This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
The American Law Institute came up with the legal framework for the United States' modern system of capital punishment. Last October, the A.L.I. withdrew Section 210.6 on capital punishment from its Model Penal Code, citing "intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment."
What's that mean? 4000 judges, lawyers, and law professors have declared that our system of killing certain bad guys is "irretrievably broken."
There just aren't any good arguments left for capital punishment. South Dakota, let's save money, save lives, and save ourselves the moral stain of killing criminals in captivity. Let's follow the A.L.I.'s lead and remove Chapter 23A-27A from our penal code.
-----------------------
Update 2010.01.05 15:55 CST: Mr. Feser links to a blog post by his pal Mike Gruszczynski expressing similar disgust with Nebraska's death penalty and the un-Christian hypocrisy that keeps it alive.
Hide Fido (by Andy Horowitz)
-
I coined Noem as the ‘Palin of South Dakota’ when she ran for the state
house, seems I nailed it; America: meet your new Secretary of Homeland
Security. Sh...
1 day ago
We're supposed to be impressed by 4000 judges, lawyers, and law professors who don't have the guts to administer justice?
ReplyDeletePerhaps that impresses liberals, but it doesn't impress me.
There are no good reasons whatsoever to maintain capital punishment...except justice and public safety.
Capital punishment has been proved over and over and over to deter crime--even in a study conducted a couple of years ago by a death penalty opponent.
However, the main reason for capital punishment is not deterrence (that is merely a positive side effect). The primary reason is JUSTICE.
Justice requires that a punishment commensurate with the crime be administered to the guilty. There is no greater crime than the taking of an innocent human life. The murderer robs the victim of all their remaining years, all they would have done during those years, all they would have enjoyed, all they would have lived, and all the good they would have brought to their loved ones.
The value of an innocent human life is utterly incalculable. To say that 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years of incarceration come within even a light-year of the value of the innocent human life stolen is offensive to justice and an insult to the lost life and their loved ones. Even lifetime incarceration does not even come close; allowing the murderer to live after willfully taking an innocent human life is reprehensible and is a joke to call "justice."
Only by requiring the surrender of the life of the murderer in payment for the life he wrongfully took can come anywhere remotely close to affirming the value of what was taken, and acknowledging the grievous nature of the crime.
A healthy society would not turn its back on justice because it lacked the guts to administer it, or because it considered solving the problems of our current system "too tough."
We must not take the coward's way out. We must remain committed to justice.
...um... we were impressed enough with those thousands of judges, lawyers, and law professors when they helped construct the legal and academic framework that we used as the basis for our capital punishment laws. Funny that Bob the Christian only respects them when they tell him it's o.k. to kill prisoners. Sigh.
ReplyDelete"they helped construct the legal and academic framework that we used as the basis for our capital punishment laws"
ReplyDeleteCory,
Only a few have retained the Natural Law foundation. Most have been indoctrinated with the Progressive's legal positivism. Those are the ones Bob is speaking about.
Um, obviously these 4,000 moral and intellectual weaklings weren't around when our legal foundation was laid down. Human beings just don't live that long.
ReplyDeleteCorey,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't care less what you, Bob Ellis or 4,0000 judges, lawyers, and law professors have to say on the issue of the death penalty.
I agree with Bob Ellis that the main reason we should contemplate the issue is justice.
But I disagree with Bob that justice requires commensurate punishment to the crime.
How do we give commensurate punishment to a rapist? Rape him?
How do we give commensurate punishment to a pedophile? Rape his children?
How do we give commensurate punishment to a drunk driver who kills my daughter? Run over his daughter?
How do we give commensurate punishment to a thief who steals a retired widows retirement? Deny the criminal three square meals a day, a bed and roof over his head?
Our system of justice has never been about giving "commensurate punishment" to the crime because it would require us (the punishers) to act like the criminal (see above examples).
Our system of justice is primarily designed to provide punishment that either directly (lock them up) or indirectly (penalizes them in a way to deter them from doing it again) protects society. If it rehabilitates the criminal, this is a bonus.
Justice is the quality of being just with others. This implies recognizing the criminals dignity as a human being (no matter how inhumane or heinous their conduct) which can never be denied.
Because of their humanity, to be just we must desire to show mercy. The pursuit of vengeance (Punishment inflicted in return for an injury or an offense; retribution) denies their humanity and any desire to show mercy.
"Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; anticipate one another in showing honor. Do not grow slack in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, endure in affliction, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the holy ones, exercise hospitality. Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
BELOVED, DO NOT LOOK FOR REVENGE BUT LEAVE ROOM FOR THE WRATH; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, i WILL REPAY, SAYS THE LORD." Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good." (Romans 12:9-21
There was a time when the death penalty was necessary to protect society. Rural jails and 19th century prisons were no match to maurading gangs willing to break their comrades from jail and prison. Today, this is no longer the case.
Corey, you and I agree on this issue. Justice demands the end to the death penalty.
Interesting point, Troy, that the death penalty denies the prisoner's dignity and humanity. It doesn't do much for ours, either.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point from Troy: the question of necessity. We have better prisons now. We can lock criminals up pretty securely... and do it for less cost than the lengthy trials and endless death row appeals. Why take the chance of killing an innocent man, when life imprisonment achieves society's goals?
Cory,
ReplyDeleteJust for your information, God will issue death penalties to those who reject Him.
Sibby,
ReplyDeleteYou are so correct and your comment is relevant to the merits of the death penalty.
In additions the passage from Romans I referenced earlier, see:
Deut 32:32-43
Heb 10:30
I wish I could remember the movie or tv show but a line has always stuck with me as said by an unsavory character who suppressed the Divine in him:
"To forgive is Divine. Vengeance is mine."
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression that "god" issues death penalties for us all. Just some earlier than others.
So if you don't live forever does that mean "god" believes you rejected him?
Troy, how sad it that you can't or won't grasp the fact that God has delegated his authority to human government (Romans 13:4 makes this abundantly clear) to carry out his edict of capital punishment issued in Genesis 9:6 (which, I have to point out, was issued long before and is completely independent of the old Mosaic Covenant, and has never been rescinded).
ReplyDeleteIt is not a matter of vengeance, but of justice. This could not possibly be more clear. Have the courage to accept it.
Bob Ellis:
ReplyDeleteSo would you advocate following all of god's death penalty infractions?
Exodus 21:17
"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
It's my understanding that Romans 13:4
"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Is interpreted to mean the government is the executioner but follows god's penalty guidelines.
Any thoughts?
("...have the courage..."—note again it's not enough for Bob to tell you you're wrong if you disagree with him; he also has to assert that you are a wimp.)
ReplyDeleteI would laugh out loud if your response wasn’t so sad.
ReplyDeleteFirst, if I were going to manipulate the Bible, I’d use a different Chapter from Scripture for the rest of Romans 13 implies that the government has an obligation to make “just ordinances” (Wisdom 6:4-21), Roman 13:8-10 sums up our attitude should be to “love our neighbor as ourself” which includes the murderer.
I’m wondering where in your words your position is grounded in love of the murder when you redefine “justice” to be equal to “vengeance” (to be discussed later) as opposed to its dictionary definition.
Second, I find it sad that as one who claims to aspire to walk with Christ you so definitively denigrate one whose conscience calls one to be merciful even to the undeserved. I refer you to Mathew 5:7, Luke 6:36, Exodus 34:6, and my two favorites for this discussion James 2:13 (“For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”) and Psalms 78:38-39 (“But God is merciful and forgave their sin; he did not utterly destroy them. Time and again he turned back his anger, unwilling to unleash all his rage. He was mindful that they were flesh, a breath that passes and does not return.”) because the one we execute is that breath that does not return.
Frankly Bob, more than I fear the question whether or not I was vengeful enough on my judgment day, I fear the admonition of Mathew 25:35-44 that Christ will consider the mercy I showed to others. And, I'm quite comfortable following the admonition by Paul in Romans 12 I cited before specifically, "BELOVED, DO NOT LOOK FOR REVENGE BUT LEAVE ROOM FOR THE WRATH; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, i WILL REPAY, SAYS THE LORD."
And finally, what I find the most sad is that you do not consider your position in any way motivated by vengeance. The dictionary definition of vengeance is “Punishment inflicted in return for an injury or an offense; retribution.” What impresses me is how many different ways you can restate the definition of vengeance.
Bob, these are your own words on this post:
You believe we must have “punishment commensurate with the crime be administered to the guilty.”
