Why "Thou Shalt not Kill" DOES Apply to the Death Penalty

from JoeUser Forums

For years, I have heard conservative Christians advance the argument that, because the word "kill" in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is rightly translated "murder", it does not apply to war or the death penalty.I am setting the former aside in favor of the latter for this particular argument.

Yes,the word IS properly translated "murder". Then,we must ask if the death penalty is morally considered to be murder. My answer to this is: yes AND no. In the case of someone who is PROVEN to be a murderer, no,it is not morally considered murder. However, of the cases prosecuted in the United States, VERY few murders meet that standard. The Scott Peterson case is an example of this. While I remain with those that believe Peterson probably DID kill his wife,I HAVE to emphasize the word "probably" in this particular case.There is a definite preponderance of circumstantial evidence in this case, and I would say the prosecutor satisfied, in my mind the "reasonable doubt" standard essential for conviction in American courts. But my contention is that capital cases are ONLY justifiable with a MUCH HIGHER burden of proof than in the Peterson case.

In the past several years, there have been many high profile examples of individuals wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. One such example even made it to "Extreme Makeover". EVERY instance of execution of these wrongfully convicted criminals IS murder, and a certain amount of moral guilt falls upon us for these executions. ONE murder of an innocent remains, in my mind, justification for nullification until or unless we have a way of absolutely assuring that an individual convicted of a crime is absolutely guilty, without a shadow of doubt. We have ways of securing prisons against escape, and vast prison reform measures would be needed before complete elimination of the death penalty would establish an acceptable level of security, but we must rethink our attitude towards the death penalty.

The Supreme Court of the United States did,in the past week, take a positive step in that direction, but we have a long way to go until we make the changes we need to make in this area.

politics
9,162 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree with you, especially in the Scott Petersen case.  I, like you thin he did it, but right now, no one (except the murderer) knows who did do it, and so there is a scintilla of doubt.

But beyond that, the 'christians' that use the technicality of murder vs kill are forgetting that is the old testament and Jesus gave us a new covenant.  WHile the laws of the old convenant are not to be thrown out, Jesus expanded on them, so that the issue of killing may not be in the 10 commandments, but it is in the teachings of Jesus.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I am a proponent of capital punishment, I will still go out on a limb and agree with you here.

The ultimate penalty should be reserved for the ultimate criminals. Namely, those who have proven (through their actions) that they are beyond rehabilitation and putting them to death is the only recourse left.

While I share the feelings of most, that Scott Peterson's murderous actions are heinous and despicable, I part with most on the idea that they mean he should be put to death. Saying that he deserves the same punishment as a Ted Bundy, Timothy McViegh, or Suddam Hussein flies in the face of justice itself, reducing the whole concept of justice to mere revenge.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I share the feelings of most, that Scott Peterson's murderous actions are heinous and despicable, I part with most on the idea that they mean he should be put to death. Saying that he deserves the same punishment as a Ted Bundy, Timothy McViegh, or Suddam Hussein flies in the face of justice itself, reducing the whole concept of justice to mere revenge.


agreed.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
My dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

Moral or not, isn't the death penalty, by it's very definition, lawful?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
as you likely know, during the time when gwb was governor of texas, that state executed 152 individuals. one person who was NOT executed--and who is the only person granted clemency by during the bush governorship--is, amazingly enough, henry lee lucas who was believed for a time to have killed as many as 600 people before being arrested and tried for capital murder in texas.

altho there's now is some doubt he committed many of the murders to which he confessed, it's almost certain he did kill three people, one of whom was his mother.

Moral or not, isn't the death penalty, by it's very definition, lawful?


just as lawful as the nuremburg laws enacted during 1935-36 in nazi germany...or similar laws establishing racial segregation in the us.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I dunno Gid, if you are gonna make it a religious issue, you can't avoid the problem that the death penalty was not only sanctioned, but MANDATED by the Bible. The same for war. To hold "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to that standard ignores all the times God told the Israelites to go kill every man woman, child, and goat of the Phillistines.

