Capital Punishment

[BCSpace]

Yet when it comes down to it, everything, without exception is black and white. There is always a right or a wrong, or the most right or the most wrong, whether or not you've experienced it. This principle is even enshrined in LDS doctrine; "there's the right and the wrong to every question....."

I have also found that true experience makes some things very clear and without the blurred perception of inexperience. Those with the most experience tend to make the best decisions in the quickest manner. Not dither and dwell upon possibilities that the mind may raise, but reality never will.

Sure. It's black and white that this will happen.

[Jeff K.]

You're full of it and you know it. While there are certainly things I have no doubt you would die to defend I can guarantee when it comes down to it this isn't one of them.

You seem to be full of judgemental self righteousness today. But I accept that in you. By being full of "it", you must mean the milk of human kindness. As to what you know about me, not much, and its doubtful the shadow of your life is aware of the some of the very serious experiences in mine. But I forgive you your ignorance in the matter.

[LeSellers]

Think about the societal impact of legalizing abortion. Initially, legal abortions were billed as a way to avoid tragic back alley abortions or at home procedures with coat hangers. Now, it's a sacrosanct form of elective abortion - a woman's civil right. As a nation, we have become hardened to that little piece of human tissue. People joke about it. They discuss it in terms of dollars and cents. Comedian Daman Wayans mocks the whole issue as "Abortion Man".

Which does show that there is, was, and will be an ulterior motive in the movement to destroy families.

It also makes it clear why young men (between 16~30, aIr) are the most ardent supporters of elective abortion on demand (mostly theirs).

legitimizing capital punishment encourages us to be hardened to the value of life and the power of redemption. Reread this thread. For some, capital punishment is about money. Others feel it should be applied more liberally, even to those with known pre-existing mental disease. Several commenters think it's jokeworthy.

Perhaps, but the underlying premise of capital punishment is none in your list. The premise is that the murdered's life is important.

By refusing to destroy the one who killed him, we, as a cowardly society, denigrate the one killed.

At least when Brigham Young described it, it was in terms of a making atonement.

In some respects, this is the whole point.

Were I ever guilty of murder, I'd certainly hate to approach Christ at His bar of judgment with only this as my plea: I spent twelve years in prison in payment of my murdering <insert name of victim here>.

Much better, in my view, to be able to say, "No only am I severely convicted of my guilt and my sincere and deep repentance, I paid as high a price as was in my power."

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

Perhaps, but the underlying premise of capital punishment is none in your list. The premise is that the murdered's life is important.

Lehi

Lehi,

How does refusing to perpetrate a second killing devalue the life of the victim? IMO, it values that life even more. In essence, it says "Two wrongs don't make a right" and "Killing is so wrong that we refuse to engage in it - even when a man deserves death."

B.H. Robertswrote that Joseph Smith Smith was willing to tolerate the presence of men "as corrupt as the devil himself" in Nauvoo, Illinois, who "had been guilty of murder and robbery," in the chance that they might "come to the waters of baptism through repentance, and redeem a part of their allotted time."

[mercyngrace]

In some respects, this is the whole point.

Were I ever guilty of murder, I'd certainly hate to approach Christ at His bar of judgment with only this as my plea: I spent twelve years in prison in payment of my murdering <insert name of victim here>.

Much better, in my view, to be able to say, "No only am I severely convicted of my guilt and my sincere and deep repentance, I paid as high a price as was in my power."

Lehi

Indeed were this the point, I would have less issue with the practice. However, as you read back through the comments in this thread - you realize that we don't practice capital punishment at the request of a remorseful sinner. We practice it at the request of the hurting, the horrified, the vengeful, the cost conscious, etc.

If it were about atonement, we would allow the guilty to come unto Christ and to seek death. We don't.

[Mordecai]

We practice it at the request of the hurting, the horrified, the vengeful, the cost conscious, etc.

We practice it according to the law and the idea of justice. The victims and the vengeful don't get to decide who lives and who dies. A judge, a jury and the law determine it.

If it were about atonement, we would allow the guilty to come unto Christ and to seek death. We don't.

I thought we would agree that individuals shouldn't decide who lives and dies. We don't allow the guilty to decide, if they're going to die or not, because life and death shouldn't be put in the hands of passions and whims. That's why we have laws.

[mercyngrace]

We practice it according to the law and the idea of justice.

