The death penalty - right or wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most countries have abolished capital punishment. The US has not, neither has North Korea, China, India and the Islamic states (Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia…etc.)

What does that tell you?
 
Last edited:
Richca said:
In the commandment of God, “ Whoever curses father or mother shall die ” (verse 10), Jesus is citing Exodus 21:17: “Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death”

Sorry Richca I have no ideal how to correct this or how I made this error…trying to correct the for mate…🤔🙂

Jesus correcting is he? or he is misquoting?..Jesus states …shall die…What did Jesus mean…Spiritual death, enter not in…eternal death not physical death?. Our Heavenly Father is our Judge right?

Jesus not saying…Exodus quoting word for word is he?.. here in Exodus… shall be put to death… does it not ?🤔

and Leviticus 20:9:
“For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon him”.
Click to expand...
Respectfully opinion only maybe theses verses mean… Spiritual Death not physically death?..Life blood is upon him…Life…Eternal ?🤔

Why would our Heavenly Father repeated his Ten Commandments x2 in OT, then be repeated again in NT…Thou shall kill…then command us to do what he commands us not to do? 🤔

Then state…If one wants to enter the Kingdom, obey the Commandments…obey all his… Thou shall not’s?🤔

One says …shall die…the other states… put to death…
Does not say …:thinking:when one shall die does it?

Peace 🤔
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Do you think that Jesus held human life to be sacred?
Click to expand...
Yes, and the church teaches this.
Do you think that Jesus is able to do moral evaluations of various circumstances in light of that good?
Click to expand...
Yes, and the church teaches us how to do this as well.
Do you think we are capable of doing the same in our given circumstances? With prudence and wisdom and temperance?
Click to expand...
Yes, otherwise we could not be held responsible for our choices.
 
Except that in the Hebrew, it says thous shalt not kill an innocent person. It has been translated “Thou shalt not kill”, but theological opinion has always held that one has the right to self defense and defense of others, if necessary, by killing the aggressor.
 
Incarcerating individuals solves the problem until the incarcerated individuals commit murder within the prison.

That is the case of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Washington; they were reviewing a death penalty sentence given to a murderer who was serving life without parole. While doing so, he murdered a prison guard (female) in the chapel; for the second murder, he was given the death sentence.

The court overturned the sentence, so he is now serving… wait for it… life without parole.

Which means he can commit murder again in the prison, because they won’t do anything to him which they are not already doing.
 
for a church that prides itself on the sanctity of life, the death penalty must be viewed as morally wrong IMO.
 
otjm said:
Except that in the Hebrew, it says thous shalt not kill an innocent person. It has been translated “Thou shalt not kill”, but theological opinion has always held that one has the right to self defense and defense of others, if necessary, by killing the aggressor.
Click to expand...
Respectfully opinion only, yes in self defense in the present moment, and in defense of others in that present moment, but not so after… is it?

Jesus never sought to put anyone to physical death surely Jesus seeing, witnessing many took the life of others, nor did Jesus ever put forth such teaching did he putting to death one for their crimes did he?

Jesus mentions the murder of the Priest Zechariah …that was done by the stair case, Jesus accuses one of such, but never sought to end his life or promoted or taught such did he?
Peace
 
As to your first sentence, if I understand correctly what you are saying - yes; in self defense or defense of others, once the threat has passed, one stops.

As to your second comment: Christ was not part of the State (that being Roman occupation at the time) and so a death penalty was not something he had legal jurisdiction, so that is irrelevant to the discussion; further, he made no comment concerning either of the two being put to death with him in regards to the moral issue of their death sentences, so there is nothing on the discussion to be drawn from that. He neither condemned nor suggested it was right and proper. In short, he had no comment concerning the death penalty, and surely the joint executions was a place where that could have been said (as well as a multitude of others - it wasn’t as if this was a rarely used punishment).

As to your third comment, the Romans were in charge of executions; so the question as to Christ seeking the death penalty for the murder is simply not expounded upon in the Gospels. One cannot draw anything from them as it is not a topic ever discussed by Christ. Which is another way of saying that his silence on the matter neither proves that he was against the death penalty, nor that he approved it.
 
I have a very strong suspicion that the ACLU will take that one apart fairly quickly.

That is not to say that is my position; simply that I think, at least in the US, that is not realistic.

Frankly, given the case in Washington, I would take that position that such a killer is an extreme risk to the prison guards (and I should also say that one of my son-in-laws is a prison guard lieutenant, so not as likely as a sergeant, corporal or corrections officer).
 
My Points Against DP

Seeking a death sentence to be imposed is wishing someone to die.

There’s no greater thing than redeeming the wicked.

DP can be used to create an autocracy.

Other Problems With DP

Execution for murder&rape is understandable. However, nonviolent criminals get executed. Eg 18yo girl hanged in Asia for drug trafficking, ‘Adulteresses’ being stoned in the Middle East.

