Capital Punishment

[Glenn101]

I am speaking of the ODell case. I would not judge that considerable doubt has been raised. I would say that some doubt had been raised, but then there was also eye witness testimony contradicting O'Dell's assertions on a number of issues (he claimed (he was kicked out of the bar where he confronted the victim, eyewitnesses said that did not occur -- one example). Within the context of the overall case I would not say that he was exonerated.

This we will probably never know now that the evidence was destroyed upon the insistence of the prosecutors.

And a clear cut "this man did not do it" would indeed be a blow to those who feel the death penalty is appropriate, given all the safeguards, I do not have an issue with it.

This has pretty much happened in the Willigham case.

As to DNA exonerations today: The number of cases on death row do not provide a basis for belief simply because if one were to extrapolate them, then it should be easy to find many who have been innocently executed. It hasn't happened.

[/unquote]

It is difficult to even get permission to test for dna evidence post conviction and post execution. Such evidence often is burned, as in the case of O'Dell.

I can appreciate your point, but allow me to say my conscience is clear, I sleep well at night and I do not have a problem with the death penalty enforcement. Nor am I a sociopath or someone without a conscience. Some seek the absolute standard of perfection as the only way, which is disengenuous, what they really mean is that we should not have it. I disagree. I think that society has the right to permanently remove someone who is a danger.

I am not advocating a standard of perfectionism. But there is ample evidence that improvements in our justice system need to be made. I am not an opponent of capital punishment. I just want to make sure that a person is executed is actually guilty.

Glenn

[Jeff K.]

Have you ever actually seen a decapitation? It's not a pretty site. It's hard to imagine Nephi doing that and being a great Prophet. Also all those wars mentioned in the book of Mormon were very gruesome in nature as they fought with swords. Anyway, yes, Laban had a permanent hair cut or should I say, head cut.

Yes, I didn a film smuggled from Saudi Arabia by a human rights group. No it isn't pretty. I worked in a trauma center in my younger days also. I have seen amputations in different settings. Also not pretty. But a little over the top rather than off thereof?

[krose]

Exception: If the Lord commanded the person to kill as in Nephi's case...

Or in the case of the Lafferty brothers, who were also commanded to kill their sister-in-law and her baby. Just ask them, they testified to it. Yet for some reason, they both ended up in the Utah State Prison.

[AddamS]

I have heard those sentiments before but not from anyone where one of the 1,000 had crossed the path of their family or friends. It is a noble sentimant to hold to, right up to the time violent crime becomes personal.

And it's noble to hold to this sentiment, right up to the point where you're the one being executed.

Please note, I don't feel that the 1,000 should go unpunished. I'm not saying you are implying I didn't. I just want to be clear.

[Mark Beesley]

I have no problem applying it to egregious cases of crime that don't involve killing at all.

I assume you have a "gospel" foundation for this view?

After reading through the 9 pages of this thread, I believe mercyngrace makes the best points, particularly the point about whether or not the government executing the death penalty is righteous. Also, her story about her niece was poignant. Thank you for sharing that, and thank you for having such a compassionate heart.

The lesson Christ taught us is that although we may be justified in seeking retribution for wrongs committed, and we will suffer no punishment for doing so, the higher law urges us to act with more compassion and more mercy.

[AddamS]

It's the government's job to make life and death decisions, when necessary. Who else will, otherwise? Individuals obviously shouldn't do it, so why not a justice system with checks and balances and the law and reason to inform it along the way?

You are ignoring the possibility of a system in which no part of government makes unnecessary decisions that end the lives of non-military civilians.

If the death penalty is imposed only for murderers and is used to prevent future murders, as a deterrent and a teaching device, it ought to save far more innocent lives than it costs. As I pointed out, Project Exile functioned as an excellent deterrent and reduced gun violence by 40%. A long term campaign of informing would-be murderers of the penalty and the message that is sent by only putting to death those that murder, would, in my opinion, prevent many many murders.

I'm not speaking to the the effectiveness of executions as a punishment. I'm sure there is some merit to it, just as the beheadings of the dark ages must have done the same. Maybe those Muslim extremists are on to something...

There is always judicial reform, as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am fully in favor if reducing the burden of court costs, as long as everyone still gets a fair shake.

What's the point of that? Do prisoners typically become better in maximum security prisons in isolation? Does that send a good message to the public, that the penalty for murder is a really long time-out? I don't think it's a good message to send, as it seems to minimize the seriousness of murder. While it does seem worse to rot in prison for 50 years, it's far less terrifying and less informative as a means of prevention.