And yet, as Christians, we hope to be judged by the law of mercy.

I thought we would agree that individuals shouldn't decide who lives and dies. We don't allow the guilty to decide, if they're going to die or not, because life and death shouldn't be put in the hands of passions and whims. That's why we have laws.

And yet individuals decide who and how to prosecute, which mitigating factors matter, and whether a murder was intentional, premeditated, or in the heat of passion...

I see your the merit of your point, Mordecai, I'm just suggesting that there are valid arguments on the other side as well.

[Mordecai]

And yet, as Christians, we hope to be judged by the law of mercy.

Judged in God's kingdom, which is not of this world. We must give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, as Jesus said. The atonement doesn't result in people not going to prison, either. If we let mercy rob justice, there will be no penalty and people will not fear to break the law. All hell will break loose on earth, basically.

And yet individuals decide who and how to prosecute, which mitigating factors matter, and whether a murder was intentional, premeditated, or in the heat of passion...

I see your the merit of your point, Mordecai, I'm just suggesting that there are valid arguments on the other side as well.

But no individual decides. It's a group that decides, guided by the law, by arguments from two opposing sides and by a judge. I also see merit in what you say, as far as not determining a death penalty based simply on the idea that murderers deserve it. I'm not a fan of the death penalty. I'm a fan of having an effective justice system in place that imposes appropriate penalties for the crimes committed. I think that includes having a death penalty.

[mercyngrace]

Judged in God's kingdom, which is not of this world. We must give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, as Jesus said. The atonement doesn't result in people not going to prison, either. If we let mercy rob justice, there will be no penalty and people will not fear to break the law. All hell will break loose on earth, basically.

I didn't say anything about not incarcerating people. You're putting words in my mouth, Mordecai. You are trying to equate "not this punishment" with "not any punishment".

But no individual decides.

That's not true. A sheriff decides whether an alibi checks out to his level of believability. A coroner decides that a death is foul play as opposed to an accident. Lots have mistakes have been made in the morgue, as with any medical specialist, you tend to see what you specialize in. A prosecutor decides whether there is enough of the right kind of evidence. Individuals make decisions that impact the process from day one.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty. I'm a fan of having an effective justice system in place that imposes appropriate penalties for the crimes committed.

We are on the same page here. No question.

[Mordecai]

I didn't say anything about not incarcerating people. You're putting words in my mouth, Mordecai. You are trying to equate "not this punishment" with "not any punishment".

It was an attack on your line of reasoning. You're saying that as Christians, we believe in mercy, so we shouldn't put people to death. If we're going to have mercy on murderers and only put them in prison, why not have mercy on rapists and only put them on probation or fine them?

That's not true. A sheriff decides whether an alibi checks out to his level of believability. A coroner decides that a death is foul play as opposed to an accident. Lots have mistakes have been made in the morgue, as with any medical specialist, you tend to see what you specialize in. A prosecutor decides whether there is enough of the right kind of evidence. Individuals make decisions that impact the process from day one.

Individuals. Not an individual. As I said, no one person makes a determination that a person will be put to death. While mistakes can be made along the way, the same can be said for driving a car. Should we ban people from driving cars to prevent all deaths from car accidents?

[mercyngrace]

It was an attack on your line of reasoning. You're saying that as Christians, we believe in mercy, so we shouldn't put people to death. If we're going to have mercy on murderers and only put them in prison, why not have mercy on rapists and only put them on probation or fine them?

You are assuming that "mercy" means not holding someone accountable for their actions. I'm saying "mercy" means bearing the injustice of someone else's act so that they have to opportunity to experience a change of heart - the latter doesn't preclude accountability but it does prolong the days of their probation so that they can repent while in the flesh (2 Ne. 2:21)

Individuals. Not an individual. As I said, no one person makes a determination that a person will be put to death. While mistakes can be made along the way, the same can be said for driving a car. Should we ban people from driving cars to prevent all deaths from car accidents?

But if we knew that certain actions were directly responsible for unintentional deaths on the road, we would most certainly outlaw them. Or do they allow drinking and driving where you are?