“Only by requiring the surrender of the life of the murderer in payment for the life he wrongfully took can come anywhere remotely close to affirming the value of what was taken, and acknowledging the grievous nature of the crime.”
And these are your own words on your own website (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/03/the-death-penalty-justice-over-money/):
“The value of what has been destroyed is utterly incalculable, which is why just societies require the ultimate punishment for someone who would wrongfully take innocent human life. “
“a punishment should be commensurate with the crime, i.e. the harm done. Nothing short of giving one's life comes even close to recompense for the act of wrongfully taking the life of an innocent human being, and nothing short of this is commensurate to acknowledge the incalculable damage done.”
“I explained why the surrender of one's life for the life is the closest the murderer can give in just recompense for what they took”
“The murderer must give his life as the penalty and recompense for the assault he perpetrated on innocent human life”
P.S. In addition to your words here saying that I lack courage, you don’t have repeat your assertions that I am “myopic, selective in my Biblical reading, juvenile, incoherent, illogical, confused, wrong” or that I am moved by “emotionalism,” lack “moral will,” take “a buffet approach to life” and “don’t possess the intellect” to understand what you are deigning to illuminate for me.
And, you don’t have to repeat you try to “adhere to Biblical principles and well-established principles of logic and reason.” You have said it on your own website and I gave the reference.
Why rehash it when they can read it all in context on your website.
I frankly have no idea what you're talking about when you claim I "redefine 'justice' to be equal to 'vengeance.'" Apparently you think to properly punish a criminal offender actually does equal justice. You spoke of dictionary definitions; why is it that you cannot even grasp "justice," since the dictionary defines justice as the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. It is quite clear--both from God's command to exercise capital punishment, and from the very obvious value of innocent human life, that execution is merited for one who so casually disregards that sacred value. In case it eluded you, "vengeance" is something typically carried out on a personal level, usually outside the delegated authority of government.
ReplyDeleteI hate to say it, but your immature misunderstanding of Scripture (where you quoted references as if they constituted some sort of superseding instruction over God's very clear command that a murderer be subjected to the death penalty) is extremely disappointing. I could somewhat understand an unbeliever not being able to grasp these things, but I find it difficult to fathom in a professed believer. Your attitude makes a mockery of God's grace by turning it into a license to minimize sin and to escape the merited punishment for heinous crimes. You've embraced a "cheap grace" that is infected with the poison of secular "wisdom," the kind God says "seems right but in the end leads to death." Your conscience should be calling you to obedience to God's truth and his standards, not taking the easy path of favor from people who have no grasp of justice or truth.
By your sloppy reckoning, we shouldn't even imprison or fine people for their crimes; after all, these punishments, too, are lacking in mercy (or whatever twisted thing it is that you consider to be "mercy:). We must not take vengeance on a rapist by taking away his freedom and locking him up; we must show mercy. We must not fine the white-collar criminal for embezzling funds; that would be vengeance, and we must show mercy to him. We were so wrong to lock up Bernie Madoff for 150 years for his fraud; why did we choose vengeance on him and not show mercy to him? We must not incarcerate the thief; we should show "mercy" to him rather than the "vengeance" of locking him up.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteYou should be capable of grasping the difference between the personal mercy we are to show one another, and the very real and serious obligations that human government has in carrying out God's delegated justice. Why is it so incomprehensibly impossible for you to grasp the difference between our personal obligations to one another, and the vital God-given responsibility of the state to implement justice and maintain respect for the law and human life?
I should have known it was a waste of time to try to explain anything to you. I already tried to do that several months ago and I might as well have spent my time talking to a fence post. I had hopes that you might have done some thinking since then and be ready for the meat of the Word, but my hopes were misplaced.
I am more than willing to help someone understand something that they are ignorant of, or for whatever reason are having a hard time grasping. You, however, have been shown the crystal-clear truth repeatedly and in great detail, yet cannot accept it. You are not alone in that deficiency; probably most people--even within Christendom today--simply cannot stomach the idea of people thinking them "a bad guy" or a "meanie." It's much easier to take the path of avoidance that just lets everyone coast along in their error (or their crime) because, well, people might not like me if I acknowledge a hard truth.
Well, that's your choice to make. But you can't say no one ever tried to explain it to you, and you can't claim ignorance when it comes time to account for being on the opposite side of God's standards and instructions. I've done all I can, and shake the dust of your willful ignorance from my feet.