Lifers are not in prison to be rehabilitated. They are there to be punished. Furthermore, they are there to be punished for individual crimes against society, not as examples to deter crime. Going down that road is a dangerous game. I believe there was a man named Joseph Smith that was taken to jail as an example to others... If you don't think life in a maximum security prison is rough, I suggest holding up your local liquor store and then waiting outside for the cops to arrest you. I'm sure you will enjoy your vacation. People have the idea that prisons are all "Club-Fed" style institutions. While there are certain limited circumstances that this is true, it doesn't apply to the vast majority or prisons. They don't have walls to keep people out.

[Jeff K.]

Or in the case of the Lafferty brothers, who were also commanded to kill their sister-in-law and her baby. Just ask them, they testified to it. Yet for some reason, they both ended up in the Utah State Prison.

That is an interesting position. I would question whether the societal norms were the same for Nephi as they were for the Lafferty brothers. Whether the situation was such than an entire people could indeed be wiped out, like Lehi's family, versus the action of the Lafferty's and the potential result there. Lets throw the idea of reluctance into the mix.

[AddamS]

Okay. My niece married a young man who later molested her 2 year old daughter. While my niece was pregnant with their second child and completely unaware of what was happening, her husband was slipping drugs into her dinner to keep her sleeping so that he could perpetrate this abomination. When she discovered him in the act, quite by accident, it was to me that she brought her children - just so you know I'm not sharing a story about someone distantly related. She bypassed her own mother and came to my house. When she went off the deep end, as you can imagine she did, she gave me custody of her children. So, you can rest assured this hit close.

I don't wish him dead. He is sick. I wish someone would help him be well. I have unending compassion for his parents who have suffered tremendously and for all his family, who live with the horror and shame of his actions.

edited to add:

It has been my experience that actually living through a particular adversity can help us develop compassion and to see those adverse situations with more depth. Those things I tend to see as very black and white are the ones I haven't yet experienced.

Thanks so much for sharing.

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

[krose]

That is an interesting position. I would question whether the societal norms were the same for Nephi as they were for the Lafferty brothers. Whether the situation was such than an entire people could indeed be wiped out, like Lehi's family, versus the action of the Lafferty's and the potential result there. Lets throw the idea of reluctance into the mix.

First off, I thought the justification for killing Laban was that a group of people needed some records or they were in danger of dwindling in belief, not that they would be wiped out.

As for reluctance, haven't you heard Dan relate the story of how he apologized as he committed the murder, telling the little girl he loved her and wished he didn't have to do it? But apparently you do not defy God's direct command, delivered through revelation.

[krose]

... Those things I tend to see as very black and white are the ones I haven't yet experienced.

I have to say, this is probably the most profound comment I have read in this conversation. It's so true.

[Jeff K.]

First off, I thought the justification for killing Laban was that a group of people needed some records or they were in danger of dwindling in belief, not that they would be wiped out.

As for reluctance, haven't you heard Dan relate the story of how he apologized as he committed the murder, telling the little girl he loved her and wished he didn't have to do it? But apparently you do not defy God's direct command, delivered through revelation.

Your thought on the issue is not complete within the context. The records were needed, that is true. But do you believe that Laban would have let a slow moving group escape the grasp of himself and his cohort? I would say the consequences are fairly well laid out.

Within the context of the times, what Nephi did was reflective of the Lafferty brothers.

Another question asked is to what consequence was the death of his family to the larger whole. Which people would dwindle into disbelief?

From your standpoint I believe everything hinges upon the idea that if God said it, it must be so. But I believe that rationality exists even when God requests provides the impetus for action. There are many elements involved which you do not take account of.

[SlackTime]

First off, I thought the justification for killing Laban was that a group of people needed some records or they were in danger of dwindling in belief, not that they would be wiped out.

As for reluctance, haven't you heard Dan relate the story of how he apologized as he committed the murder, telling the little girl he loved her and wished he didn't have to do it? But apparently you do not defy God's direct command, delivered through revelation.

The justification for killing Laban was "the Spirit constrained me", or IOW God commanded him to. We can try to analyze why God commanded it, but we have to deal with the fact that we will likely be wrong. Still it is a fun exercise.

So, here we go...

Q: Why were they dealing with Laban at all?

A:They were commanded to get the plates.

Q: Why was Laban "in the way"?

A: Because he had refused to sell, barter, or give up the plates and had threatened them with death.

