REPORT: The Death Penalty Debate - By Bob Enyart

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
littledoc said:
1. The death penalty costs more than life imprisonment

2. The death penalty is not a deterrent; in some cases, such as Ted Bundy, it's been documented as an incentive

3. We do not accomplish anything by becoming killers ourselves
No wonder you're an agnostic. You can't even recognize the attributes of God, such as justice.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
littledoc said:
1. The death penalty costs more than life imprisonment

2. The death penalty is not a deterrent; in some cases, such as Ted Bundy, it's been documented as an incentive

3. We do not accomplish anything by becoming killers ourselves
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. - Billy Madison's principal.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
littledoc said:
1. The death penalty costs more than life imprisonment

2. The death penalty is not a deterrent; in some cases, such as Ted Bundy, it's been documented as an incentive

3. We do not accomplish anything by becoming killers ourselves

Here's an attempt at a response...

Where do you get your figures for the cost of capital punishment versus life imprisonment? I find it very hard to believe execution costs more than perpetual prisontime.

You are correct in Bundy's case; he specifically committed crimes in states with capital punishment and in fact even asked his warders, before one escape, what states in particular had the death penalty. Not sure how often this occurs, however.

What we accomplish is a sense of balance and restitution. A civilized society doesn't seek this duty but must accept it.
 

Sharri

New member
While Jesus was on the cross the Romans inflicted the death penalty on the two criminals2 next to Him. Christ said nothing in their defense, or against their crucifixions. One of those two mocked Christ. In response, the other criminal (whom Jesus would immediately declare righteous, Luke 23:43) said of their punishments, "we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:41). What did this forgiven criminal, this newly justified man, say about the death penalty? Bottom line: the criminals were getting their just punishment. The dying criminal knew the truth, as he said, "we indeed" are "justly" punished.


The reason why Jesus declared righteous to the criminal that knew the truth is because he knew the truth, is that why Jesus declare righteous?
How do we as Christians know we are justly for our actions and criminal acts?

I'm confused with the term "justly".
 

alastair blake

New member
and....

and....

note: ignore that junk (i notice this board edits the word krahp) on the left saying what political stance I am. I don't think we need to read 3 words and cast our guessings upon each member of this board. I will say myself I am making my efforts to follow God through Christ. and I know that all of me/my nature is evil, and I can only ask for God to make me what he wants.

how is this debate to be "solved?"

it has been argued forever.

I know I have hated and cursed in my heart. I deserve death.

however, by not being killed at the day of those wrongs, I have grown and sought God more.

Mary M has already been mentioned I believe. if she has been killed in a swift justice, would she have had the time to buy oil worth a years wages and anoint Jesus? we dont knwo all of her timing. but some think she was one who was full of demons who is mentioned eariler. or that she was a prostitute. that could get you killed in a day. . . I dont know what to say other than I know i deserve death, and so do every single one of you. and so we are alive and talking and must be thankful and seek God... but i just dont know what to say about.. supporting death of a human when... I know my heart has earned me death, but yet i dont have an execution date.:execute:
 
Last edited:

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
I know I have hated and cursed in my heart. I deserve death.
There is no verse that commands the death penalty for any thought, only actions.

I know my heart has earned me death, but yet i dont have an execution date.:execute:
It may have earned you death from God ("the soul that sins shall surely die" Ezekiel 18:4) but not from man because you have done nothing that scripture commands the death penalty for from the hand of any government.
 

DXPose

BANNED
Banned
Maybe this was already addressed in this thread, but I was wondering what the correct response is when some takes Jesus' words out of context when He affirmed the Mosaic Law?

Here's an example:

"even the one who curses a parent must be put to death"

uh huh. so, as i understand it, when one of your children, despite your best efforts as a parent, loses control one day and snaps or curses at you, you'll swifly put them to death in the name of justice?

To do otherwise would make you a hypocryte.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Maybe this was already addressed in this thread, but I was wondering what the correct response is when some takes Jesus' words out of context when He affirmed the Mosaic Law?

Here's an example:
That passage is a symbolic law, not a moral one. Therefore it doesn't apply in this dispensation. Parents, especially the father, symbolized God's parenthood over us. So in theocratic Israel, cursing a parent symbolized cursing God, hence the death penalty. Furthermore, there is something else that is usually overlooked in this passage. The "child" in question is an adult child. The entire passage points out that this "child" is a drunkard. Not too many 5 year old drunkards out there.
 

djconklin

New member
I don't see how it could be symbolic. I took it refer to only when they were under a theocracy (God was their ruler) which ended when Israel choose to have a king like the other nations.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I don't see how it could be symbolic. I took it refer to only when they were under a theocracy (God was their ruler) which ended when Israel choose to have a king like the other nations.
You couldn't be more wrong. When they chose to have a human king they were still a theocracy. They were to still abide by the laws God gave, and the king answered to God.
 

snnbrg

New member
"Pacifists have an unworkable interpretation of this passage. Imagine applying the pacifist view to a woman being raped? Does a father tell his daughter to not resist the rapist? Pacifist father to daughter being raped: "Don't resist the evil man, honey. Remember, Jesus said, 'Love your enemy.' If he wants you for one hour, stay with him two.""