[Mordecai]

You are assuming that "mercy" means not holding someone accountable for their actions. I'm saying "mercy" means bearing the injustice of someone else's act so that they have to opportunity to experience a change of heart - the latter doesn't preclude accountability but it does prolong the days of their probation so that they can repent while in the flesh (2 Ne. 2:21)

If your only objection is that the death penalty may reduce the chances of someone receiving salvation, I think that's a stretch. Someone who will receive the death penalty has time to repent (as much as it is possible to repent in a short period of time) and would be more motivated to do so than someone languishing alone in a cramped cell. Furthermore, preventing murders via society that proves that it will not tolerate murder also helps those would-be murdered and would-be murderers to progress in this life.

But if we knew that certain actions were directly responsible for unintentional deaths on the road, we would most certainly outlaw them. Or do they allow drinking and driving where you are?

We most certainly outlaw negligence or dishonesty in our justice system on the part of judges and lawyers as well (or at least we have ways of compensating for it).

[thesometimesaint]

And when you make a mistake and kill the wrong person?

[Mordecai]

And when you make a mistake and kill the wrong person?

And when you make a mistake while driving killing a young family? Should we all stop driving?

[mercyngrace]

If your only objection is that the death penalty may reduce the chances of someone receiving salvation, I think that's a stretch. Someone who will receive the death penalty has time to repent (as much as it is possible to repent in a short period of time) and would be more motivated to do so than someone languishing alone in a cramped cell. Furthermore, preventing murders via society that proves that it will not tolerate murder also helps those would-be murdered and would-be murderers to progress in this life.

That's not my only objection. If you've been reading the thread, you already know that.

We most certainly outlaw negligence or dishonesty in our justice system on the part of judges and lawyers as well (or at least we have ways of compensating for it).

Which is why the system caught the false imprisonment and wrongful death sentences I linked to earlier in the thread... oh wait, they didn't.

[Mordecai]

Which is why the system caught the false imprisonment and wrongful death sentences I linked to earlier in the thread... oh wait, they didn't.

And laws against bad driving don't save every life, either.

[LeSellers]

How does refusing to perpetrate a second killing devalue the life of the victim? IMO, it values that life even more. In essence, it says "Two wrongs don't make a right" and "Killing is so wrong that we refuse to engage in it - even when a man deserves death."

"Killing" is not the injunction of the commandment, murder is.

Killing, in many circumstances, is not only not wrong, it is absolutely right. Self defense is but a single example.

By refusing to kill the one who murdered an innocent, we are saying that the murderer's life is more valuable than the lost life, the he deserved (substitute whatever term you like) to live while the dead person (in the eyes of the killer) deserved death.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion. In this case, it does not move me in the least. A murderer not only deserves death, he benefits thereby because in the end, at his judgment, it will be the only offering he can place on the altar of justice. Even in the event that he is not repentant at the time of his execution, he may repent later on, and at that point will be grateful for the chance given him to make that offering.

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

"Killing" is not the injunction of the commandment, murder is.

We would be doing the killing.

Killing, in many circumstances, is not only not wrong, it is absolutely right. Self defense is but a single example.

The Anti-Nephi-Lehies chose death rather than to send their brethren into the eternities unprepared. Not suggesting I'd do the same, simply pointing out that other righteous people didn't see self-defense as an "absolute" right.

By refusing to kill the one who murdered an innocent, we are saying that the murderer's life is more valuable than the lost life, the he deserved (substitute whatever term you like) to live while the dead person (in the eyes of the killer) deserved death.

This is the same point in the last thread and I am saying there is no comparison. SWK taught that there is no tragedy in death only in sin, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies understood this well. By the way, Lehi, I'm not minimizing murder in any way. It is horrific and damning - no question. Several times in this thread the insinuation has been made that abhoring the taking of a murderer's life is equivalant to being soft on murder or a "bleeding heart". A more consistent position would be that to take any life is a horrible abrogation of the plan of salvation. When our Father looked down and and saw the wickedness of man and the need for imminent desctruction, He didn't describe His position to Enoch with staunch dogmatism. He wept.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Indeed. Show me where I said otherwise. Lehi, I am simply exploring both sides of the issue.

In this case, it does not move me in the least.

Which says nothing about me or my opinion.

A murderer not only deserves death, he benefits thereby because in the end, at his judgment, it will be the only offering he can place on the altar of justice. Even in the event that he is not repentant at the time of his execution, he may repent later on, and at that point will be grateful for the chance given him to make that offering. Lehi

I do not dispute that this is the belief of many in the church. Including some leaders of the church. I point only to the fact that this position has continued to be refined throughout the history of the modern church. From 'a man must spill his blood as an offering' to 'we believe in capitial punishment as executed by the state' to 'We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment'.