I don't think either of us see all that and the rest as literal "commandment", but once you stray to where we are, it becomes personal interpretation, personal belief.

I understand where you are coming from, but someone who opposes you could say that society creates a standard of proof just for those reasons. I don't think I could have sentenced Scott Peterson to death given the proof, but then it isn't a nation-wide voting situation... god help anyone on trial if it was.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy: The only time I recall Jesus was tasked with capital punishment it was in the form of a "trap" question. If he had told them to go on and stone her, it would have been in violation of Roman law. If he had said not to, he would have violated Hebrew law.

His answer, "He who is without sin" satisfied both, given they were there to stone her under false pretenses, anyway. Note he didn't say "Don't stone people, you shouldn't stone people." I think if that was the message, it would have been made pretty clear.

"just as lawful as the nuremburg laws enacted during 1935-36 in nazi germany...or similar laws establishing racial segregation in the us."


And yet when those same Nazis were tried, again at Nuremberg, the death penalty was a preferred option. 11 out of th 18 were sentenced to death.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Moral or not, isn't the death penalty, by it's very definition, lawful?

Lawful is not always Right.  After all, Slavery was 'lawful' for over 100 years.  Did that make it right?

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

just as lawful as the nuremburg laws enacted during 1935-36 in nazi germany...or similar laws establishing racial segregation in the us.

Less of a reach, and more appropriate is my above comment.  But I agree with you on most of your post.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

His answer, "He who is without sin" satisfied both, given they were there to stone her under false pretenses, anyway. Note he didn't say "Don't stone people, you shouldn't stone people." I think if that was the message, it would have been made pretty clear.

Exactly!  So who is without sin?

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually, Baker, yes, it did mandate the death penalty in certain circumstances. BUT the same OT laws provided cities of refuge for those who accidentally killed someone, and DID require that the accused be proven guilty to a certain legal standard. My issue isn't "does the government have Biblical authority to enact the death penalty". It DOES. That is beyond questioning. My issue has to do with my MORAL position towards the death penalty both 1) in the age of grace, and 2) under the standards that the US applies it. Too many individuals have been sentenced to death and been PROVEN innocent after their death for me to agree with the current standard. The death of a wrongly accused innocent IS murder (I'm pretty sure that's why "thou shalt not bear false witness" also shows up in the Big Ten), and we need to reevaluate our standards for application of the death penalty.

In short, if we had a way of insuring that EVERY execution was of a person GUILTY of murder, AND provided a standard consistent with the Biblical application of the death penalty (aforementioned cities of refuge), I would not be opposed to it. But neither standard is going to be met, much less both of them, and my opposition remains intact.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Exactly! So who is without sin?"


As I said, this was a question about politics, not capital punishment. Who's law do we follow, Roman occupational law, or Hebrew law? If He had chosen either, He would have been guilty of a crime with the other.

Jesus was addressing a specific group of people, in a specific situation. I don't think that He would have left a "Thou Shalt Not Permit Capital Punishment" mandate to be interpreted from such a vague statement.


"BUT the same OT laws provided cities of refuge for those who accidentally killed someone, and DID require that the accused be proven guilty to a certain legal standard."


So do our laws. We have numerous sentences for someone who kills someone else, and the vast majority don't carry the death sentence. Do people guilty of negligent homicide or manslaughter get the death penalty? Hell, do most of them spend any substantial amount of time in jail? Peopel who are guilty of killing someone aren't madated the death sentence automatically. The vast majority don't get the death penalty, of those who do, the majority sit on death row for decades. Many (most?) end up with their sentences toned down to life on appeal.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I said, this was a question about politics, not capital punishment. Who's law do we follow, Roman occupational law, or Hebrew law? If He had chosen either, He would have been guilty of a crime with the other


For those who beleive in capital punishment, you are right. For those that do not, he was calling all of us to re-examine our vengence mentality. It is a belief issue, that is all.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

The old testament, where the 10 commandements came from, regularly allowed for the killing of people for commiting crimes. Read leviticus some time, there's a whole host of things you can kill someone for.