Well, if you're truly arguing in favor of Old Testament law, then yes, this is exactly the sort of thing that would be happening and more so. Rapists could not only take what was not theirs to have, they could also expect to marry the woman afterward.

You don't consider that "loving the enemy"?
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41963513/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

The father of a five-year-old boy slain in 1975 has vowed to murder the man who did it "as aggressively and painfully as he killed my son" if he is released from prison early.

John Foreman told WPRO-AM radio that he blamed himself for accepting a plea deal that saw Michael Woodmansee convicted of the second-degree murder of his son Jason in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.

"I do intend, if this man is released anywhere in my vicinity, or if I can find him after the fact, I do intend to kill this man," Foreman added.

"I cannot think, I cannot sleep. All I think about is trying to find a way to get this man to kill him," he told WPRO-AM.

Foreman said he wanted to kill Woodmansee "as aggressively and painfully as he killed my son."



I feel for him. And hope he doesn't do it. Pray instead that the murderer "is delivered into my hands".
 
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
I would have no problem with the death penalty if I had faith in our criminal justice system.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/23/north-carolinas-corrupted-crim
However, as these sites prove, our criminal justice system is a joke.
------------
"Four years ago I was sworn in as the 39th Governor of Illinois. That was just four short years ago; that's when I was a firm believer in the American System of Justice and the death penalty. I believed that the ultimate penalty for the taking of a life was administrated in a just and fair manner.....After Mr. Porter's case there was the report by Chicago Tribune reporters Steve Mills and Ken Armstrong documenting the systemic failures of our capital punishment system. Half of the nearly 300 capital cases in Illinois had been reversed for a new trial or resentencing. ...46 inmates were convicted on the basis of testimony from jailhouse informants. We then had the dubious distinction of exonerating more men than we had executed. 13 men found innocent, 12 executed. "
FROM
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ryans-words-i-must-act
 

misstoast

New member
For proponents of enforcing the death penalty, how would those who do not exercise free will in the act be dealt with, such as an acutely psychotic patient? Would it be "an eye for an eye" no matter what because Sacred Scripture says so?
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
For proponents of enforcing the death penalty, how would those who do not exercise free will in the act be dealt with, such as an acutely psychotic patient? Would it be "an eye for an eye" no matter what because Sacred Scripture says so?

If they weren't exercising their own will? Like having car bombs blow up in Iraq courtesy of al-queda where the "bomber" had has hands cuffed to the steering wheel?
 
Last edited:

Lew11is22

BANNED
Banned
To tell you the truth, I'm a terrible theologian, but I know that passage stands in stark constrast to the idea that none of old covenant applies still today. I don't think I could make the case for either side, but I wanted to provoke some discussion.
1.jpg

2.jpg

6.jpg
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
To tell you the truth, I'm a terrible theologian, but I know that passage stands in stark constrast to the idea that none of old covenant applies still today. I don't think I could make the case for either side, but I wanted to provoke some discussion.
What passage?
 

Geonick91

New member
The death penalty is more supported than not

The death penalty is more supported than not

It is harder to deny the death penalty than support it based even strictly on New Testament scripture.
Yes there are several odd actions that would incur death in the old testament times, yet the incredulity of these punishments by today's standards, even with the words of Jesus, does not remove the clear admonition of governments to punish with death if need be.

The single best New Testament example, given by Paul during a thoroughly New Covenant era, given among those who knew Christ personally and best, was that the state does not wield the sword in vain. The sword is an image of death and not mere chastisement. Chastisement tools were whips, which Christ used against the money changers in the temple. Paul clearly supports the measures a state uses to keep the peace, including death.
One can not use a broad gospel brush for every aspect of life. We are supposed to use discernment. There is a clear cut line between the instructions for the individual and the government. The government is to operate as the law, unbending, severe, without partiality or mercy, thereby mirroring the Old Testament as tutor. Mercy is to be shown by the individual. It is a hope that in time all flesh will know this mercy, and no longer incur the wrath of government. Until then, government functions using the rod and the sword. Can anyone give clear scriptural examples where we are commanded not to kill the murderer?
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
It is harder to deny the death penalty than support it based even strictly on New Testament scripture.
Yes there are several odd actions that would incur death in the old testament times, yet the incredulity of these punishments by today's standards, even with the words of Jesus, does not remove the clear admonition of governments to punish with death if need be.

The single best New Testament example, given by Paul during a thoroughly New Covenant era, given among those who knew Christ personally and best, was that the state does not wield the sword in vain. The sword is an image of death and not mere chastisement. Chastisement tools were whips, which Christ used against the money changers in the temple. Paul clearly supports the measures a state uses to keep the peace, including death.
One can not use a broad gospel brush for every aspect of life. We are supposed to use discernment. There is a clear cut line between the instructions for the individual and the government. The government is to operate as the law, unbending, severe, without partiality or mercy, thereby mirroring the Old Testament as tutor. Mercy is to be shown by the individual. It is a hope that in time all flesh will know this mercy, and no longer incur the wrath of government. Until then, government functions using the rod and the sword. Can anyone give clear scriptural examples where we are commanded not to kill the murderer?
:thumb:
 
Top