Don't misunderstand, I don't believe that the doctrine of the church has changed. I believe that blood for blood capital punishment is a part of the telestial law. A law under which we are still largely governed because we live in a telestial world. What I do not believe is that capital punishment is a celestial law. And I see the church moving further from the lower law (think of the endowment changes) and closer to the higher law. I believe there is a refinement process happening that is preparatory.

[Somebodyz]

Joseph Smith taught that murderers could be forgiven but not until they had paid the utmost farthing (Teachings p.187/193).

Does this cause anyone to rethink their position?

From the same book, paragraph and page as your quote.

"For Peter, speaking of him says, "David hath not yet ascended into heaven, for his sepulchre is with us to this day." His remains were then in the tomb. Now, we read that many bodies of the Saints arose at Christ's resurrection, probably all the Saints, but it seems that David did not. Why? Because he had been a murderer. If the ministers of religion had a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal judgment, they would not be found attending the man who forfeited his life to the injured laws of his country, by shedding innocent blood; for such characters cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing. The prayers of all the ministers in the world can never close the gates of hell against a murderer."

Also from the same book (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

"Murderers Have No Forgiveness

Section Six 1843-44, p.339

A murderer, for instance, on that sheds innocent blood, cannot have forgiveness. David sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with tears, for the murder of Uriah; but he could only get it through hell: he got a promise that his soul should not be left in hell.

Section Six 1843-44, p.339

Although David was a king, he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood; and the Priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage.

Section Six 1843-44, p.339

Peter referred to the same subject on the day of Pentecost, but the multitude did not get the endowment that Peter had; but several days after, the people asked, "What shall we do?" Peter says, "I would ye had done it ignorantly," speaking of crucifying the Lord &c. He did not say to them, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins"; but he said, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the lord." (Acts 3:19.)

Section Six 1843-44, p.339

This is the case with murderers. They could not be baptized for the remission of sins, for they had shed innocent blood."

Mercyngrace, you live up to your name. Your posts are sweet and you forgiving nature comes through. While I can admire that, I still voted in your poll, for the death sentence.

I believe in the worst cases, it's justice. And mercy can not rob justice.

You mentioned the person in prison who had a change of heart and repented. That is good, but they can't bring back the dead, or be fully repent in this life.

I've worked in a men's prison, worked one on one with some murderers. Death IMO would be better for some them, as their further crimes within the prison, only compound their crime of murder. Some would murder again and plan/wish to do so. Some even attempted to do so.

I believe it's the Lords way. We follow the law of the land. It doesn't mean we don't forgive, forgive is not the same a justice. We don't have the death sentence in the UK, I wish we did.

[mercyngrace]

Let me start by saying that I have read all the quotes you laid out here many times and none of them speak to capital punishment. They speak to whether a murderer (specifically one who knows God's law) can be forgiven in this life and to what level he can be forgiven in the hereafter.

From the same book, paragraph and page as your quote.

"For Peter, speaking of him says, "David hath not yet ascended into heaven, for his sepulchre is with us to this day." His remains were then in the tomb. Now, we read that many bodies of the Saints arose at Christ's resurrection, probably all the Saints, but it seems that David did not. Why? Because he had been a murderer. If the ministers of religion had a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal judgment, they would not be found attending the man who forfeited his life to the injured laws of his country, by shedding innocent blood; for such characters cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing. The prayers of all the ministers in the world can never close the gates of hell against a murderer."

Hell is the period of suffering (paying that utmost farthing) that occurs after death and before resurrection. The fact that a murderer has to suffer hell doesn't necessitate that we decide when he enters therein.

Also from the same book (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

"Murderers Have No Forgiveness

I don't want to go too far into this but Joseph Fielding Smith added the sub headings and I don't know that this one fits the nature of the text that follows as it is specific to David - a man who was chosen and annointed of the Lord AND THEN mmurdered.

Section Six 1843-44, p.339

A murderer, for instance, on that sheds innocent blood, cannot have forgiveness. David sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with tears, for the murder of Uriah; but he could only get it through hell: he got a promise that his soul should not be left in hell.

Goes back to the definition of hell. One who commits a deliberate act of murder will have to suffer the pangs of hell. Agreed. Still doesn't necessitate us beginning the process.