That said, I don't really care whether the bible agrees with the death penalty or not. The United States has the death penalty because we Americans are given a lot more freedom than people in other countries (example - we have the right to carry guns) and there must be consequences for abusing those freedoms. 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
That said, I don't really care whether the bible agrees with the death penalty or not. The United States has the death penalty because we Americans are given a lot more freedom than people in other countries (example - we have the right to carry guns) and there must be consequences for abusing those freedoms.


This is true! While I may be FOR concealed carry people got to realize that if you mess up and shoot someone for a bogus reason (IE: they were bugging me don't cut it.) your going to reap the whirlwind.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
But my contention is that capital cases are ONLY justifiable with a MUCH HIGHER burden of proof than in the Peterson case.


Beyond a reasonable doubt is as high a burden as is pragmatic. The next step above that is proving guilt every possible doubt, real or imagined. Besides, it's unfair to those NOT charged with capital murder, for they are not given equal protection under the law.

I'm lukewarm on the death penalty. I can see it's validity in many circumstances. If it to be used, it should ideally be used on the worst of the worst. I wonder what value it has in plea bargaining. and the arrests of other suspects responsible for a murder who were not initially captured (one suspect, threatened with prospect of death, rats out his cohorts in return for leniency).

One instance where I definitely support the use of the death penalty is for violent felons who escape prison and commit additional felonies. In fact, maybe prison break by a violent felon itself should be considered a capital offense, regardless of the commission of additional crimes.

Personally, I prefer hard labor camps in inhospitable locales for most criminals, icluding those who've been convicted of capital murder, butwouldn't fall into what I'd consider the worst of the worst. I do find hypocrisy in the arguments of some anti-death penalty advocates who say in one breath that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, then in the next breath support life imprisonment because it is more torturous on the mind to sit in a cell for decades thinking about what he has done.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, I prefer hard labor camps in inhospitable locales for most criminals, icluding those who've been convicted of capital murder, butwouldn't fall into what I'd consider the worst of the worst. I do find hypocrisy in the arguments of some anti-death penalty advocates who say in one breath that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, then in the next breath support life imprisonment because it is more torturous on the mind to sit in a cell for decades thinking about what he has done.


Are you joking? You'd have the libs up in arms yelling cruel and inhuman punishment.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
although i have no evidence to offer in support of what i'm about to suggest, i'm pretty sure i can dig something up if anyone requires it. absent that, what follows is solely opinion.

one more thing (this one im almost positive is correct): the primary objective of civil litigation is to make the damaged party whole.

as recently as 80 years ago in this country, a substantial percentage of the population depended upon farming to survive. sustinence farming requires a lot of labor but doesn't usually produce enough revenue for hiring help. while modern technology led to the development of agribusiness empires, at least half--if not more--of the people on planet are still toiling away in their fields much like our pre-historic ancestors did.

survival for a farming family--or village or tribe--requires land, water, seeds, livestock and enough people to cultivate, plant, care for and harvest or slaughter.

in today's america, children are--more often than not--born healthy and live well into adulthood. that's a very recent development and true only in first world nations. elsewhere it's still far more common--as it once was globally--that nearly half of all children born wont live to become adults.

where i'm going with this is: while our culture considers murder to be the ultimate crime because of its permanence and the fact that it deprives another of a full life...or it's seen as wrongfully assuming a power attached solely to a divine creator...there's a much more basic, pragmatic consideration. wilfully killing a productive member of the group (or more) severely jeopardizes every other member.

causing the death of anothers' lifestock or crops has the same effect--which is why the traditional remedy is replacement. obviously a murderer cannot restore his victim, but he or she might possibly be become a surrogate.

what relevance does this have to our non-agricultural society where it's highly unlikely a victim's family would want to have any contact with their loved one's killer?

