the most practical problem with the death penalty is we can get the verdict wrong the last man hanged in England was unquestionably innocent

Warren,

*red faced and contrite D’oh. How did I ever miss your first post? still red faced and contrite

Thank you for your patience and gentleness with me in your follow up post.

yours sheephishly
Angela

If God gives Governments the right to kill as a penalty for sin, I think he also is delighted that they don´t do so. It says something about compassion.

I wonder if one day we can also dispense with war?
Not this side of heaven I rather think.

Governments have God’s authority to “punish sin” in a specific context only. That is, the outworking of His love in a societal context. Read, for instance, Romans 13 in context - the verses before and after are about how we love others. The point of the passage is that, when we are wronged, as individuals we are NOT to take any vengeance. Only God can act, because only He is impartial. In that context, governments are appointed as His agents, for several reasons I think:

** warning: ideals about to be espoused, not necessarily reality!

a) governments can take a more global perspective than individuals can. If we are wronged all we can see is the wrong done to us, but an impartial judicial process can evaluate all the facts;

b) governments can take the emotion out of it, which is especially important at the point of passing sentence. The natural human tendency when we are the wronged party is to want the perpetrator to suffer even more than we did. But the last thing that we want is for the emotions of anger and hatred to escalate a situation that is already bad;

c) governments can act on behalf of all members of society, regardless of their economic status. If carrying out justice was up to each individual, then only the wealthy could afford it, or the ruthless;

d) governments can also make laws that have little or nothing to do with God’s moral principles, but are necessary for the smooth functioning of a society. EG the law in Australia about driving on the left hand side of the road. There is no Christian view on whether it should be the left or the right - the only Christian view is that there should be a law so that we can all “drive peacable drives”.

I don’t believe it’s carte blanche for the death penalty. I believe it’s all about protecting society from those of its members who have shown, by their actions, to be dangerous to the society. I think the death penalty worked in our more primitive days when prisons weren’t as high security as they are now and it was quite easy for murderers to escape.

I don’t believe that the job that governments have to do is defined by superimposing a simplistic reading of the laws of Israel in ancient times onto our society today. The governments of today are not governing ancient Israel! The role of government today is to express God’s love for the rest of us by providing us with protection so we can go about our lives without the fear of criminals having free reign. 

(Sounds like what the coalition is trying to get into place in Iraq, doesn’t it? Oh how I wish people would open their eyes and recognise what a good thing it is that’s being done in that country! But I digress.)

As I said in an earlier post, it’s debatable whether governments are given the right to kill on our behalf. These are some of the thoughts that are going on in my mind behind that statement. If I apply them to an underdeveloped economy, like those in Africa, then I can see a case for the death penalty for murderers if the prison system can’t hold them because there are other priorities to have money spent on them first. But as I apply them to Australia today, we have the economic and technological wherewithal to protect people without depriving criminals of their life.  I oppose the death penalty in our country.

But as I apply them to Australia today, we have the economic and technological wherewithal to protect people without depriving criminals of their life. I oppose the death penalty in our country.

Warren, I am in agreement with much of what you write, but I’m not sure how this conclusion follows. Why is it that imprisonment is a preferable punishment to execution for serious crime?

There seems to be an a priori assumption that execution is inhumane and barbaric, and thats why some Christians are almost embarrased by parts of the bible where God commends it.

Prisoners spend 17-18 hours a day locked in their cells. I can imagine few things worse than a life sentence…

Craig, I wasn’t trying to argue the full case for my view, just to try to give a flavour of where I come from on the issue. So you might well be right that the conclusion isn’t obvious from what I said.

I do see this as an area of debate, rather than as an area that I’d die in a ditch for my view on, though. I note that CS Lewis wrote a fairly convincing argument that it is actually upholding human dignity to have the death penalty for murder, because a key element of human dignity is that we are morally accountable beings. Thus, not to punish someone appropriately for their behavioural choices is to treat them as sub-human.

