Capital Punishment

[CV75]

CV75,

But it is often the case that men are executed for something they did when they were boys.

I think that gets to the wisdom and fairness with which the rules of law and due processes  governing capital punishment are formulated and carried out. I think ensuring justice and mercy in the capital punishment system (to be best ability of the people using it) ensures that we do not give up on anyone's humanity, even that of the guilty who are so punished.

[CV75]

It is not about consequences, a person is dead. Nothing we can do will bring that person back. The punishment we inflict is something we can do something about. Now we may see that punishment as justified or not, but It is totally in our control.

I think even a dead person can continue to influence society. The successful community at large strives to leverage that influence for the betterment of the whole. A murdered good person lives on in the community’s memory and traditions. An executed murderer is doing as much good for the community in this regard as he possibly can. I think the benefit of execution or imprisonment depends on the needs and values of the particular society meting out the punishments, but this is more often based on a communal sense of fairness than on an empirically-driven rationale.

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

 

 

Tell that to the grieving family of a murder victim.

 

It is one thing to be opposed to capital punishment; quite another to cast aspersions on the motives and morals of those who disagree with you -- including many of the families of murder victims   If I wanted “vengeance,” I would want the murderer to suffer at least as much as the victim. And probably a lot more.  Yet, the proponents of capital punishment generally advocate using the quickest, least painful methods of execution.  IIRC, even the use of the electric chair was originally advocated as a quicker, more humane alternative to hanging.  

 

Most advocates of capital punishment are not seeking vengeance.  They are seeking justice.  And they believe it is not just that a murderer should continue to live, while his victim is dead. One can disagree with capital punishment without casting aspersions on the morality of your opponents.   

 

 

So? I don't mean to sound to be hardhearted, but it isn't the family of crime victims responsibility to determine punishment. We are supposed to be a country of laws not of men(women). What do we do when the victims family doesn't want the death penalty imposed? Again why do you think that killing a killer is somehow the more moral thing to do? Does the gruesomeness of the means of execution somehow determine its morality? Does of the boiling of someone within their own skin in a electrocution or the 43 minutes of gasping for breath in a lethal injection make it more moral than the ripping someones head off in a hanging?

 

Justice is Just Ice. It is only our "cultured" sense of vengeance, and blood lust that passes for true justice. While nothing we can do can bring back the dead person. True justice would hold the guilty responsible for the full change of behavior and full restitution to the victims family.

Edited November 21, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

So? I don't mean to sound to be hardhearted, but it isn't the family of crime victims responsibility to determine punishment.

 

You are correct it is society thru their governmental representatives who determine punishment.

 

We are supposed to be a country of laws not of men(women).

 

And it is by authority of those laws that capital punishment is authorized and executed. 

 

What do we do when the victims family doesn't want the death penalty imposed?

 

The same thing we do when they do want it.  Follow the law.

 

Again why do you think that killing a killer is somehow the more moral thing to do?

 

When a cancer has invaded your body you get rid of that cancer(kill it).  When a cancer has invaded society you excise it,

 

Does the gruesomeness of the means of execution somehow determine its morality? Does of the boiling of someone within their own skin in a electrocution or the 43 minutes of gasping for breath in a lethal injection make it more moral than the ripping someones head off in a hanging?

 

Red herring.  The gruesomeness of the method of execution is not an indicator of morality or lack of.  It is simply what is prescribed by law. 

 

Justice is Just Ice. It is only our "cultured" sense of vengeance, and blood lust that passes for true justice.

 

So? I don't mean to sound to be hardhearted, but the implementation of the law is just that, the implementation of the law and has noting to do with vengence.

 

While nothing we can do can bring back the dead person.

 

While it may not deter someone else capital punishment does keep the perpetrator for repeating and killing someone else. 

 

True justice would hold the guilty responsible for the full change of behavior and full restitution to the victims family.

 

Full restitution to a murder victims family is impossible and capital punishment does hold the perpetrator responsible to the fullest extent. 

