Capital Punishment

[bluebell]

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".

It's not a well set up poll. Many if the other options besides "serve justice" can reasonably be interpreted to include justice being done.

An eye for an eye, for example, is all about the concept of justice. So is someone getting what they deserve. After all, if someone deserves to die then it is just that they die. Deserving something and getting it is the very definition of fair or just.

[3DOP]

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 .

 

Like you, I am against abolition of the death penalty, but 170 executions of innocent souls necessarily gives me much pause in its application. Now that we have access to data derived from DNA, presumably we will do better? This makes me want to say something needful in favor of our obviously imperfect, but nevertheless, impartial justice system.

 

As awful as it is for an innocent person to be incarcerated or executed, I think we do our justice system an injustice if we hear about innocent people being put to death without recognizing that before being given a verdict and sentenced the character of the accused is evaluated to some extent. Often, information is even withheld from juries so as not to make them biased because of the defendant's past. Still, juries must make judgments as to the capability of the defendant to commit crime. I don't believe anybody's warm-hearted grandma has been wrongly executed. Nobody in this country is executed, and I suspect very few are incarcerated for any great length of time, unless they have shown in their characters a propensity to commit the crimes of which they have been convicted. While we do not want to punish anyone for crimes done by another, those who run with criminals and exhibit criminal behaviors should at least bear some responsibility for giving the appearance of being capable of and committing crimes, which after due process, yield the wrong verdict.

 

The justice system rarely executes someone who is innocent of the crime for which they were being executed. I would suggest that even more rare than that is if the justice system ever allows the execution of someone who gives not even the appearance of guilt.    

Edited November 22, 2014 by 3DOP

[ERayR]

It's not a well set up poll. Many if the other options besides "serve justice" can reasonably be interpreted to include justice being done.

An eye for an eye, for example, is all about the concept of justice. So is someone getting what they deserve. After all, if someone deserves to die then it is just that they die. Deserving something and getting it is the very definition of fair or just.

 

By my calculations it is more than 60%.

Edited November 22, 2014 by ERayR

[MormonFreeThinker]

politics! 

 

"We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/capital-punishment

[emarkp]

Actually, putting the sentenced person in an oxygen starved atmosphere is by far the most humane. It's very similar to the blackout pilots, without pressurized suits, experience when either in rarified air or during 5+ G force.

If oxygen is exchanged with carbon dioxide a person sleeps their way into death.

Good heavens that's wrong. Carbon Dioxide is what causes the reflex to breathe. You want to replace the O2 with Nitrogen or Carbon MONOxide. And it's basically just going to sleep.

 

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)

Those countries haven't forgotten that life is a struggle. The Europeans who have stopped the death penalty have also stopped breeding. They'll be gone in a generation or two more. Certainly by 2075.

For shooting over 60 people in an otherwise gun-free 90 minutes, Anders Breivik got sentenced to 21 years in jail. I'm not worried that America isn't following that example of cultural suicide.

[Stroopwafel]

Those countries haven't forgotten that life is a struggle. The Europeans who have stopped the death penalty have also stopped breeding. They'll be gone in a generation or two more. Certainly by 2075.

For shooting over 60 people in an otherwise gun-free 90 minutes, Anders Breivik got sentenced to 21 years in jail. I'm not worried that America isn't following that example of cultural suicide.

 

Seriously? Linking capital punishment with declining birth rate? Do you have anything to substantiate this assertion (that's a CFR)?

[BCSpace]

Simple question:

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

 

Yes.  It is the official doctrine of the Church (and therefore consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

[The Nehor]

Yes.  It is the official doctrine of the Church (and therefore consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

The church appears to disagree:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/capital-punishment

[BCSpace]

The church appears to disagree:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/capital-punishment

 

Such an appearance is only in your mind as the Chruch itself dedicates a section to list scriptures supporting it:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/capital-punishment?lang=eng&letter=c

 

For example:

 

Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed

Gen. 9:6

 

he that killeth shall die

D&C 42:19

 

Whether or not the Church politically or publically promotes or opposes something has no bearing whatsoever on official doctrine.

 

In addtion, the current and consistently published Book of Mormon manual has this:

   

    Alma 1:17–18. Capital Punishment

   

    The law of God is “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). In 1889 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles prepared a declaration regarding the Church’s position on capital punishment:

    “We solemnly make the following declarations, viz.:

    “That this Church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence. That we regard the killing of human beings, except in conformity with the civil law, as a capital crime which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal, after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land. …

    “The revelations of God to this Church make death the penalty for capital crime, and require that offenders against life and property shall be delivered up to and tried by the laws of the land” (“Official Declaration,” Millennial Star, Jan. 20, 1890, 33–34).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-23-alma-1-4?lang=eng

Edited November 23, 2014 by BCSpace

[emarkp]

Seriously? Linking capital punishment with declining birth rate? Do you have anything to substantiate this assertion (that's a CFR)?

I'm not positing a causal link. The two are symptoms of deeper sickness IMO.

What do you think of the 21 year sentence for the massacre? Civilized?

[The Nehor]

Such an appearance is only in your mind as the Chruch itself dedicates a section to list scriptures supporting it:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/capital-punishment?lang=eng&letter=c

 

For example:

 

Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed

Gen. 9:6

 

he that killeth shall dieD&C 42:19

 

Whether or not the Church politically or publically promotes or opposes something has no bearing whatsoever on official doctrine.