Q: Why not just disable him, get the plates, and run away?

A: Because Laban was evidently powerful enough that he commanded some position of authority, and could and probably would persue them into the wilderness with a body of men sufficient to kill one and all, and because they themselves were not traveling fast (they were 3 days from Jerusalem IIRC) and had still to convince Ishmael's family to join them. This suggests that their trail was likely a fairly well-known merchant route and that there may even be military outposts along the way. Nephi wouldn't have known that they still had another task to do, but the Spirit did, they really needed to cover their tracks.

So the real reason for killing Laban is: Laban knew them, who they were, maybe even the direction they were going, and had the power to persue them into the wilderness. But for Nephi there was only one reason. The Spirit required him to do it, even though he himself did not want to.

- SlackTime

[BCSpace]

Those things I tend to see as very black and white are the ones I haven't yet experienced.

I have to say, this is probably the most profound comment I have read in this conversation. It's so true.

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....."

[mercyngrace]

Thanks Mark and Expositor.

Obviously, I could have made this thread personal from the start but I purposely tried to avoid that. Unfortunately, I couldn't let the statement stand that only a person unaffected by a heinous crime could question the death penalty. The thread isn't about my ex-nephew-in-law. He isn't facing capital punishment though I am sure some wouldn't mind if he were.

In talking to my husband this morning about this thread, he remembered something he'd heard on one of those Bible Mysteries shows (History Channel, I think). He said a rabbi was explaining the Mosaic law and said that "an eye for an eye" and a "tooth for a tooth" was to establish the maximum penalty. In other words, a man steals your cow, the MOST you can do to him is take a cow from his herd. This, if a true interpretation, implies that God will allow us to take a life for a life but choosing not to do so is also well within the range of acceptable responses to murder. In fact, according to Christ (Matt 5:38-39) it is better not to exact this sort of retribution.

Anyone else familiar with this interpretation?

[Jeff K.]

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.

[Vindicator]

Thanks Mark and Expositor.

Obviously, I could have made this thread personal from the start but I purposely tried to avoid that. Unfortunately, I couldn't let the statement stand that only a person unaffected by a heinous crime could question the death penalty. The thread isn't about my ex-nephew-in-law. He isn't facing capital punishment though I am sure some wouldn't mind if he were.

In talking to my husband this morning about this thread, he remembered something he'd heard on one of those Bible Mysteries shows (History Channel, I think). He said a rabbi was explaining the Mosaic law and said that "an eye for an eye" and a "tooth for a tooth" was to establish the maximum penalty. In other words, a man steals your cow, the MOST you can do to him is take a cow from his herd. This, if a true interpretation, implies that God will allow us to take a life for a life but choosing not to do so is also well within the range of acceptable responses to murder. In fact, according to Christ (Matt 5:38-39) it is better not to exact this sort of retribution.

Anyone else familiar with this interpretation?

That was my explanation from the start of this thread. And although you exclaimed that "I was completely wrong" I respected your views. But even now, you except the fact that it is only one's interpretation of the adage: An Eye for an Eye and a "Tooth for a tooth". I have come to realize that if I just sit back, watch and observe, I am too often Vindicated. Thanks for the thread!

[krose]

But do you believe that Laban would have let a slow moving group escape the grasp of himself and his cohort?

That's not a very good question to ask someone who believes the whole story is made up.

But you apparently do believe that the authorities left the same slow-moving group unmolested after they murdered an important person and stole the records he kept. Unless their trips to try to get the plates somehow went completely unobserved, and Laban never told anyone, they would have been the prime suspects.

[Jeff K.]

Within the context of the story, which you brought up as justification, not I. I point out to the information presented and what is rational.

But you apparently do believe that the authorities left the same slow-moving group unmolested after they murdered an important person and stole the records he kept. Unless their trips to try to get the plates somehow went completely unobserved, and Laban never told anyone, they would have been the prime suspects.

If the authority is in the hands of one despot, the chaos that ensued would indeed give ample time for a group to leave a territory, while new leadership and distinct factions vied for leadership.

[mercyngrace]

That was my explanation from the start of this thread. And although you exclaimed that "I was completely wrong" I respected your views. But even now, you except the fact that it is only one's interpretation of the adage: An Eye for an Eye and a "Tooth for a tooth". I have come to realize that if I just sit back, watch and observe, I am too often Vindicated. Thanks for the thread!