Someone guilty of manslaughter could be wrongly convicted of murder. We could be executing those who, didn’t intend their assault to be fatal, were provoked into killing their abuser, or used excessive self defence.

Is it just that Iranian domestic violence survivors get hanged for killing their violent husbands?

Maybe the killer was suffering rapes or dangerous violence from the deceased, in which case the execution would neither be punishment for killing innocents nor to bring justice to victims, but to empower the state.
 
I believe it’s wrong as does the Holy Father. Thou shalt not kill.

I don’t consider Genesis 9:6 (“by man his blood shall be shed”) to be a commandment for capital punishment any more than Deuteronomy 21:20-21 to require the death penalty for being a stubborn son. It’s more of a statement of the moral heinousness of murder and other crimes of those times. There is nothing in the Old Testament to illustrate an Israelite formal court judging someone and sentencing them to death. Jesus also said “Put your sword away, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword”. This means Genesis 9:6 is more proverbial than an endorsement for capital punishment.

Not to mention the serious problems with capital punishment including putting an innocent person to death and the clear racial disparity of the punishment.
 
Last edited:
Mboo said:
Are you sure that in the past it was not possible to effectively isolate criminals?
Click to expand...
This question raises two issues, not just the question you asked. It is often alleged that the ability to safely intern prisoners for life is a new phenomenon, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest this is accurate. This is the difference between asserting something and presenting a convincing argument that it is true.

The bigger problem, however, is that it suggests something misleading about punishment: that it is determined and justified by the degree of protection it affords the public. In fact it is justified by whether it is deserved, so a person should be sentenced to death only if he deserves it because of the severity of his crime. So the question is: if a person doesn’t deserve to die because of his crime, yet executing him is the only way to protect society from a (capital) crime, should he be executed? Surely the answer is no - we can’t execute him because he doesn’t deserve it, and the need for protection in this case is irrelevant.

Suppose instead he does deserve death because of the severity of his crime, but he presents no future threat; should he be executed in this case? Well, if he deserves to die, what is the argument that he should not receive the punishment he deserves regardless of whether he is a threat to society or not?

The focus on security masks the real issue: justice demands a person be sentenced according to the nature of his crime, a nature that is unaffected by the needs of protection.
 
Last edited:
Pope puts out a brief video about the death penalty (just released). I thought at least Ender might like to see. The video is at top of page at the link.

Spanish with English subtitles. Approx 4 min.

www.vaticannews.va

Pope on death penalty: offer the condemned the possibility to change life - Vatican News

The Pope, in a video message, exhorts rulers and all those who have the responsibility in their countries to take the necessary steps towards the ...
www.vaticannews.va www.vaticannews.va

“The death penalty is a serious violation of the right to life of every person.” (from video)
 
Thank you for posting this, but I don’t think it breaks any new ground, which really isn’t all that surprising. There was nothing there that caused me to rethink my understanding of what the church teaches on the matter.
 
No, I didn’t think it would make you reconsider. It shifted my probably guess, though, of the Pope’s opinion. He thinks it is a serious violation of the right to life of the convict, pushing me to think he means always and before and forever, rather than giving me room to imagine he really doesn’t mean that (the before part). I know on one of these threads it went back and forth on that topic (the intrinsic/extrinsic or some such conversation). I’m hard pressed to allow myself to think he doesn’t think it is intrinsically wrong, and that it was justifiable before only because they didn’t know any better.
 
Pope Francis changed the Catholic Church’s official teaching on the death penalty. It is now completely inadmissible. Whereas, "[T]he traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

So, now Catholics are required to believe the death penalty is always wrong.

[Source](http://pope Francis changes teaching on death penalty, it’s ‘inadmissible’)
 
anon48198893 said:
Pope Francis changed the Catholic Church’s official teaching on the death penalty.
Click to expand...
No pope has the authority to simply “change” church doctrines; it doesn’t work that way. The fact that he has expressed his opinion on the matter does not mean the doctrines are now different. Regarding that point, canon lawyer Ed Peters said this last August:

…popes can, in a single extraordinary act, assert something with infallible certitude sufficient to bind the faithful in belief or morals (Canon 749 § 1), no pope can, by a single ordinary act, assert something with anything like the equivalent force for Christian consciences.
It is now completely inadmissible.
Click to expand...
Does this mean it was admissible before and only now is it inadmissible, or does it mean that it was always inadmissible and only now has the church finally realized it had been teaching error for 2000 years? And what, exactly, does “inadmissible” mean? Does it mean intrinsically evil?
So, now Catholics are required to believe the death penalty is always wrong.
Click to expand...
In order to take this position one also has to repudiate the teaching of every Magisterium prior to this one and accept that on this issue the church was wrong and the heretics were right. I am unwilling to do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top