Capital Punishment

[InLove]

Hi Y'all,

In looking around for a diversion during a bout of insomnia, I found this conversation. I read all the way back through the thread, and decided to bite.

I do believe that justice exists as a very real thing. I do not wish it for myself--of this I am certain, and I am not just referring to this "life" or "realm" or "dimension" or whatever one chooses to call where we are right now. No, what I desperately desire is mercy. I also believe that if I desire this for myself and do not desire it for others, then I am a hypocrite.

That said, I am acutely aware that we imperfect beings frequently fall short of being able to truly implement mercy. Why? It isn't practical. We don't know how to make it work (sometimes I think we do not want to). It would be difficult, and it would mean rethinking and restructuring systems that have been in place for ages. Politicians would not get any votes if they proposed many of the solutions, and existing government officials would see their approval ratings dwindle to zero. Social workers might be able to see some solutions and even have some success, but alas, they have no power to do so without the approval of these same governmental entities.

I can't help wondering about the pros and cons (no pun intended) of perhaps, instead of spilling more blood, institutionalizing hopelessly unremorseful criminals in order to study their psychological states? I don't mean putting them up in the Holiday Inn, either, but in the highest security setting with a strict work regime for life. I have always thought that serial killers, rapists, mass murderers, etc., must be mentally ill in some way. But I might be wrong about that--I have a dear friend who says I am. He says that some people are just plain evil. Perhaps he is right, but to me, that simply means "spiritually ill". LOL-now, I am not suggesting that the state pay for exorcisms in prisons or anything like that, but certainly spiritual advisors would be welcome at their own expense, just as they are now in U.S. and many other prison systems. I am sure that there is probably something along these lines already in place, but maybe not to the extent that it yields enough results to possibly help society in the prevention of these sort of crimes. I know it may sound crazy, but I still wonder about stuff like this. Would it really cost any more than some of the ways we already operate, and would the long-run benefits outweigh the costs? And then, what about the risk of large numbers of escapees in the event of natural or manmade disasters?

I also think that it would be extremely helpful if our prison systems were not corrupted. How can we rehabilitate anyone or learn anything if prison officials are in cahoots with self-serving government officials, or when our prison guards have no higher morals than the prisoners they are there to guard? (Please, I am not saying that this is always true, or even mostly true, but we all know it happens way too often.)

I honestly don't know if any good thing came out of the execution of Williams--I really doubt it. If he had lived, he could have continued his crusade to undo a lot of damage he did way back then. However, I do not think that any prisoner should be allowed to make book deals or give interviews or even run a website or magazine for personal gain while they are incarcerated. I believe they should be allowed to publish, but with proceeds going to charity after the publisher gets paid--and the publishing fees should be public record and subject to monitoring and certain restrictions. I believe this should be true for everyone from Williams to Stewart to Manson. Maybe it already is, but I don't think so.

Now then, I am compelled to add that no one I love dearly and know personally has ever been murdered. I have, however, lost loved ones because they "fell through the cracks" of a greedy society. The two situations may not seem much alike, but they may have more similarities than we realize. You know what I wish? I wish that the people responsible for this death could feel what I felt--maybe what my loved one felt. But I don't wish them to die. I just wish they understood the suffering caused by their indifference or their actions. Who knows, though, how I would really feel if someone brutally murdered one of my children. I guess we do not know things like this until it happens, and I hope I never find out.

InPeace,
InLove

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1
Capital punishment is scriptural. And the reasons for such were sound. Still are.

Also scriptual....judge not less ye be judged....ye without sin cast the first stone....love your enemy as yourself....forgive 7x70...take the log out of...

always so nice to pick and choose...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Also scriptual....judge not less ye be judged....ye without sin cast the first stone....love your enemy as yourself....forgive 7x70...take the log out of...

always so nice to pick and choose...

Not picking or choosing anything. "To everything there is a season...and a time for every purpose, under heaven..."

One must accept it all.

Mr. Williams's days were numbered (as are all of ours), and he chose to make the best of the days he had left, for the good of others. He is to be commended and blessed for that. But he had a price to pay for his indiscretions a long time ago, when he didn't care for others.

Joshua, forgave those who asked him to, for their indiscretions, but still had them put to death as per God's command. That was the law. Today, we have law. Law is no good, if we ignore it.