I’m not sure I accept that line completely, but it’s a strong argument on the other side to mine. I agree with the logic, but not necessarily the conclusion that capital punishment is required - it argues for punishment and the implementation of justice, I do agree with that.

I believe the Bible says we are all guilty of sin, and we are all due God’s punishment, which is death by His hand. God is only being patient allowing us to live another day on this Earth. Our sins are intolerable to Him if not for Jesus pleading for us to live on.

If God willed the nation of Israel to slay the pagan enemy in order for Israel to take over the land of Canaan, it would be entirely just.

The fact that it was His will to establish His name through the Nation of Israel, and for Him to demonstrate to the nations that He was the true and living God was just and true. No person should question this fact.

Craig Thacker said:

I have struggled with the idea of capital punishment for the last few years. In 2001 I was doing some research into a sermon and I was reading the testimonies of people on ‘death row’ in Texas. Many of the testimonies were of people that had turned to Christ, and were calling on the State for compassion and not to take an ‘eye for an eye’ but to rather let show Christ’s compassion on those that have repented.

I have noticed that people on death row have repented much more often than people given life sentences. A looming execution has forced more to turn to God, and become Christians. Having God breathing down their necks, often does lead to true repentance.

Maybe some good does come from the death penalty. A saved soul is rejoiced in heaven, whilst a defient lifer, who does not repent, faces the ultimate rejection and judgement (The most important life is in heaven, after all, and this life is secondary)

Life in gaol, for murder, was never the penalty that God foresaw in OT scripture. His penalty is always death and judgement to sinners.

Although I personally would not like to sentence a guilty person to death, God does this every day.

KA

I was listening to an interview with Steve Earle (the isnger) not too long ago and he was talking about how in the USA there are developing problems among ex prison guards who worked on Death Rows. The reason, because at the end of the day, they had to go into a cell and take a person, resisting or compliant, down the hall and kill them.
In a way it is something the whole society is a part of.
Is it OK for a Government to kill?
No.
Is it sometimes inevitable?
Yes.
Should Governments kill?
Perhaps, but if those times arise then the process should have been thought out a bit. War implies an emergency that calls for drastic action. I can see a valid (within limits- and I disagree that going into Iraq was valid- no matter how good the outcome.)
But the death penalty?
Are we so confident that our police, government and legal system are beyond reproach that we will allow them to kill.
A gentleman was recently released from WA gaols after 15 years of research and lobbying by a journalist. Both he and another man were senteced to death and then had the penalty converted to life.
The actual murder, a serial killer had already confessed, in the execution chamber, to those murders. That was before the sentences were handed down. But the police and prosecution suppressed that evidence because they had extracted their confessions through coercion.
Had the death penalty been in place they could be posthumously pardoned.

Whether a Govt has the right to kill is one thing. Whether they should be allowed to kill is another.
I for one would not trust them AT ALL!

Owen you said:

Whether a Govt has the right to kill is one thing. Whether they should be allowed to kill is another.

The death penalty exists in various parts of the world. In each case the Govt that supports that sentence is supported by the electors. It is not the will of the Govt in that case, but the will of the people, like all the other laws and penalties.

One must be careful not to attach blame to political entities, when it is really the general populace, of that vicinity, that decides such things. In Texas I believe a great percentage of people there support the death penalty. See http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm

I really agree with you Owen, that cases where the convicted person ends up really innocent and goes under the hammer are really bad.

I would only support the death penalty, where guilt is beyond all doubt, and for particularly horrendous or multiple murders. A person who has murdered once, and does it again confirms a high penalty to me.

It should, then, be only decided at the discretion of a panel of judges. There needs to be checks and balances in place.

KA

Ken,
I agree, we are in fact ¨The Govt¨ in a democracy. But the various executive arms of Govt are where I have the problem. And I wish that folks in Texas would also engage with the problems there.
Rule 1: Never ever trust a bureaucracy to be open and honest.
Rule 2: The amount of trust you should grant a bureaucracy should be inversely proportional to the amount of actual power that bureaucracy exercises.

