Death penalty a good thing here?

[RC_]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 27 2005, 02:01 PM']
I don't think it's realistic for us to claim that we're executing people in order to convert them. We're doing it out of a sense of retributive justice.
[right][snapback]772107[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

CONVERT OR DIE!!! is not a good world view...

[cmotherofpirl]

I support the judicious use of the death penalty.

[avemaria40]

i am antideath penalty. I believe mercy is for everyone, including hardened criminals and we should just let God be the one who judges them. I'm for life inprisonment if that is necessary.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 27 2005, 03:35 PM']Actually, Christ affirmed blood's repayment.  I see nowhere where he 'turns it insideout'.
[right][snapback]772190[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Really?

[quote name='Matthew5:38-42 (NIV)']38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.[/quote]

[dspen2005]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 27 2005, 09:50 AM']I believe in the death penalty, because if you take a life you owe a life.
That is justice. That must always be tempered with mercy and good common sense.
Let the guy out of jail.
[right][snapback]771729[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
seems that you are wanting to believe in an absolute -- but in an unabsolute manner.... can't have it both ways...

Edited October 28, 2005 by dspen2005

[Aloysius]

eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth was never about the death penalty in the first place, it is the limit to what extent justice could go. meaning if it's taken an eye, justice could not take any more than an eye.

turning the other cheek, in Christ's time, was an insult. it was like "is that all you got". to turn the other cheek shows trust in Christ's power. it's not saying that justice shouldn't be served, it means that if someone personally attacking you it is a virtuous act to not resist to give testimony to Christ's power. defending the innocent with justice, including the just use of the death penalty, is also virtuous.

Christ does not take issue with "whosoever sheddeth a man's blood, by man shall HIs blood be shed". He affirms it with not taking issue with the statement of the Good Theif to the Bad Theif "you and I deserve this punishment..."

[Jaime]

Advocating for the death penalty on behalf of expiation is not a valid reason for to support it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Oct 27 2005, 10:19 PM']seems that you are wanting to believe in an absolute -- but in an unabsolute manner.... can't have it both ways...
[right][snapback]772470[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

sure I can.
I don't think the death penalty should be administered for every case, but reserved for particularly heinous crimes.

[Sojourner]

Al,
Did you read the entire article I linked to earlier, or just the quote I pulled from it? I'd actually be interested to hear your thoughts on his entire argument.

[Aloysius]

I believe I've read it before actually. and I think last time I did take issue with the idea that Christ turned inside out the concept of blood for blood.

[Sojourner]

The statement you took issue with is early on in the article; there's lots more behind his argument.

[Aloysius]

yeah, I read it, and just re-read it now to brush up in case I forgot anything. I don't agree with his conclusions though he may have some valid points. I can't really get into a systematic rebuttal of it right now, but is there some specific arguement from the artical you found most convincing?

I especially took issue with one point where he said "the death penalty may be necessary... but it is never right". if there is a developement of doctrine taking place on this moral issue, it cannot contradict previous doctrine, meaning it cannot say that the death penalty is never right. IN FACT- to be in line with previous doctrine, it must admit that every time it is used on someone who is truly guilty of a grave crime it is ALWAYS right. the overall policy of over-using it may be wrong, but the individual execution of an individual truly guilty of a grave crime is always right.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 27 2005, 10:11 PM']I especially took issue with one point where he said "the death penalty may be necessary... but it is never right".  if there is a developement of doctrine taking place on this moral issue, it cannot contradict previous doctrine, meaning it cannot say that the death penalty is never right.  IN FACT- to be in line with previous doctrine, it must admit that every time it is used on someone who is truly guilty of a grave crime it is ALWAYS right.  the overall policy of over-using it may be wrong, but the individual execution of an individual truly guilty of a grave crime is always right.
[right][snapback]772529[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You "..." through the good stuff! He actually says:

[quote]Capital punishment may occasionally be necessary [b]in a modern democracy[/b], but it is never right, for the death penalty is not in a line with other punishments. A five-year sentence and a twenty-year sentence, even a life sentence, are related as more or less severe forms of imprisonment. [i]Execution belongs to another order of punishment.[/i][/quote]

He then goes on to explain why, in the context of the modern democracy, the death penalty isn't right, albeit necessary at times to maintain order.

I found his argument that because our government doesn't claim a divine right to govern, it cannot claim the divine right of execution, to be particularly compelling. (the preceding sentence is badly worded, I know, but my train of thought keeps getting derailed by circumstances outside my control ... )

[Aloysius]

however, since "non est enim potes nisi a Deo" or "there is no authority except from God", if we follow through with his logic our modern democracy has no authority over us whatsoever. if they have authority, they have it from God, regardless of where they claim it is from. if they have authority from God, then they may use execution justly. if they do not have authority from God, then we have no one in authority. however, it is clear that our government holds authority, and as such we must see it as divinely originated. you can't hold authority over people unless God allows you to, God alone is the source of authority over mankind.

[Aloysius]

let me anticipate the obvious Hitler argument: he held authority over Germany meaning God, the source of all authority, must have allowed that. meaning that Hitler had the right and power to do anything a just ruler of a nation can do. he could have executed people who committed grave crimes, he could have taken taxes and what not. he obviously did not hold authority from God to invade Poland or slaughter a bunch of people, just as our government does not hold authority from God to allow the slaughter of babies. that doesn't mean our government and his wasn't in authority because God allowed it.