 

Hence True Justice.

[VAUFLDS]

I have not read every post in this thread. That said, for me the answer is NO. I no longer support capital punishment and have not since I saw the movie "Twelve Angry Men". Too many people who serve on juries are not qualified for one or more reasons to make the decision to condemn an individual to death. Granted, the movie was just that, a movie. But it did highlight some of the personal issues that can creep into this very important decision making process. 

[ERayR]

I have not read every post in this thread. That said, for me the answer is NO. I no longer support capital punishment and have not since I saw the movie "Twelve Angry Men". Too many people who serve on juries are not qualified for one or more reasons to make the decision to condemn an individual to death. Granted, the movie was just that, a movie. But it did highlight some of the personal issues that can creep into this very important decision making process. 

 

You are right it is just a movie but one with a script written by one opposed to the death penalty.  Really a movie or a book of fiction is a poor basis on which to make such decisions.

[3DOP]

According to the Gospel, the greatest gift that ever has come to man was brought about as a result of capital punishment. When our Lord hung there with the other two malefactors, there was no discussion about how unjust such a cruel death was. Rather, one of them rails at Jesus, whereupon the other is recorded as admitting this truth: But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds...(Luke 23:41)

 

Besides numerous Old Testament examples, St. Paul also confesses that the state has a kind of authority that allows for capital punishment.  "For he is God' s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God' s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil." (Rom. 13:4)

 

But another principle that seems to be championed by almost all Mormons is the strict separation of church and state. Although I would argue that the Scriptures we share would allow the state to decide whether or not to exercise this authority, another question must be asked. What difference does it make if capital punishment is contrary to the Gospel as revealed in Latter-day revelation? Why would the state be obliged to accept arguments from Latter-day Scripture instead of the arguments a Catholic like me could present from the Old and New Testaments? Isn't the state, according to LDS principles about its relations with religion, obliged to ignore what conflicting religious creeds and codes might say about this important matter?

 

It seems to me that a state can decide to refrain from using capital punishment for all the practical reasons that have been suggested against its usage. I am not arguing against restraint. I am only arguing that this discretionary authority to use capital punishment belongs to the state. The state "beareth not the sword in vain". In principle, and in practice, the state will always possess the authority, which St. Paul says comes from God, "to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." However lenient a state might be in theory, if provoked enough, it will use the sword it bears. It isn't something that can be changed.

 

3DOP

Edited November 21, 2014 by 3DOP

[giotto]

To 3DOP:

     Isn't the Catholic church against capital punishment? Let me know if I'm wrong.

     And by the way, a question I've wanted to ask you for a long time...are you the priest on the right or the bearded dude on the left?

[pogi]

Nonsense. I see no conflict in saying to a murderer "I forgive you" while shooting him in the head. It's not about vengeance at all. It's about protecting humanity from those who prey on others.

 

If keeping predator from prey is the only justification and reason, there are better ways to accomplish this AND protect the falsely accused at the same time.

Edited November 21, 2014 by pogi

[3DOP]

To 3DOP:

     Isn't the Catholic church against capital punishment? Let me know if I'm wrong.

     And by the way, a question I've wanted to ask you for a long time...are you the priest on the right or the bearded dude on the left?

giotto...hi. I think it would be accurate to say the Catholic Church is against capital punishment unless it is truly necessary. If a modern state were inclined to listen to the Catholic Church, it would hear the Church say to use the power of life and death with great discretion. I think it would be ludicrous for the Church to make some blanket statement affirming that every criminal that has ever been executed suffered an unjust death. So far, no pope, however much he thinks capital punishment should be minimized, has said that capital punishment is always incompatible with the Gospel.   