As for multiple murderers; while I don´t usually agree with that point, I have more sympathy with it than the general support for execution. The reason I am not comfortable with executing even serial killers is more to do with the effects of such killing on us as a society and on those whose role it is to do that killing.

Owen, please go through the list of offenders on death row in Texas, assess what they did to people and think again.

I only read one case, a man called Holliday, who burned three children to death in a house in order to kill them purposely. One of them was his own child.

What can be said in favour of a crime like this? Death is too good for him, as far as I can see.

KA

G’day Ken,

I have a little problem with execution, I used to be very much pro, over the last 8 years I have slowly changed my views on it. As a Christian I have truly come to the conclusion that all of us are sinful and in Gods eyes there is no degree of sin, you and I are just as guilty as the most horrendus killer there is.

Owen hit the nail on the head, who is the person who is going to do the actual execution and have their been any studies done on what effect it has on their lives. Can you imagine the following scene of the executioner going home.

“Hi honey I’m home,- hi how was your day today, Oh I just threw a switch, I injected a needle, I beheaded someone” Oh thats nice dear, dinners on the table”

I can understand someone defending his / her family and killing some one in the heat of the moment, and I think there is scriptural warrant for one to do so.

In the case of doing so in cold blood - thats a different process altogether. While I know there are plenty of people who say they could do it, I truly wonder when it came to the crunch if they really could.

craig

Man,
I have major angst every time I have to take a chook´s head off. I hate it! I cannot begin to imagine how one doea that job. And, to make matters worse, in countries where the prisoners are still treated decently (despite the fact that they kill them) the guards end up quite clode to the prisoners on death row. Usually the ones who know the prisoners well are rostered on to make ¨the job¨ go smoother- and no doubt to ease the prisoner´s passing.
But, how do you go home that evening and deal with normal life after you killed someone who may have become a lot like a friend?

The other thing is Ken, the majority of people executed are Hispanic and Negro in Texas. I wonder why that is?
If it is racism, as is frequently asserted- white folks don´t get death sentences as easily as non-whites- then the process is very suspect.
If it is due to social circumstances then perhaps they should put their efforts into fixing up the neighbourhood?

One more point, it is actually extremely expensive to execute someone. Why? Because in most cases the fight to get the justice right or to obtain clemency goes on for years and years. It is apparently cheaper to just keep them in gaol. (I heard this on the radio in an interview with some nuns who work in death row texas.

Hi Owen,

I can see where you are coming from, but I fear your reasoning may be irrelevant to what I was saying. You are showing that one can get emotional about killing killers, that’s for sure.

I looked at the list on death row, and there were as many whites on the list. They kept up with the blacks and hispanics if you count them.

Murderers can be from any background, but are mostly poor. Why are hispanics and blacks mainly poor. (A person comes in from China, or Korea with nothing; and in a few years drives a Mercedes, owns a big home and business etc., and employs blacks and hispanics to work for him) Why do some races succeed more, and some stay flat broke?

Sorry if this is irrelevant.

As I said, I would hate to condemn someone to death, but this is exactly what people on death row did to get there. The death penalty is a hot potato subject. (You are agin it or for it, and thats it mostly.)

As a Christian we should show forgiveness, if true repentance is made by the offender. As I said before, only bad cases should ever be considered for the death penalty, in a State which demands a death penalty. (Not that I would want NSW to ever have it!!)

KA

[quote author="Ken Austin"]What can be said in favour of a crime like this? Death is too good for him, as far as I can see.

We all deserve death. By all rights the human race should have been utterly destroyed during the flood. How then can we declare that some people in this world are more deserving of death than others? Like it or not, we all have the capacity to become psychopathic killers, it is only by God’s grace that we are not.