 

In addtion, the current and consistently published Book of Mormon manual has this:

So when they say to news organizations and the world that the church neither supports or opposes it you are saying they are being disingenuous and crossing their fingers behind their back and secretly support it but are unwilling to come out and say it?

[Stroopwafel]

I'm not positing a causal link. The two are symptoms of deeper sickness IMO.

What do you think of the 21 year sentence for the massacre? Civilized?

 

I do think it is civilized, though we may differ in how we interpret what that word means.

 

Edited to add: The 21-year sentence is not final and may be extended for as long as it takes.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Stroopwafel

[LinuxGal]

Yes.  It is the official doctrine of the Church (and therefore consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

 

So there are some crimes where the atonement of Christ is insufficient, rather than his blood, we must use the blood of the offender to atone.  Check!

[bluebell]

So there are some crimes where the atonement of Christ is insufficient, rather than his blood, we must use the blood of the offender to atone. Check!

I'm not saying I agree with it, but the doctrine behind this concept is the same as most Christians believe about Christ's grace and repentance, it's just taken to a further degree.

To use your angle, someone could say to a thief making restitution for his crime, "so, the atonement of Christ is insufficient, rather than His blood, we must rely on returning the item we stole to atone."

Such a statement might seem to be a reasonable interpretation of what the thief is doing, but most Christians would recognize that the speaker was missing the point of the restitution. It wasn't meant to add to the Atonement. It was an act of obedience to Christ--doing what He said the thief must do, no different than the way having faith or being baptized does not add to the Atonement but is still necessary to gain salvation.

So, to carry that over to murder, someone who believes shedding the murderer's blood is a necessary part if the restitution process of repentance does not believe the Atonement is insufficient. They just believe that that is what God said must be done.

[LinuxGal]

So, to carry that over to murder, someone who believes shedding the murderer's blood is a necessary part if the restitution process of repentance does not believe the Atonement is insufficient. They just believe that that is what God said must be done.

 

There were many things God said must be done that were done before the cross fulfilled everything that pointed towards it in the Old Covenant.  If we, even after the death and resurrection of Christ, must still shed a man's blood to set the balance aright after a murder, shall we slay calves and bulls for lesser sins?

[JLHPROF]

So there are some crimes where the atonement of Christ is insufficient, rather than his blood, we must use the blood of the offender to atone.  Check!

 

Exactly.  There are some sins not covered under the atonement.  And that's scriptural.

Edited November 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

So when they say to news organizations and the world that the church neither supports or opposes it you are saying they are being disingenuous and crossing their fingers behind their back and secretly support it but are unwilling to come out and say it?

 

Yep.

[LinuxGal]

Exactly.  There are some sins not covered under the atonement.  And that's scriptural.

 

1 John 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

[thesometimesaint]

Exactly.  There are some sins not covered under the atonement.  And that's scriptural.

 

What God does is up to God. Man not so much.

IE; Does wearing clothes made of two different fabrics mandate Capital Punishment like it does in the OT?

[JLHPROF]

1 John 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

 

Mark 3:28-29

²⁸ “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; ²⁹ but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation -

 

Hebrews 6:4-7

⁴ For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

⁵ And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

⁶ If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

⁷ For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

 

2 Kings 24:4

⁴ And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon.

 

Matthew 18:6

⁶ But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

And yes, Mormon scripture expands on this...

[LinuxGal]

 

 

2 Kings 24:4

⁴ And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon.

 

 

 

The author of the book of Hebrews knew also of the insufficiency of the sacrifices mandated in the first covenant, before Christ, when he wrote, in chapter 10:

 

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins

 

He contrasted this deficiency to the efficacy of the death of Christ on the cross, writing in the following verse:

 

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God

 

As God is said not to be an author of confusion, it is difficult to imagine there being one perfect sacrifice for sin, as indicated in Hebrews, except for this list of sins over here in Mark, 2 Kings, Matthew, etc.

[JLHPROF]

 

As God is said not to be an author of confusion, it is difficult to imagine there being one perfect sacrifice for sin, as indicated in Hebrews, except for this list of sins over here in Mark, 2 Kings, Matthew, etc.

 

Well fortunately Mormonism clarifies the biblical contradiction and confusion by explaining the atonement and payment for sin more fully.

[The Nehor]

Exactly.  There are some sins not covered under the atonement.  And that's scriptural.

No, there are not. The atonement is infinite. The unforgivable sins are unforgivable not because the person doing them could not be forgiven if they sought repentance. It is that they have moved so far in one direction that they have killed the good part of themselves that could seek repentance. If someone denies the Holy Ghost (in the scriptural sense) if they sought repentance and mercy they could find it but they won't.

Edited November 24, 2014 by The Nehor

[LinuxGal]

Well fortunately Mormonism clarifies the biblical contradiction and confusion by explaining the atonement and payment for sin more fully.

 

I guess the fact that Christ's death wasn't good enough for every sin was one of the "plain" and precious things taken away from the book.

[tonie]

Exactly.  There are some sins not covered under the atonement.  And that's scriptural.

 

What sins?

 

Isn't denying the Holy Ghost the only act that the scriptures speak of that is unforgivable.