If law is unjust, then there are means for changing it. However the majority must be convinced, before change can take place. Just because a few say something is wrong doesn't always make it so.

v/r

Q

[wil]

Not picking or choosing anything. "To everything there is a season...and a time for every purpose, under heaven..." One must accept it all.

enlightening, so as the Christian Forum Moderator you are saying...that we ignore Jesus's statements of

...judge not less ye be judged....ye without sin cast the first stone....love your enemy as yourself....forgive 7x70...take the log out of...

hard to get through the eye of the needle if we are insisting on carrying all the old baggage with us..

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

enlightening, so as the Christian Forum Moderator you are saying...that we ignore Jesus's statements of hard to get through the eye of the needle if we are insisting on carrying all the old baggage with us..

My status has nothing to do with scripture. The Old testament is still in effect. Jesus taught Mercy where Justice is deserved, but did not say get rid of justice.

That is a cheap shot by the way...

v/r

Q

[wil]

That is a cheap shot by the way...

I'm sorry you think it a cheap shot....for the life of me I can understand how any christian would think Jesus would have lead or accepted the Crusades...the Spanish Inquisition...burning books, heretics, witches...I'm sorry, I think it ridiculous.

I believe that man grew greatly in his understanding in his short time on earth...and I don't see him preaching capitol punishment...he physically told us to find someoone without sin to cast the first stone...that is if one believes anything in the book.

I can see an atheist, arguing for capitol punishment. My uncle was shot, as I said I have a very close friend who lost her sister to her nephew....she was able to understand forgiveness.

I have a friend that told me if you don't understand the concept of unconditional love for ALL. You will have to have an occurance in your life, to assist you in that understanding...I don't wish that on anyone. My brother, I'll take as many cheap shots as I can to forstall that level of understanding.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

I'm sorry you think it a cheap shot....for the life of me I can understand how any christian would think Jesus would have lead or accepted the Crusades...the Spanish Inquisition...burning books, heretics, witches...I'm sorry, I think it ridiculous.

That is true, that was man, not the Lord's doing. However, all things work for the glory of God, including stupid blunders, or outright wretchedness by man. God is much bigger than that.

Originally Posted by wil

I believe that man grew greatly in his understanding in his short time on earth...and I don't see him preaching capitol punishment...he physically told us to find someoone without sin to cast the first stone...that is if one believes anything in the book.

Really? Pacifism never won a war. War is real, murder is real, cheating is real, crime is real. Unless you expect the Lord to fix all things for you, when others choose to do you wrong, while you do nothing for yourself, in defense of yourself...your life is going to be either rather short, or miserable, or both...

Originally Posted by wil

I can see an atheist, arguing for capitol punishment. My uncle was shot, as I said I have a very close friend who lost her sister to her nephew....she was able to understand forgiveness.

Capital punishment has nothing to do with forgiveness. There is a price for everything. Justice demands that. Forgiveness does not negate the offense. That is where I think you are getting confused.

Originally Posted by wil

I have a friend that told me if you don't understand the concept of unconditional love for ALL. You will have to have an occurance in your life, to assist you in that understanding...I don't wish that on anyone. My brother, I'll take as many cheap shots as I can to forstall that level of understanding.

Unconditional love, is the love of Mr. Williams' mother. No matter what, she loves her son. And part of her died with him. The price for unconditional love for ALL, is death. Jesus dared love unconditionally...soldiers dare love their brothers in arms unconditionally. A man dares love his family unconditionally...

Your friend is mistaken. Man is incapable (in current state), to unconditionally love ALL. That means give up self (self preservation). Think about that...

v/r

Q

[wil]

Your friend is mistaken. Man is incapable (in current state), to unconditionally love ALL. That means give up self (self preservation). Think about that...

I believe Man is not using all God has given him, and is capable. everything that he has done you can do and more...I have faith in your abilities to rise above that.

Really? Pacifism never won a war. War is real, murder is real, cheating is real, crime is real. Unless you expect the Lord to fix all things for you, when others choose to do you wrong, while you do nothing for yourself, in defense of yourself...your life is going to be either rather short, or miserable, or both...

Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven.... We have yet to try pacifism...Ghandi did pretty good at it, yes he was murdered but he made tremendous changes. We have a lot to thank for Dr. King and his efforts as well. Some day would I be willing to step up to the plate for my principles...especially if generations after me benifited from it...I sure hopes so.

We have never tried peace, we've been trying War for how many milllenia?? How do you think that is going...well I assume.

Capital punishment has nothing to do with forgiveness.

Amen brother, truer words were never spoken.