Section Six 1843-44, p.339

Although David was a king, he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood; and the Priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage.

David lost his right to celestial glory. Two things... (1) David was an exceptional case being the Lord's annointed (2) this still refers to post mortal rewards/punishments. According to D&C 76, there are going to be more people than just murderers inhabiting the telestial kingdom. We don't put them to death.

Section Six 1843-44, p.339

Peter referred to the same subject on the day of Pentecost, but the multitude did not get the endowment that Peter had; but several days after, the people asked, "What shall we do?" Peter says, "I would ye had done it ignorantly," speaking of crucifying the Lord &c. He did not say to them, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins"; but he said, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the lord." (Acts 3:19.)

Again, this speaks to those who know the law and then sin. It kind of goes in conjunction with D&C 42, the law of the church. These have lost their inheritance - they die the second death, suffer in hell, and then gain only telestial kingdom. Remember also that these men of Jerusalem who shouted for the release of Barabbas did not drive the nails into Christ's hands. Was their sin greater than that of Paul, who held the cloaks of Stephen's murderers? Has Paul also lost his inheritance?

Section Six 1843-44, p.339

This is the case with murderers. They could not be baptized for the remission of sins, for they had shed innocent blood."

Agreed. But that still has nothing to do with our putting them to death.

Thanks for the kind words Somebodyz. I appreciate all of the input on this thread - for most of my life, I have believed the death penalty to be an appropriate response to especially heinous murders. I don't know how much, if any, that position has changed but discussing it here has forced me to take a good, hard look at the reasons we LDS have accepted the practice. And that has proven educational and enlightening - a very good thing.

[Somebodyz]

Let me start by saying that I have read all the quotes you laid out here many times and none of them speak to capital punishment. They speak to whether a murderer (specifically one who knows God's law) can be forgiven in this life and to what level he can be forgiven in the hereafter.

Agreed they don't talk of the capital punishment. The first quote was your own, I added the beginning and end, to put it in context, as I felt it was needed. You brought up repentance as far back as post 73.

David lost his right to celestial glory. Two things... (1) David was an exceptional case being the Lord's annointed (2) this still refers to post mortal rewards/punishments. According to D&C 76, there are going to be more people than just murderers inhabiting the telestial kingdom. We don't put them to death.

(my bold)

If they are in the Telestial kingdom, they are already dead.

Just because a person is in the same kingdom as a murder, doesn't mean the a crime was committed in their time on Earth, a sin yes, but not a crime.

p.s This is what we do with our murderers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228107/Jailed-killers-allowed-sleep-home-month.html

[mercyngrace]

Agreed they don't talk of the capital punishment. The first quote was your own, I added the beginning and end, to put it in context, as I felt it was needed. You brought up repentance as far back as post 73.

Yes - I did. I also started a new thread with called "Forgiving Murderers?" because I was trying to get a clear picture of how the various quotes and scriptures went together. It's obviously a central and relevant part of any discussion about capital punishment. So are you saying that the counter to my argument (They can still repent) is (Not fully and not in this life)? If so, I still don't see that as justification for the proactive act of killing on our part.

(my bold)

If they are in the Telestial kingdom, they are already dead.

/

Sadly, we agree. But the purpose of hell isn't just to suffer. It's to be brought to Christ. Every knee is going to have to bow and every tongue confess... even the knees and tongues of murderers. SO much the better if they do so in life.

Just because a person is in the same kingdom as a murder, doesn't mean the a crime was committed in their time on Earth, a sin yes, but not a crime.

Of course not. Governments define crime. God defines sin. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. How we choose to respond to either is a reflection of who WE are. Imagine you live under a repressive dictatorship. You may have no control over the fact that men will be put to death for the most unjustifiable reasons but you can, in your heart oppose such cruelty. If your logic is "A man is going to the telestial kingdom anyway, we can kill him" then I say that line of logic, carried to its natural end requires that we put to death all who will inherit the telestial kingdom. ONLY... (and this is where I was going) We can't really know who is going to the telestial kingdom as we are not gods and cannot yet judge the thoughts and intents of the heart. We do not even know how these murderers will fare. We do not know which of them has mitigating factors that have gone unseen - factors of the heart and mind that only God can know.

p.s This is what we do with our murderers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228107/Jailed-killers-allowed-sleep-home-month.html

Wow. In my state, there has been consideration of letting some inmates free who have been incarcerated for 40 years or more. These are men convicted of murders and other violent crimes. Not serial killers but men who committed a violent crime in their young adulthood. You should have heard the uproar!! I'm not keen on the idea of setting anyone free who has killed in cold blood but it concerns me even more to think these men are in more danger free than incarcerated. It tells me how vengeful we have become as a society. There is a lot of vigilantiism. Most simply designed to intimidate (passing out flyers about how people voted on certain issues) but other more violent.

