Leviticus 24:17 'If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------think about it

For those of you who have some questions about the death penalty, a read of a book entitled Picking Cotton will have an impact. It did for me.

My dear, sweet, naive child,

I cannot make you read what you do not wish to read. There are numerous passages in scripture that contemplate, or even command, the application of the death penalty. The standards of proof are high to be sure, mainly to prevent false convictions, but it's clearly allowed in scripture, and nobody is as aware of the fallibility of man as God is.

You may recall another incident in the OT, this is with Abraham before there was any Jewish law. God had decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham pleaded with God to back down. Abraham asked God to spare the cities if 50 righteous people could be found, and God agreed, and then Abraham talked God down so that if just ten righteous people could be found the cities would be spared.

The moral of the story -- and it predates the Jewish law itself -- is that in this fallen world innocent, decent people will die before their time, and there's only so much we can do to prevent that.

I don't ask you to support this. I understand your opposition. I wouldn't say that the Bible commands the use of the death penalty today. But I don't see how you can say that the Bible prohibits the use of the death penalty when it clearly allowed the Israelites to apply it to murder and other heinous crimes. This is a matter of discretion.

LV

Just a thought on the comments... I think this comment thread is just about the most decent and cordial dialogue I've read in quite a while on the Sojo blog... Normally topics like this are... er... fatally flawed (?) (sorry!)

What I'm saying is that the Torah is clearly pro-death penalty. Regardless what Scripture would have us do today, at some point in the past, God permitted and commanded life to be taken when somebody was found to have murdered another human being. I find nothing wrong with this; in fact, it comports with God's command to Noah that God values human life so much, that when another human takes that life, the murderer is to be removed from the earth. So, as to the argument that innocent people will be accidentally executed due to human error, I agree with you; there is that possibility, and it is not just a theoretical, it is a very real possibility. So under that possibility, why would God condone the death penalty at all or at any point in history? Surely God is not willing for innocent people to be sacrificed on occasion. I don't have the answers, but that was my point.

As for Al Franken, what I was pointing out was that he is pro-death with regards to murderers, but anti-death penalty because of the "accidental innocent" scenario. That's his reason for not being pro-death penalty.

I'm not sure it's illusory to believe we could know that somebody committed murder. In the omniscient sort of way, the answer is of course, "No," we weren't there, the evidence isn't 100%, etc etc, so therefore we cannot play God. However, we are charged by God with the task to bring about justice, and in order to do so, we have to make judgments. While death is obviously "undo-able," you could make the argument for any sort of punishment, such as life imprisonment, fines, etc. Why make any judgments at all if we're simply human and innocents will be charged guilty?

A further problem with the death penalty is that it does not necessarily serve justice. Even if OJ Simpson were executed after being found guilty, how does that serve justice? How were the victims satisfied and reconciled? They wouldn't have been. We may think that if the murderer were gone, we'd all be better off, but that's not the case. Anybody who knows anything about forgiveness knows that to be true. Repayment in accordance with vengeance isn't ours, it is God's prerogative—and it's a good thing God is gracious!

xfree9, I'm confused by what you are saying. Are you saying that making mistakes and executing innocent people is some sort of "price" that Scripture would accept in order that guilty people would be executed?

If Al Franken believes that murderers should be executed, then how can it be that he is opposed to the death penalty? Is he of the belief that in some time, some place, some era, that our legal system can somehow eventually come up with the "perfect proof" against murderers -- and thus they can then go ahead and execute them without fear that innocent people will be caught up in this web of executions?

This is an illusion that many pro-death-penalty people have -- that someday, human beings will possess a God-like ability to absolutely determine that a person is guilty -- and thus be able to assume a God-like role in judging them worthy to be able to take this person's life. It's an illusion that can only end up in the murders of innocent people.

Why do people feel so driven to end another person's life, even if it means that a few innocent people get caught in the wake of all of these executions? It's not going to bring back the victim and will only result in more innocent victims. There are other ways for murderers to be separated from society and punished for their crimes rather than taking yet another life.

I don't see the inconsistency in believing that Jesus would want to isolate
those who would do harm to His children, but would not want to kill anyone.
It is true that whenever an innocent is incarcerated unjustly, it is
impossible to make restitution that would compensate for lost years of one's
life. However, how can you compensate for killing someone innocent of a
crime? (I think a good rule of thumb might be not to take anything from
anyone that you can't repay.)

Is our justice system broken? Absolutely. It's just symptomatic of our
broken society. The answer is certainly not killing or locking up more
people. The United States already does too much of that. Sojourners' call
for social justice will not solve the whole problem, but I do believe that
it IS what Jesus would do. (Do justice and love mercy.)

Why don't we all do that until Jesus comes again?
Peace.

Good thoughts. Not sure I agree with everything, but your logic is cogent and your explanation is clear. Kudos for adding such to the dialogue.

Wave, I'm with you. But in the OT, do you think God would declare something to be a law, and expect the Israelites to follow and enforce it, if it were impossible to know if somebody killed another?