[brucegdc]

I think there's two levels in operation here with respect to forgiveness. On an individual level, forgiveness is possible & often laudable. That is distinctly different from society's need to protect its members from each other, and to punish wrongdoers. I would argue that what's laudable on an individual level is anything BUT at the society level. To forgive someone at that level is to force each member of society to forgive the offender, which is not forgiveness at all ... in fact, it's harming them by putting the society at risk by removing the rules that protect it. Think about a child who breaks the rules and is perpetually forgiven for it - will that child modify their behavior? No, for their actions have no consequences. Similarly, other children around them will take on the poor behavior since it is encouraged.


Is capital punishment right? That's another kettle of fish. SOmewhere up the thread the question was asked what the purpose of capital punishment is - and I think there are three (for any punishment, come to think of it):

1) Punishment for wrongdoing (aka consequences)
2) Preventing the re-occurrance of the crime, or at least protecting society from the criminal for some period.
3) Deterring others

Capital punishment has the advantage that 100% of the time, the executed person commits no further crimes. I'm not sure that it may not be the *only* advantage - studies show that the costs of executing someone exceed that of life incarceration. It does eliminate the risk of someone escaping from jail as part of that.

On the down side, there's not much that can be done if there's been a mistake. If someone's in jail for life mistakenly, you can at least let them out - you can't give them back the lost years, but you can give them whatever remains of their life. Once they're dead, there's not much that can be done to mitigate things.

Capital punishment's deterrent effect on people is, I think, questionable - whether or not it actually deters people thinking about a crime is hard to prove, and certainly if you've committed a crime that is a capital offense, there's no additional deterrent effect on other crimes (similarly with life imprisonment, although I gather in many cases "life" is much less than life, so additional sentence time is possible for more offenses.

I think it's Wil's tagline that's most appropriate here - we are free to choose our actions, but we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions. If the law states that the punishment is X, then it needs to be X - or we lose the glue binding society together.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

I think there's two levels in operation here with respect to forgiveness. On an individual level, forgiveness is possible & often laudable. That is distinctly different from society's need to protect its members from each other, and to punish wrongdoers. I would argue that what's laudable on an individual level is anything BUT at the society level. To forgive someone at that level is to force each member of society to forgive the offender, which is not forgiveness at all ... in fact, it's harming them by putting the society at risk by removing the rules that protect it. Think about a child who breaks the rules and is perpetually forgiven for it - will that child modify their behavior? No, for their actions have no consequences. Similarly, other children around them will take on the poor behavior since it is encouraged.


Is capital punishment right? That's another kettle of fish. SOmewhere up the thread the question was asked what the purpose of capital punishment is - and I think there are three (for any punishment, come to think of it):

1) Punishment for wrongdoing (aka consequences)
2) Preventing the re-occurrance of the crime, or at least protecting society from the criminal for some period.
3) Deterring others

Capital punishment has the advantage that 100% of the time, the executed person commits no further crimes. I'm not sure that it may not be the *only* advantage - studies show that the costs of executing someone exceed that of life incarceration. It does eliminate the risk of someone escaping from jail as part of that.

On the down side, there's not much that can be done if there's been a mistake. If someone's in jail for life mistakenly, you can at least let them out - you can't give them back the lost years, but you can give them whatever remains of their life. Once they're dead, there's not much that can be done to mitigate things.

Capital punishment's deterrent effect on people is, I think, questionable - whether or not it actually deters people thinking about a crime is hard to prove, and certainly if you've committed a crime that is a capital offense, there's no additional deterrent effect on other crimes (similarly with life imprisonment, although I gather in many cases "life" is much less than life, so additional sentence time is possible for more offenses.

I think it's Wil's tagline that's most appropriate here - we are free to choose our actions, but we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions. If the law states that the punishment is X, then it needs to be X - or we lose the glue binding society together.

Forgiveness is one thing...justice is another. Mercy is something totally different.

v/r

Q

[I am free]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

I think there are three (for any punishment, come to think of it):

1) Punishment for wrongdoing (aka consequences)
2) Preventing the re-occurrance of the crime, or at least protecting society from the criminal for some period.
3) Deterring others

I can understand 2 and 3. To protect society from the criminal, I believe life imprisonment which actually lasts for life should be sufficient. Capital punishment (or any punishment for that matter), I feel does not truly act as a "deterrent".

As far as 1 is concerned, there has been a lot of discussion in this thread about justice being done, consequences for wrong doing, etc. and I wonder if this comes under man's jurisdiction at all.