There was a case in the news a year or two back about a man who was an ex-con. He'd served his sentence and gone home to his wife and children. Papers were distributed by some group "warning" the neighbors and the man's house was set on fire. Turns out, he wasn't even home but his wife and children, innocent victims all, were burned alive. Nice, eh? There have been a number of similar vigilante cases in recent years driven, in large part, because people live in fear. Fear being the equivalent of faithlessness since fear and faith cannot co-exist.

Not to derail too much but I read this yesterday and had never noticed in all my years of reading the D&C this one phrase:

Wherefore, I, the Lord, have said that the fearful, and the unbelieving, and all liars, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie, and the whoremonger, and the sorcerer, shall have their part in that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

D&C 63:17 similar verse in Rev. 21:8

The previous verse talks about committing adultery in our hearts making us lose the Spirit, deny the faith, and fear.

In other words, we fear because we are sinners in our own hearts and we deny the faith - i.e. stop believing in the power of Christ unto salvation. So I guess the fearfulness is a product of the wickedness of all parts of society - not just those prosecuted by the state.

[Somebodyz]

Yes - I did. I also started a new thread with called "Forgiving Murderers?" because I was trying to get a clear picture of how the various quotes and scriptures went together. It's obviously a central and relevant part of any discussion about capital punishment. So are you saying that the counter to my argument (They can still repent) is (Not fully and not in this life)? If so, I still don't see that as justification for the proactive act of killing on our part.

Yes, I am saying, they can not fully repent and not in this life.

Agreed it's not the justification for the law of the land, on capital punishment, though it might explain why some people (part of my reason) can justify it to themselves.

If your logic is "A man is going to the telestial kingdom anyway, we can kill him" then I say that line of logic, carried to its natural end requires that we put to death all who will inherit the telestial kingdom. ONLY... (and this is where I was going) We can't really know who is going to the telestial kingdom as we are not gods and cannot yet judge the thoughts and intents of the heart. We do not even know how these murderers will fare. We do not know which of them has mitigating factors that have gone unseen - factors of the heart and mind that only God can know.

It's not for us to judge which kingdom a person will end up. As you say only God can make that judgment. ..yet we have to make judgments about peoples guilt based on the evidence we have, all the time. The prisons are full of those we've judged.

While I understand your view, I'm not ready to change my position (but will give it more thought). .. I do have experience working in a mens prison, with murderers, plus this is personal for me on another level as a victim (hate that word, it doesn't fit) of two 'would be' killers, who came very close to taking my life.

There was a case in the news a year or two back about a man who was an ex-con. He'd served his sentence and gone home to his wife and children. Papers were distributed by some group "warning" the neighbors and the man's house was set on fire. Turns out, he wasn't even home but his wife and children, innocent victims all, were burned alive. Nice, eh? There have been a number of similar vigilante cases in recent years driven, in large part, because people live in fear. Fear being the equivalent of faithlessness since fear and faith cannot co-exist.

That is awful and not acceptable on any level.

Fear can be a wicked driving force.

. So I guess the fearfulness is a product of the wickedness of all parts of society - not just those prosecuted by the state.

Sadly so. Fear also can make people blind, and feel helpless...especially when a government appears to not be protecting society. I see this happening in the UK, with rapists and thugs who do GBH, getting off with 'warnings', instead of being taken to court, because our prisons are full. Then we have daily rags, who's purpose seems to be, to frighten and misinform the public. (sorry off topic)

[Jason]

The Anti-Lehi-Nephites are an interesting case. Here are people who killed and received repentence, but were they actually murderers?

And their children, raised in the gospel with the benefit of their example and wisdom, saw no difficulty in killing in war.

[Jeff K.]

Indicative that God is allowing society to decide such issues without casting judgement on the action, only on society's intent.