 

The Catholic Church teaches that the state has the discretionary authority to use capital punishment. Recent popes have suggested that this authority need not be exercised as often as in the past because of what they consider to be better and equally efficient ways of deterring crime. "...the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2266)

 

As I said, I am not arguing that the death penalty should be expanded. I am answering the specific question about whether capital punishment is always incompatible with the Gospel. It seems to me like it should be taken into consideration that we would not have the same Gospel, without capital punishment. I think it is interesting that none of the Scriptures with which I am familiar remarks on the supposed immorality of such a cruel death as crucifixion. Instead, you have St. Paul calling the same kind of Roman authorities who crucified our Lord, in a qualified sense not to be misunderstood, "ministers of God". It seems to me, as one who accepts the first two Testaments, that God approves of a temporal order in which the state may, if it chooses, punish malefactors with capital punishment. Maybe the Latter-day revelation dispenses with this authority? I would not know, but I tend to doubt it. or else I would have seen it quoted by Mormons against the death penalty. 

 

------------

 

I am the old guy. At my left is our youngest son on the happy occasion of his receiving the cassock, which is the first of many steps to the possibly of his becoming a priest. He is now about half-way, but is currently taking a year off from his studies on an assignment to the Philippines, where cassocks are white. We need more holy priests. You are Catholic, perhaps? Say a prayer for Wilfred. Thanks.

 

God bless,

 

Rory   

Edited November 21, 2014 by 3DOP

[pogi]

Yes, who knows but they should repent.  But It's a tough thing to think about. A guy carjacks a mom and daughter. After locking them in the trunk he starts the car on fire and burns them to death to hide evidence. Should this guy be walking around?

 

Or, there is the guy in Utah news who raped a 7 year old then buried her alive who is on death row.

 

Hearing stories like this makes me want to pull the trigger myself.

 

But then there are the stories of the 17 men in the US since 1992 who were executed wrongfully. DNA evidence has sense exonerated them.  When you put a face, a name, a story and a family behind these statistics, it makes you want to think twice. 

Edited November 22, 2014 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

Or, there is the guy in Utah news who raped a 7 year old then buried her alive who is on death row.

 

Hearing stories like this makes me want to pull the trigger myself.

 

But then there are the stories of the 17 men in the US since 1992 who were executed wrongfully after DNA evidence exonerated them.  When you put a face, a name, a story and a family behind these statistics, it makes you want to think twice. 

 

No, it doesn't.  "raped a 7 year old then buried her alive".  Not a single moment of hesitation.

 

And easily outside of the atonement (innocent blood/offended my little ones).  Scripturally and by any gospel standard his blood should be shed.  I am not a violent person.  I am not sure I could shed blood.  But it is his soul's only hope.

[pogi]

No, it doesn't.  "raped a 7 year old then buried her alive".  Not a single moment of hesitation.

 

And easily outside of the atonement (innocent blood/offended my little ones).  Scripturally and by any gospel standard his blood should be shed.  I am not a violent person.  I am not sure I could shed blood.  But it is his soul's only hope.

 

I think that lack of hesitation is what puts innocent men at risk.

I am not saying I disagree that if guilty he should die.  But, it almost sounds callus to dismiss the lives of these 17 innocent men - a small fraction, I am sure, of people who have been wrongfully executed.  Lets not forget about them.

 

I feel better about letting a guilty man rot in jail then killing innocent men - it will happen and I don't want to be a part of it with my tax dollars.

Edited November 22, 2014 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

I think that lack of hesitation is what puts innocent men at risk.

I am not saying I disagree that if guilty he should die.  But, it almost sounds callus to dismiss the lives of these 17 innocent men - a small fraction, I am sure, of people who have been wrongfully executed.  Lets not forget about them.

 

I feel better about letting a guilty man rot in jail then killing innocent men - it will happen and I don't want to be a part of it with my tax dollars.

 

I do understand this.  It makes perfect sense.  But to ban capital punishment for fear of error...as I said, it robs men who did commit grievous sins, who wish to repent but cannot, of the chance to save their very souls.

But then shedding innocent blood by mistake cannot be good either.

This is why this issue is so complex and hard to come to terms with.