Bob is very much right. Halley’s Bible handbook analyses revenge in regard what Jesus said at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42;
ReplyDeleteThe Eye for Eye legislation was part of the Civil Law, administered by Judges (Exodus 12:22-25). Jesus is not here legislation for Courts of Justice. Civil Government is ordained of God (Romans 13:1-7), to save human society from its Criminal Elements. The sterner the Courts deal out Justice, the better for society. But Jesus is here teaching principles by which Individuals as Individuals should deal with other Individuals.
Funny: Bob is so lathered up writing his verbose comments (something he says is a sign of losing the argument when I write substantial responses on his blog) that he can't tell the difference between a fine, a jail sentence, and state-sanctioned killing of a prisoner. Talk about willful ignorance.
ReplyDeleteFunny how Cory is so bereft of any intelligent and reasoned response that he can't acknowledge the burden of explaining something in great detail to someone who is obviously having a hard time grasping the elementary.
ReplyDeleteAlso funny how Cory also misrepresents my reactions to his own infantile babblings.
And ultimately just sad that Cory is either unable or unwilling to see the difference between personal vengeance and the very real need to administer justice, and for society to demonstrate clearly the incalculable value of a human life wrongly taken.
But when people refuse to learn or understand because they are stuck in their own juvenile fantasy world, no amount of words will ever lead them to reason, will they? We have the answer right here.
“he can't tell the difference between a fine, a jail sentence, and state-sanctioned killing of a prisoner. Talk about willful ignorance.”
ReplyDeleteCory you are the one that is guilty of “willful ignorance” as Bob has successfully stated that social justice makes the death penalty just another response by a government to protect the righteous from those who insist on committing acts of evil. You have yet to respond to that point, and instead issue a personal attack. That shows you have lost the debate.
What you fail to distinguish is the difference between a state-sanctioned killing of the guilty after due process has been exercised by the justice system versus a state-sanctioned killing without due process of the innocent in abortion mills.
The point that I substantiated with Halley’s Bible Handbook is exactly the premise Thomas Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence. That our Natural rights come from the Creator God, and a government is to secure those rights, and it is the right of the citizens “to alter or to abolish it” if it becomes destructive to those rights.
So American was established under the legal philosophy that is based God’s Natural Law. You have stated that you instead favor the social contract. John Locke, who argued the social contract theory, also stated that atheists don’t deserve a say as to the social contract:
“Lastly, those are not all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.”
Which makes absolute sense. If a social contract is to adhere to God’s Natural Law, how could those who don’t believe in God have any sort of wisdom to be constructive in the process of establishing the contract. And what secular Progressives have done over the last 100 plus years is destroy that social contract…the Constitution (google FDR’s Constitutional revolution of 1937). Bob, I, and others are here to fight over the restoration of that social contract.
So Cory, if you want some insight as to how to stop being a fool, I suggest you study Solomon’s Book of Proverbs.
With love (helping the evil see the error of their ways),
Steve Sibson
“I frankly have no idea what you're talking about when you claim I "redefine 'justice' to be equal to 'vengeance.'"
ReplyDeleteI listed 6 quotes of yours defining justice. These quotes are just a restating of the dictionary definition of vengeance. For example, what is the difference between these two definitions?
Bob Ellis defines justice: “I explained why the surrender of one's life for the life is the closest the murderer can give in just recompense for what they took”
Dictionary defines vengeance: “Punishment inflicted in return for an injury or an offense; retribution.”
Dictionary defines justice: “the quality of being righteous or fair.
Bob, I get it. You have in your mind determined the only “fair” response to murder is to murder the murderer. I do not agree.
“It is quite clear . . .from God's command to exercise capital punishment”
Would you please show me where God says specifically that we must execute to have fidelity to Him and have no option to be merciful as He is merciful?
“In case it eluded you, "vengeance" is something typically carried out on a personal level, usually outside the delegated authority of government.”
Nations and governments conduct acts of vengeance all the time. They just don’t call it vengeance. They call it exercising their sovereignty and other such euphemisms. Since you often rail against the actions of government, I didn’t think you’d find it impossible for them to commit vengeance.
“I hate to say it, but your immature misunderstanding of Scripture (where you quoted references as if they constituted some sort of superseding instruction over God's very clear command that a murderer be subjected to the death penalty) is extremely disappointing.”