Even Al Franken, who is opposed to the death penalty, believes murderers should be executed. His reason for opposing the death penalty is for the foul-ups in our legal system... which means he errs on the side of "life," so to speak. I can empathize with that.

Let me run this by you. You are an innocent person doing your job. The police come to arrest you and you are charged and convicted of murder, even though you were not guilty. You are sentenced to death and executed.

You truly believe that Scripture condones this? I don't think so. The Catholic and Episcopal churches have it right.

Once again, you ignore the actual scripture, which distinguishes between intentional and accidental killings. (check out Exodus 21 again) Accidents, including accidents by government, are hardly a new development. I won't pretend that wrongful executions have never happened, but it's silly to pretend that they weren't a possibility at the time of Exodus either. The state is authorized -- even compelled if you want to get really literal about it -- to apply the death penalty in certain cases.

I read your post. My objection remains. You're cherry-picking scripture. Executions are not murder.

LV

JacobS, I also agree that Christ's situation was more egregious than that of Reggie Clemons. It was the same spirit of injustice that has lead to the death sentence for both, but I distinguished between the two by saying that Reggie's was "almost as outrageous." I acknowledge in the post and now that Reggie (and none of us for that matter) are sinless except Jesus.

Also, I do not intend to undermine our entire justice system. Obviously we need to discipline those who break the law and are out of line, no matter what their crime. Yet our justice system should serve to correct and to reconcile offenders to the larger community, just as the Lord's discipline is for our own edification (Hebrews 12).

To whom would Jesus shout, "imprison him for life!"?

The problem with your argument is that, if you substituted a "sentenced to life imprisonment" for "execution", the same arguments would apply. Can we call our system justice when innocents remain behind bars? Why or why not?

Thank you. I second your comments.

More generally, I recall the Micah passage in what God has commanded of us: to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. Justice and mercy are tension opposites. Resolving the two is a paradox perhaps beyond human accomplishment. That is why walking humby is so important.

My personal opinion is that justice can be meted by incarceration rather than execution, and that most executions are motivated by revenge (as you suggest), which is NOT loving mercy and NOT walking humbly with God.

inference of NT approval of state sponsored killing seems the correct term. To infer means to derive by one's own reasoning (also to guess, speculate, or surmise.) To imply means to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated. I do not believe that the New Testament implies the acceptability of of state sponsored killing, but one is certainly free to infer whatever one wants from it. (Even Charlie Manson inferred his own meaning from the NT.)

Then what purpose does the death penalty serve? Prevention of further crimes? Would not isolation do the same thing? Deterrence? Studies have shown that the only person deterred from committing violent crimes is the one executed. Justice? How can it be justice if even one innocent is executed? Revenge? Ah, there you have it. One can certainly extract vengeance by killing the one who offended. Are we not to emulate Jesus? To whom would Jesus shout, "crucify him!"

I oppose the death penalty because it accrues an excessive degree of power to the government and places a time limit on justice.

Christ's death on the cross has no bearing on the "need" for executions, however. People died before Christ, and they continue to die. Christ offers redemption from eternal death, not earthly death. The author is conflating the two concepts.

She is also implicitly conflating differing notions of innocence in her example. Christ was guilty of the crimes for which he was executed. He was not guilty of having sinned. The prisoner in this case IS guilty of having sinned, but may not be guilty of the crime for which he was convicted.

As far as the OT law is concerned, theologians often differ as to how to maintain the law in light of Christ's death on the cross. Very few argue we should abandon it entirely. Christ came to fulfill the law, not eradicate it. Else, why reiterate the commandments, or call something sin at all?

I don't think you read my post. I clearly said that this Commandment meant that "thou shalt not do murder." I usually use the King James Bible for my citations and the Commandment was translated as "Thou shalt not kill." However, what is meant is "thou shalt not do murder."

However, because we are human and make human mistakes: when capital punishment is used, there is always events when innocent people are executed. And that is murder and against the Ten Commandments.

Many Christian denominations, including the Episcopal church and the Roman Catholic church oppose the death penalty for various reasons. I agree with the Episcopal church which is my own denomination.

It's unbelievable what passes for exposition and application of scripture today. If Melanie's ability to craft an argument from a "Christian" point of view is typical of Christianity today...wow. How sad.

I must admit that I go back and forth on the death penalty. I'm inclined to oppose it until I read about a particularly heinous murder. But then I equivocate and think that the death penalty is really not as severe as letting the perpetrator rot in prison for the rest of his life (because it is so quick).

I think that we'd have a hard time justifying it strictly on biblical grounds. The portions cited above are from the OT which if we were to follow strictly would impose all kinds of ridiculous limits. And even Joseph, who was kidnapped by his brothers did not execute the death penalty when given the opportunity. So anyone who would cite the Bible to justify the death penalty is on pretty shaky ground as far as I'm concerned.

Hoo boy, this one really blatant example of the "I'll lust take the little bit of scripture I like and ignore the rest" school of theology.

How much clearer can scripture be? Let's look at some other parts of Exodus:

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

"Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death."

"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."

(Exodus 21:12-16)

All of which goes to show that the Bible can actually be pretty complicated if you let yourself read more than one verse at a time.

LV