As wil pointed out, it seems to me only an atheist would want man's justice done right now.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The founders of the United States were explicit in ensuring church was not subjugated by state. That is all. Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the AniBaptists of New England is the only place where church being seperated from state was ever mentioned...and that was a private letter, and he was assuring the folks up north that the state would not subject them or anyone else to a state run religion...

I wasnt' aware of that. Point taken. I did a bit of internet research and found the following in Wikipedia:

In the United States, separation of church and state is governed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents, some quite controversial, interpreting that clause. Although the Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) as making the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.

For what that's worth. Anyway, I feel the constitutional argument is just a piece of a larger disagreement of values.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is nothing in the Constitution, the Declaration or the Articles that mention anything about the seperation of church and state.

The founding Laws in this country are founded on scripture, always have been.

And Captital punishment is scriptural, and counts today as much as it did 2000 years ago.

Just because others decide to interpret otherwise doesn't change facts.

Asked if the death penalty is viable in this country, 65% say yes. Ask between the choice of death penalty or life in prison without parole 56% still say death is proper.

These are facts, not my opinion.

v/r

Q

Actually, those are facts that back up your opinion. You are a good debater. Still, I disagree with you, and find your values rather repugnant. Strong words, I know. It just seems to me that rather than think critically about issues and come to a conclusion for yourself, you cling to the Rock of Ages of your faith and come up with nice, neat, logical arguments to support your particular--and to me, skewed--perspective. You seem to have a very strict, patriarchal, Big-Poppa-in-the-Sky-dishing-out-justice view of Christianity. My idea of Christ is quite different than yours. To me, Christ is a person of radical spirituality, compassion, and equanimity who came to "free the slaves," as I once heard Ani DiFranco put it. He came to put an end to many of the oppressive and unnatural Old Testament 'laws' that you grip so tightly, and in their place brought Love to the front. My Christ would be the first to speak out against the death penalty--indeed, he did in the Biblical story about casting the first stone, recounted by Wil.

You speak a lot about justice as if it is some rigid, codified, objective reality, but we all have our own ideas of justice and no one has a monopoly on it. There's no stone tablet that defines what is just in all situations, at all times. Personally, I firmly believe that there can be no justice without compassion.

[Quahom1]

Actually, those are facts that back up your opinion. You are a good debater. Still, I disagree with you, and find your values rather repugnant. Strong words, I know. It just seems to me that rather than think critically about issues and come to a conclusion for yourself, you cling to the Rock of Ages of your faith and come up with nice, neat, logical arguments to support your particular--and to me, skewed--perspective.

Correct, I think very critically about issues, and then come to the conclusion that the edicts of my faith, are right on the money, hence my perspective.

You seem to have a very strict, patriarchal, Big-Poppa-in-the-Sky-dishing-out-justice view of Christianity. My idea of Christ is quite different than yours. To me, Christ is a person of radical spirituality, compassion, and equanimity who came to "free the slaves," as I once heard Ani DiFranco put it.

Again correct. "Big Poppa" is the justice giver, and always has been. Christ did not come to judge but to enforce judgment. He is also given license for mercy, at His choosing. Whether it is judgement over life and death or judgement over conduct and accountability, Christ is come to enforce that.

He came to put an end to many of the oppressive and unnatural Old Testament 'laws' that you grip so tightly, and in their place brought Love to the front. My Christ would be the first to speak out against the death penalty--indeed, he did in the Biblical story about casting the first stone, recounted by Wil.

Then you haven't read your Bible. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fullfil it. He specifically stated as much. I'm not making this up. It is a quote from Jesus, in the NT, not some obscure passage in the OT. And his notation about casting the first stone was for a "victim" who was being judged by those that instigated the injustices perceived of her. In short my friend, the "whore" was being stoned by the very "whoremongers" who helped create her condition. There is no justice in that kind of punishment. Jesus would have had them all sit in the pit and be stoned, and they knew it. By dropping their stones and departing, they convicted themselves. Who does the greater wrong, the poor who are desperate to survive, or the rich who pay the poor to do desperate things, for their own selfishness?

You speak a lot about justice as if it is some rigid, codified, objective reality, but we all have our own ideas of justice and no one has a monopoly on it. There's no stone tablet that defines what is just in all situations, at all times. Personally, I firmly believe that there can be no justice without compassion.

That is justice. It is rigid, codified, and objective. It is right or wrong, black or white (no shades of gray). There is no emotion in justice. If there was, it wouldn't be justice. And there is a stone tablet that defines all in every situation, at all times. It is called the ten commandments. And justice needs no compassion. There is no emotion involved in judgement over what is right and what is wrong.