Then why did you say it? Can’t you control yourself? Here is a superceding instruction: “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35)
“Your attitude makes a mockery of God's grace by turning it into a license to minimize sin and to escape the merited punishment for heinous crimes.”
Hate to say this too? LOL I do not minimize sin. I will just leave the vengeance to God as Paul told us too.
“You've embraced a "cheap grace" that is infected with the poison of secular "wisdom," the kind God says "seems right but in the end leads to death."”
If you knew me, I’m far from a “cheap grace” person. What you say is calumny and a serious offense against the Truth.
“Your conscience should be calling you to obedience to God's truth and his standards, not taking the easy path of favor from people who have no grasp of justice or truth.”
My most fervent and common prayer is to open my conscience to the whispering of the Holy Spirit. And many times it leads me to ignore those false prophets who self appoint themselves as messengers from God. Seriously, what kind of nut would use this quote to make it appears they are a messenger of God? Ezekiel 3:17 “I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me.”
(wow, I'm as windy as Bob.)
(continuation of the conversation with Bob)
ReplyDelete“By your sloppy reckoning, we shouldn't even imprison or fine people for their crimes; after all, these punishments, too, are lacking in mercy (or whatever twisted thing it is that you consider to be "mercy:)” including not locking up rapists, white collar crimals, Bernie Madoff.
Sheesh give me a break. I am a strong law and order guy. My brother is in law enforcement. But I shouldn’t be surprised you’d make this leap of logic just because I do not believe the death penalty is appropriate today.
“You should be capable of grasping the difference between the personal mercy we are to show one another, and the very real and serious obligations that human government has in carrying out God's delegated justice.”
A democracy is a reflection of the governed. These words mean anything to you? “a government by the people, of the people and for the people”
"Why is it so incomprehensibly impossible for you to grasp the difference between our personal obligations to one another, and the vital God-given responsibility of the state to implement justice and maintain respect for the law and human life?"
I asked you nicely to try to have a discussion where you not speak as if you were deigning like some deity on a mountain to speak with me, question my faith or be insulting but you just couldn’t help yourself.
Here are some words you used to disparage me, my faith, or my views in just your last post. You had others in the other “discussions” we have had on this matter.
“immature, mockery, cheap grace, infected, (dis)obedience, sloppy reckoning, twisted, (in)capable, incomprehensively impossible, waste of time, fence post, ready for the Word.”
And you end your post with “shake the dust” from your feet which is what Christ said to the Apostles when encountering those who ignore their Christ-ordained evangelization.
I know you consider yourself “sent by God” but I wonder if Christ also instructed his messengers to use those words when spreading the Good News?
"A democracy is a reflection of the governed. These words mean anything to you? “a government by the people, of the people and for the people”"
ReplyDeleteSorry about the double quotations. But Troy, what happens if the majority are evil. Do you want the majority to rule?
Steve, I'm not sure I understand your question. But of course I don't want evil people to rule.
ReplyDeleteIn a democracy, it is the obligation of the people to make their government better. That is why I take the time to be involved in politics and assert myself here and other places.
Sorry to jump in at the middle.
ReplyDelete"...'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these."
Mark 12:31
A very special person (hi Cory!) brought this passage to my attention a few years years ago, and it rather transformed the way I look at religion and God.
To love your neighbor goes beyond simple "do unto others what you would have them do unto you." True love does not require repayment. Such stipulations taint love with the air of self-serving arrogance.
No, to love one's neighbor is to accept that we are all the same, imbued by our creator with freedom of choice and spirit. Regardless of what we choose to do with that freedom, Christ calls us to see that we are all as one.
A typical argument against abortion is that all life is sacred. Why is point tossed asunder when it comes to capital punishment? A murder has made mistakes, perhaps irredeemable mistakes, but his life was still created by God.
Some say that the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation. I agree. But not in the normal sense. A murder has a far greater debt to pay than we can ever impose upon him. It is up to him to seek forgiveness from God. No, not every murderer will come to see the errors of his ways, but some will. Since I love them all, I wish to give them the chance.
There is scripture that will contradict this I am sure. In the end it comes down to what you believe. Well, I choose to believe in compassion over vengeance, in understanding over ignorance, in love over hate.
I care not what a man has done. He is my brother in Christ, and I will not abandon him to death so readily.