Vindicator,

Please link to where I said you were completely wrong. In Matt 5, Christ says that "an eye for an eye" has been replaced by "turn the other cheek". If you feel insulted, take it up with Him ;-)

Also, if you think I am endorsing "an eye for an eye", you have misunderstoood the comment you cited.

MnG

[Vindicator]

Vindicator,

Please link to where I said you were completely wrong. In Matt 5, Christ says that "an eye for an eye" has been replaced by "turn the other cheek". If you feel insulted, take it up with Him ;-)

Also, if you think I am endorsing "an eye for an eye", you have misunderstoood the comment you cited.

MnG

Post #128

[mercyngrace]

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.

The death penalty is a reality. That's what started the thread, Jeff, a murderer was put to death this week.

I like that you wrote "true experience" brings clarity. Experience doesn't always bring clarity. If it did, we'd have a much more righteous world. There are several billion people on the planet living in gross darkness, experiences notwithstanding. True experience is when we emulate Christ, it is the liberating learning that leads to godliness - that indeed brings clarity.

[mercyngrace]

Post #128

I was referring to your politicizing the comment with the term "bleeding heart". You'll remember you left out the word liberal because you thought it was against board rules.

I have never been considered liberal politically, and was in fact, for many years, quite the conservative activist. So your making the discussion political and implying something about my politics was "dead wrong".

Further, you implied that those who question the death penalty don't appreciate the military.

My dad is ann army retiree. Two brothers served. And I spent all my marriage raising my kids practically alone while my husband served (he's now retired). So again... mistaken.

I was not referring to your quoting "an eye for an eye" but your attempt to make this something other than it was intended - a thoughtful discussion.

[Jeff K.]

The death penalty is a reality. That's what started the thread, Jeff, a murderer was put to death this week.

I like that you wrote "true experience" brings clarity. Experience doesn't always bring clarity. If it did, we'd have a much more righteous world. There are several billion people on the planet living in gross darkness, experiences notwithstanding. True experience is when we emulate Christ, it is the liberating learning that leads to godliness - that indeed brings clarity.

I would position that experience, true experience if you will, gives knowledge to make choices, and "wrong choices" if you will, are as much a question of desire as they are of knoweldge for the consequences. And with experience, no blurring does exist since we become much more clear in our deliberations as to what must be done, rather than presume intellectually what might be done.

[Thorkyll]

With the coverage of tonight's execution of the Beltway sniper, John Allen Muhammad, I was wondering about the church's position on capital punishment. Lds.org describes the church's position in this way:

Given that this statement allows for a variety of views, I was wondering how some of you feel about the death penalty. The poll won't be public but if you don't mind explaining your position, I'd be interested in reading it.

Thanks.

I am not a Mormon or a Christian and I wholeheartedly support killing such a murderer. Why?

Because of a teaching from the Talmud which has been proven true again and again:

"He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate."

Kind Regards,

Thorkyll

[Jason]

I am LDS and support the Death Penalty.

There are several reasons for this position:

1. It's scriptural

Righteous societies in the past exercised it. In fact, in some instances God outright commanded it. This indicates to me that it is in at least some circumstances justifiable.

2. It prevents recidivism

Obviously.

3. It acts as a deterrent

While it is possible to make a good case that the death penalty as exercised in the U.S. is not an effective deterrent, the death penalty as exercised in the past and currently in other nations did and does serve as such.

4. It is the only just punishment for some crimes

A murderer cannot restore life to his victims. Executing the murderer extracts the only penalty that can be reasonably comparable to the act.

5. It takes the issue to a higher court

God becomes the ultimate judge of the murderer's actions, and a willingness to provide what restitution is possible - by having given one's own life - can only help his case.

Why I don't find the objections persuasive:

I don't believe the government should have the right to kill one of its own citizens.

Government has a duty to protect its citizens, and that sometimes requires killing. Government also has a duty to be just, and that also sometimes requires killing.

The justice system isn't correct 100% of the time. It can't be as it is administered by faulty human beings.

Works as an argument that no law should be enforced. Unfortunately we are mortal and must act despite the chance of making a mistake.

It's too expensive. By the time excutions actually happen the appeals process has been exhausted and generally costs much more taxpayer money than keeping the convict in jail for life.

Reform the system. If murderers recevied only one automatic appeal/review of their case and were executed within one year of a conviction it would not be more expensive than keeping them as a ward of the state for life.

It's an easy way out. I can't speak for everyone, but if I could choose to check out early or spend the next 50 years in solitary. I'd climb in that chair faster than you could say "direct current".

Exactly - it is more merciful than perpetual imprisonment.