rather than suggest any concrete options, it seems to me--especially in the case of articulate serial killers such as ted bundy--moral considerations based on religious teachings (if for no other reason than the impossibility of being able to prove or disprove divine authenticity) should be given less weight than objections based in legal logic and pragmatism.

who knows what might we have learned (and then employed to minimize the danger of) about serial killers? i can't believe were incapable of developing programs by which murderers contribute to making the families of their victims as well as the rest of society at least partially whole again.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unfortunately, Law & Order is deterred by fear. For most poeple, it's the fear of paying a fine, getting their name in the police blotter, going to jail, losing their job.................. But for others, there is no fear. They don't care about what can happen. Thy just do it and "hope" they don't get caught. Murder, next to rape, is the worst crime of all. I believe, and have always believed in "an eye for an eye". I am sorry but a 16-17 year old kid that shoots and kills a cop, he knows exactly what he is doing and he should be treated as so!! I'm so tired of people not taking resposibility for their actions. Everything gets blamed on something else. Give me a break, if you are old enough to drive a car, you're old enough to be put to death if you are convicted of capital murder! Plus, I also support castration for rapists. But, I'm sure I can comment on that elsewhere. People, especialy teenagers need to learn that society is sick and tired of crime and the low-life lawyers that get them off because of this or that. Charles Manson is one of the worst criminals in modern day but there is one thing he said that I couldn't agree more with, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." If the time means the death penalty then that's what it is!!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I am a proponent of capital punishment, I will still go out on a limb and agree with you here.


I agree too. I can't see the sense, sometimes...in killing a human being for the killing of another human being. I think that death is a relief to some of these dudes, a welcome escape after years of solitude. If we really wanted to punish them, we would keep them incarcerated until nature ran it's course.....
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would agree more with permanent incarceration if the prison system was constructed to better prevent ongoing anti-social behavior. I think it sucks to take someone who takes joy in victimization, and then drop them into a "Lord of the Flies" environment where they have a captive audience to victimize, many of which may be there for crimes far, far less egregious.

I don't want to see a "Clockwork Orage" style system any more than I want to see an end to the death penalty. If, though, our prison system was constructed in such a way to isolate criminals and remove their ability to continue their anti-social behavior, I'd be much happier to send monsters away for life. I don't think there should be anything social at all about prison. Letting it be a zoo just allows the prisoners to be animals.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would agree more with permanent incarceration if the prison system was constructed to better prevent ongoing anti-social behavior. I think it sucks to take someone who takes joy in victimization, and then drop them into a "Lord of the Flies" environment where they have a captive audience to victimize, many of which may be there for crimes far, far less egregi


in all the death penalty states of which i have any knowledge, prisoners waiting for execution are segregated from the rest of the population as well as housed separately. three prisons in the california system--pelican bay, corcoran & valley state (for women)--have high security units run along similar lines.

it would be feasible to isolate at least the most anti-social convicts this way if the states (and the country as a whole) developed a more effective way to deal with those convicted of drug offenses that didnt involve violence or major quantities.

unfortunately the 'lord of the flies' setting (perfect comparison btw) isnt created or perpetuated solely by the inmates or without acquiesence or encouragement by prison officials.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

one more thing (this one im almost positive is correct): the primary objective of civil litigation is to make the damaged party whole.

That is what compensatory damages are.  Punitive are just that.  Punishment.  I beleive a victim should get the compensatory, but hte punitive shoul dgo to some fund that would re-imburse others, not to the stated victim.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is what compensatory damages are. Punitive are just that. Punishment. I beleive a victim should get the compensatory, but hte punitive shoul dgo to some fund that would re-imburse others, not to the stated victim.


the only reason i brought civil litigation into a discussion about the death penalty was as a foundation for my suggestion that 'a life for a life' might not necessarily mean a killer's life should also be extinguished, but rather be given to make amends to the damaged family.