[strappinglad]

Innocent people die all the time. I link to a site showing deaths from medical errors.

"According to the most recent research1 into the cost of medical mistakes in terms of lives lost, 210,000 Americans are killed by preventable hospital errors each year.

When deaths related to diagnostic errors, errors of omission, and failure to follow guidelines are included, the number skyrockets to an estimated 440,000 preventable hospital deaths each year!

This is more than 4.5 times higher than 1999 estimates published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM),2 and makes medical errors the third-leading cause of death in the US, right after heart disease and cancer. As reported by the featured article in Scientific American:3

“The new estimates were developed by John T. James, a toxicologist at NASA's space center in Houston who runs an advocacy organization called Patient Safety America...

[A] spokesman for the American Hospital Association said the group has more confidence in the IOM's estimate of 98,000 deaths. ProPublica asked three prominent patient safety researchers to review James' study, however, and all said his methods and findings were credible.”

Avoiding Hospitals Can Be 'Good Medicine'

In all, preventable medical mistakes may account for one-sixth of all deaths that occur in the US annually. To put these numbers into even further perspective, medical mistakes in American hospitals kill four jumbo jets’ worth of people each week.4"

Edited November 22, 2014 by strappinglad

[strappinglad]

If only 17 men or 170 if you prefer, were executed in error over the last few decades , that is statistically very small compared to the above numbers relating the medical errors. Sure we do not want to execute the innocent, but human error is inevitable and the argument against capital punishment because an error may be made, should then be used to ban all surgeries and/or drug regimes .

[carbon dioxide]

I support capital punishment and I think the Lord does as well

 

D&C 42:18,19, 79: And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. And again, I say, thou shall not kill; but he that killeth shall die....And it shall come to pass that if any persons among you shall kill they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness; and it shall be proved according to the laws of the land."

 

So if the Lord says that those who kill shall die and the law of the land allows for the death penalty, its all good. 

Edited November 22, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[tonie]

 

Most advocates of capital punishment are not seeking vengeance.  They are seeking justice.  

 

 

 

37% 2003, 35% 2014, of those who support the death penalty seek "eye for eye",  4% support the death penalty to "serve justice".

 

Americans: "Eye for Eye" Top Reason for Death Penalty

Edited November 22, 2014 by tonie

[strappinglad]

Actually the response of' punishment fits the crime' does reflect a desire for justice . Too harsh or too lenient a punishment would indicate an injustice. Also the total percentage is over 100% , 110%+ indicating that some checked more than one reason.

[3DOP]

 

37% of those who support the death penalty seek "eye for eye",  4% seek justice.

 

Americans: "Eye for Eye" Top Reason for Death Penalty

 

Hi tonie,

 

I would have to doubt that any of the supporters of the necessity of the death penalty for all of those convicted of murder would deny that they "seek justice". Anyway, sleeper cell's comment was contrasting vengeance with justice. I would suggest that according to the Gallup Poll, vengeance does not weigh heavily with the majority who support the use of capital punishment. A minority, only 35% seek an "Eye for an eye" (strict justice), "they took a life", and "fits the crime". The other 65% are either synonymous with "seek justice" and is any of those who responded were to be asked if what they proposed was just, they would all answer in the affirmative. I would argue that even the 35% (not 37%) you have highlighted as seeking "eye for eye" believe that this would be in quest of justice.

 

It is absurd to affirm that 96% of those who support capital punishment do so without regard to what they think is just. If that is how the Gallup pollsters interpreted the data, I would be surprised. In any case I have to disagree with the interpretation you have given. Any poll which would ask respondents whether supporters of capital punishment seek vengeance or justice first, will be almost unanimous in favor of justice.

 

(For the record, I do not necessarily support capital punishment for those convicted of murder.)     