What you describe is a judicial court with...mercy.

That is where Christ comes in. Without Christ, this life would be extremely harsh indeed. See, even the judge showed us mercy. He sent His most precious envoy to save us from ourselves, because it was a last ditch effort.

That you find my sense of right and wrong rigid and repugnant, is irrelevent. I'm not your judge...I simply wear a uniform and carry out orders so that you can freely express your disdain, anytime you like. So in a way, I too believe in mercy, or at least in your rights...

v/r

Q

[Pathless]

Hello Q,

Thanks for the reply. You and I are more similar than I would have supposed yesterday; now I see that we are both very passionate about our beliefs and somewhat proud of ourselves for upholding the values that we do.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Then you haven't read your Bible. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fullfil it. He specifically stated as much. I'm not making this up. It is a quote from Jesus, in the NT, not some obscure passage in the OT.

I've read that passage before, I think. I would imagine that you are more versed in Biblical scripture than I am, for sure. There are, however, many different interpretations of scripture (hence all of the differing denominations of Christianity); also, to me, it seems that the Bible is full of stories, parables, maxims, or what have you that tend to contradict each other at times. I guess we will all take from it what feeds our passions or our particular beliefs.

Subjectivity, once again, comes into play with our belief systems. Even if we hold things to be objective realities, really they are only so as much as we structure them and define them as such. Our beliefs and values color our worlds and shape our personal reality. There is much variety between people in this.

And his notation about casting the first stone was for a "victim" who was being judged by those that instigated the injustices perceived of her. In short my friend, the "whore" was being stoned by the very "whoremongers" who helped create her condition. There is no justice in that kind of punishment. Jesus would have had them all sit in the pit and be stoned, and they knew it. By dropping their stones and departing, they convicted themselves. Who does the greater wrong, the poor who are desperate to survive, or the rich who pay the poor to do desperate things, for their own selfishness?

I have emphasised your words because I find them very poignant in regards to the debate about the death penalty and Stanley Tookie Williams. One way of viewing the situation is that Mr Williams, and other impoverished people like him, are victims of a hierarchy of oppression that starts in the offices of our nation's government--a governement that, along the line of this country's sad history, has sacrificed its very democractic principles for a system of pathological consumption through capitalism. He with the most money and the least heart buys the most disposable toys to win, along the way sucking the life out of others and damning many to poor healthcare, poor education, poor living conditions, and poor prospects.

Just as, "the 'whore' was being stoned by the very 'whoremongers' who helped create her condition. There is no justice in that kind of punishment," I find no justice in the death of Stanley Williams. Yes, he was a criminal and a gangster at one time. We can observe, however, that the nation in which he lived is one that creates unequal opportunity (very unAmerican, no?) between the haves and have-nots--a situation in which hopeless people are driven out of desperation to try to claw their way to the top, or at least to a position of comfort, with total disregard for a set of laws which are not fair or just (or sane, for that matter).

Now I would ask you to look at your own question again: "Who does the greater wrong, the poor who are desperate to survive, or the rich who pay the poor to do desperate things, for their own selfishness?" Granted, no one was paying Stanley Williams to start again, but I would imagine no one was paying Stanley Williams much for anything that he did, which led him to start a gang out of desperation.

From the petition for clemency submitted on behalf of Stanley Williams:

At San Quentin, Stanley Williams spent six years in isolation. Alone for the first time in his life, free from the threats and demands of the life he had lived, he looked into himself and found purpose. He openly renounced his prior life and gang violence. He educated himself. He became a messenger of hope, and of the futility and waste of violence.

I am certain that Jesus’ teaching of “let he amongst you who is without guilt…” could be applied here. Q, you claim that compassion has no place in justice, and yet state that Christ is the bringer of mercy. Is Christ alive today? Would you be surprised if I answered that question in the affirmative? He is alive today; we are his representatives on earth; indeed, I believe that at the deepest level, we are Him. It is up to us to celebrate and honor the life of Christ by challenging ourselves to practice His teachings of compassion, mercy, and justice, and his teaching of unconditional love for all. Not only are we capable of doing this, it is our nature as humans to strive for this, and to always move closer to the perfection seen in Christ. Anything less and we are shortchanging ourselves as well as our brothers and sisters on this beautiful, rare planet that we inhabit.

[Pathless]

Oops, I mis-typed, and didn't catch it in time to edit:

Originally Posted by Pathless

Granted, no one was paying Stanley Williams to start again

should read, "Granted, no one was paying Stanley Williams to start a gang..."