direction of social sentiments. Christians, now, must not take their cues from those whose morality is more concerned with their own feelings than with justice and the common good of society.

When we seek--at the level of social policy--to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us, righteous respect for life requires that we give definite priority to the protection of the lives and rights of the innocent.

Posted By: Kevin | April 13, 2011 5:14 PM

Are we going to say that we shouldn't have a death penalty but it is okay to imprison someone until natural death? If we do away with the one for fear of errors in prosecution, shouldn't we, to be fair, do away with the whole concept of imprisonment? Aren't there flaws in every level of criminal prosecution?
To digress a tad, it should be noted that scripturally, a person was to be executed because his/her deed lead to forfeiture of the right to live. it was not intended to be a form of brutality.

Posted By: David Ballou | April 13, 2011 8:48 PM

June 1st will mark the 28th year since my ordination as a pastor. In that time I have led 14 or 15 people to the Lord, baptized many more who had believed but never publicly identified with Christ through water and mentored four people whom God called from my congregations to go into ministry. God called me back to graduate studies, where I earned a PhD. Then God lead me to teach in a large theological seminary where I have impacted the lives of over one thousand different students. Many, as my Dean is quick to note, give me glowing reports about how I not only have passion for my topic, but how I relate it to helping them be more biblical in their ministry?

What has this got to do with the death penalty? When I was almost 17, just two weeks before I received Christ as Lord and Saviour, I tried to murder someone. The details are not necessary, except to note that in Canada at the time, we still had the death penalty on the books, although no one had been executed for some time. As I tried to knife someone, what ran through my mind was PRECISELY: "I don't care if I hang...I will have the last laugh because he will be dead first." Thankfully, a "useless punk street kid" intervened and prevented me from doing so. The death penalty is not a deterrent...I KNOW. Most Christians who favour the death penalty want vengeance, not justice: "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay."

Posted By: One Redeemed From Attempted Murder | April 14, 2011 12:02 PM

@ One Redeemed - My eyes bugged out reading your comment. I think your comment is probably the most impacting comment I have _ever_ read on this subject.

Praise God that He redeemed you and set you on the path He ordained for you.

Posted By: Leslie | April 14, 2011 1:28 PM

It is truly marvelous when a violent criminal reforms. But it is wrong to generalize from one kind of circumstance to all the others.

Murders committed in the heat of passion may well be the toughest kind to deter with any kind of legal threat (at least under modern conditions in which executions have not actually been witnessed by the most violent members of society).

Other kinds of murders, however, such as those committed in the commission of another felony or simply because of an argument, may involve potential murderers who are more inclined to calculate the possible consequences of their actions.

In at least two categories, murder rates were far higher without the Death Penalty than they have been since its heavier use (since 1993):
1) "Felony murders" topped 5000 in 1991 and 1992. By 2004, they'd fallen to fewer than 2400.
2) "Argument"-based murders averaged over 8000 for each year from 1976-1993. By 1999, they'd fallen under 5000--and have stayed under.

Now, should we just assume that, after 1993, fatal armed robberies somehow fell out of style or that arguments somehow became less heated? Or could it be that persons considering deadly force in these sorts of circumstances starting counting the costs in modified terms, after 1993?

My point is not that I know that the death penalty deters. My point is that we cannot responsibly generalize from one situation to all the others.

Christianity is the ultimate "long-shot" faith. We trust that God has come to the utterly undeserving--and that God's redemptive power is not helpless before the depths to which the sinner has fallen. But the terrible issue of the death penalty is not settled by this belief. For, if the death penalty could deter some populations of potential killers, then its NON-USE may buy time for a relatively small number of murderers while, at the same time, depriving innocent persons of their further opportunities to hear and respond to the God's good news.

Short of trying to confront every aspect of this issue, there is no magic bullet that rightly lays the death penalty to rest.

Posted By: Kevin | April 14, 2011 3:48 PM

@Leslie: Glad to be of encouragement.

@Kevin: I agree thoroughly that one must not generalize from a single experience. I know of others, both those who were prevented from murdering and those who did, who agree with me. There is also an assumption you have made about me which is not correct. I was not a "violent criminal" but a very typical "middle class" kid who just got in a dreadful situation...I was "anyone" in your average evangelical congregation. Ponder that.

Further, on the point of not generalizing from a single sample, you are basing your argument on the United States alone. In Canada, we have a far lower murder rate, despite having refused to hang anyone in almost half a century. True, that murder rate has been rising, but the cause is quite clear cut: guns bought legally in the United States that are smuggled into Canada. If your country would get sidearms under proper control, our murder rate would drop overnight! If you include places like Great Britain and Japan, you will find markedly lower rates than in your country. In Britain, the police do not routinely carry firearms!

Posted By: One Redeemed From Attempted Murder | April 14, 2011 5:10 PM

"The death penalty is not a deterrent...I know!" Really? You're wrong - it deters the murderer from ever killing again. And so just b/c you were not deterred from attempting to kill someone at 17, does that mean it doesn't deter others? I think you have much too high an opinion of yourself as "Everyman". And just b/c you attempted murder doesn't mean you're suddenly an expert.
" Most Christians who favour the death penalty want vengeance, not justice..." And what's your evidence, or are you just giving your much vaulted opinion again?
"Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay."
Yes, and it says in Rom. 13:3,4 "3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

Oh, and thanks for sharing that you are a PhD who teaches at a cemetar... I mean, seminary. That in and of itself surely proves you are right. And even your dean's opinion of you - why, I am impressed.

Posted By: Dan | April 14, 2011 5:24 PM

@Redeemed

Certainly, guns make a significant difference in the ability to kill. Still, with a homicide rate around 1.3/100,000 for the first few years of the 20th century, U.S. citizens were far better at avoiding extreme violence than they are now. Also, if guns from the U.S. are simply the "cause" of Canada's increasing murder rate, how can it be that the murder rate in the U.S. has come down so much since 1993? It seems there's more that's involved than just weaponry.

As for assuming that you were a violent criminal, I don't believe that I did so. I took it, from your description, that you started to act like one--not that you had been so previously. (If I were sitting on a jury, I would not support the execution of anyone fitting the description that you gave.)

Finally, I'm wondering just what it is that you and many others are assuming is the explanation for the tremendous reduction in homicide rates in the U.S., since 1993. We still have plenty of firearms and broken families--and also plenty of young men at the peak age for murderous actions. Why are the potential killers not actualizing themselves at the rates of the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s?

There may be some plausible answer--such as they've grown too sedentary (or perhaps sensitivity training has actually worked). Unless I've missed it, no other respondent has yet suggested an answer.

Posted By: Kevin | April 14, 2011 6:20 PM

Kevin,

One cause of the lower murder rate in the US is probably the fact that we are so much better at treating gunshot wounds now. For instance the county hospital in Chicago is not where I would go for cancer treatment or a heart attack, but if I were the victim of a shooting, I probably couldn't get better care elsewhere.

Posted By: Christine | April 15, 2011 11:34 PM

Missing so far in this discussion, I believe, is that the statutory elements of capital offenses in the states and federal government do not include murders committed in the heat of passion. Most entities have alternative felony provision from Murder 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, Reckless Homicide and so on. They may have life sentences, with or without parole, as aggravated sanctions. Capital offenses typically include murders for hire, lying in wait (assassination), exceptionally cruel and egregious homicides. Also, Julie had it right; the most accurate translation of the commandment is, "Thou shalt not murder."

Posted By: Mac McLaughlin | April 28, 2011 3:18 AM