[tonie]

Hi tonie,

 

I would have to doubt that any of the supporters of the necessity of the death penalty for all of those convicted of murder would deny that they "seek justice". Anyway, sleeper cell's comment was contrasting vengeance with justice. I would suggest that according to the Gallup Poll, vengeance does not weigh heavily with the majority who support the use of capital punishment. A minority, only 35% seek an "Eye for an eye" (strict justice), "they took a life", and "fits the crime". The other 65% are either synonymous with "seek justice" and is any of those who responded were to be asked if what they proposed was just, they would all answer in the affirmative. I would argue that even the 35% (not 37%) you have highlighted as seeking "eye for eye" believe that this would be in quest of justice.

 

It is absurd to affirm that 96% of those who support capital punishment do so without regard to what they think is just. If that is how the Gallup pollsters interpreted the data, I would be surprised. In any case I have to disagree with the interpretation you have given. Any poll which would ask respondents whether supporters of capital punishment seek vengeance or justice first, will be almost unanimous in favor of justice.

 

(For the record, I do not necessarily support capital punishment for those convicted of murder.)     

 

Taking the Gallup poll and results at face value inform us that "serve justice" was an option for everyone of the individuals to choose, yet only 4% selected "serve justice".

[carbon dioxide]

If someone was to kill my son or wife in a premediated way, the only justice that would appropriate would be the death penalty.  If my wife or son do not get a chance to eat, wake up on the morning, go to sleep at night, the murderer also should not have that right.  Anything less including life in prison without parole would be spitting on their grave.  I would not even attend the trial if the legal system decided to mock them by not rendering justice to them.

Edited November 22, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

Taking the Gallup poll and results at face value inform us that "serve justice" was an option for everyone of the individuals to choose, yet only 4% selected "serve justice".

A number of the options I see are a form of justice.  An eye for an eye is justice.  Fair punishment is justice.  "They deserve it" is justice.

[Stroopwafel]

Simple question:

In your view, is capital punishment consistent the gospel of Jesus Christ (or Mormonism if you distinguish the two)?

 

In my view, I believe one can find reasons both for and against capital punishment, and make it "consistent" with either.

 

Personally, I find interesting to see which other countries besides the U.S. are still using capital punishment. Here's the full list according to Wikipedia (the ones in italics haven't use it in the last ten years):

 

 

 

Afghanistan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria,Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tonga, United Arab Emirates, United States, Vietnam, Yemen.

 

I hope I will not be perceived as doing "American bashing" by pointing out that the U.S. has a real problem with the way it dispenses "justice" and the impact it wishes it would produce. Some are fond of justifying drastic measures to punish crime by arguing, among other things, their supposedly deterrent effect. However, recidivism rates show that the measures in place may not be as efficient as initially hoped for.

 

On the topics of incarceration and recidivism, see two very interesting articles here and here.

 

Of course the U.S. can't make a 180 degree turn in these regards, but I'm sure there would be room for improvement. One way to begin would be to stop making all of this a matter of belief and ideology, and instead use data available to help design and implement policies shown to work.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Stroopwafel

[3DOP]

Taking the Gallup poll and results at face value inform us that "serve justice" was an option for everyone of the individuals to choose, yet only 4% selected "serve justice".

 

But tonie, you already pointed that out. You have not addressed the replies which propose, quite reasonably, that the options chosen by the other 96% are compatible with "serve justice". It appears that you wish not to analyze the other options so as to make it seem that 96% of the respondents cared nothing for whether justice is served. Such a view is not credible.

 

In my opinion, this is not a winning way to argue for minimalization or elimination of the death penalty. We should recall to mind, that the purpose of your citing the poll, was an apparent attempt to refute "sleeper cell's" assertion that death penalty proponents were affirming the need for justice rather than vengeance. I am sure that there is a slight percentage among the proponents of the death penalty who are angry, perhaps having been victimized before, that hate the convicted persons they want dead. But nowhere near 96%. It is a false picture you have drawn for yourself if you think 96% of those of us who have been categorized as being against total abolition of the death penalty, are motivated by vengeful hatred. 

 

3DOP

Edited November 22, 2014 by 3DOP