Is the DEATH sentence Biblical, or should America end it completely?

[righteousdude2]

In the OT the death penalty was acceptable for certain sins against mankind. But so was the "eye for an eye" teaching, meaning a thief would lose a hand for stealing. This seems barbaric and almost like the teachings of the Koran and application of Sharia law.

So what say you when it comes to giving death to those convicted of first degree murder? And why do you believe this view?

Also, is it not possible, that a life sentence may be overturned by, let's say a pardon, down the line, and a cold blooded murderer may end up not serving life, but released back into society? After all, Obama is emptying Gitmo, so what's to stop an extremely liberal president from commuting life sentences to parole based on time served?

Maybe the Bible has it right when it comes to dealing with a killer!?

 

[HAMel]

If there is absolutely no doubt regarding the crime and who committed it..., then justice should prevail even if it calls for the death penalty.

The problem is however that most DA's are shooting for their next election and too many jury members want to be home in time for supper.

I am of the opinion that if there is one shred of doubt in the minds of any jury member the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. That's the way of the law. That attitude constitutes a fair trial.

 

[Kevin]

I am not against the Death Penalty, but the people who claim that money can keep you off of death row seem to have a point. I am also very uncomfortable with the way our courts handle the trials. In the OT judgement was to be based on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses.

Today just circumstantial evidence can get you sent to death row. DNA evidence has made a big difference, but in many cases the DNA evidence is left up to interpretation to how/why it is involved.

The question also comes up about how can you claim to be Pro-Life, but support the Death Penalty. To me they are two totally separate things, and not related. I have been asked this type of question when talking about the abortion issue. I always say I would gladly say no more executions of guilty persons, if the murder of innocents would stop. Most of the time they do not hear the second part of that.

I would say that anyone convicted of a crime that could be a death penalty case, should have life with no chance of parole.

I am also in Texas, the execution leader of the US

 

[preachinjesus]

We, as a nation, need to suspend the death penalty at the federal level and encourage states, especially high usage states, to do the same. The purpose of the suspension is to review the use of the death penalty and consider the cases of those currently on death row.

(I am personally opposed to the death penalty but understand that in certain cases it may be used.)

During this suspension we should review:
1. The over representation of minorities and economically disadvantaged on death row. It is a fact that there are more poor and minority convicts on death row.

2. Require strigent guidelines for the application of the death penalty beyond prosecutorial discretion. Too many death row inmates are there because of over zealous prosecution.

3. If we are using DNA evidence, as one of the witnesses, check it again and then check the other two or three (which I think is a good guideline for these things.) Fingerprints could be another.

4. Consider only using the death sentence in extreme cases. For instance, it is a mass injustice that the man who murdered 77, many on camera, in Norway, Anders Breivik, will not see the death chamber, but Jeffrey Havard sits on death row under questionable evidence from a non-certified medical examiner. Why not simply move Mr Havard to life without parole?

The death penalty is a very difficult subject to discuss. Many emotions play in as well as reasonable arguments. I personally believe that if we as a society agree with the death penalty, then all executions should be public and required viewing of all people lest we become enamored with the practice.

From a biblical standpoint, I believe Jesus removes the "eye for an eye" position and offers grace for injury instead. We no longer seek judgment but provide grace in the face of violations. Vengeance is the Lord's, not ours.

Good discussion RD.

 

[LK1234]

Always thought eye 4 an eye was not approving a penalty but restricting excessive retribution.

 

[Zaac]

The federal government can pass whatever law it wants. That DOES NOT mean said law should be what followers of Christ support.

I believe that Christian and Biblical support of us supporting the taking of anyone's life stopped at The Cross. Everyone of us deserved death. But the grace and mercy of Christ said NO!

What sense would it make for me, as one forgiven and not given death for my sins, to turn around and think it's okay to take someone else's life for their sin? It would be the utmost of hypocrisy.

James 2:10New International Version (NIV)
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

If in accordance with Scripture, each of us is just as guilty as the one who murders. As Scripture says, (paraphrase) one stumble makes us guilty of breaking them all. Then how dare we demand any more for someone else's sin than we do for our own?

I do not believe that after The Cross that the death penalty is something a follower of Christ should support.

 

[Zaac]

We, as a nation, need to suspend the death penalty at the federal level and encourage states, especially high usage states, to do the same. The purpose of the suspension is to review the use of the death penalty and consider the cases of those currently on death row.

(I am personally opposed to the death penalty but understand that in certain cases it may be used.)

During this suspension we should review:
1. The over representation of minorities and economically disadvantaged on death row. It is a fact that there are more poor and minority convicts on death row.

2. Require strigent guidelines for the application of the death penalty beyond prosecutorial discretion. Too many death row inmates are there because of over zealous prosecution.

3. If we are using DNA evidence, as one of the witnesses, check it again and then check the other two or three (which I think is a good guideline for these things.) Fingerprints could be another.

4. Consider only using the death sentence in extreme cases. For instance, it is a mass injustice that the man who murdered 77, many on camera, in Norway, Anders Breivik, will not see the death chamber, but Jeffrey Havard sits on death row under questionable evidence from a non-certified medical examiner. Why not simply move Mr Havard to life without parole?

The death penalty is a very difficult subject to discuss. Many emotions play in as well as reasonable arguments. I personally believe that if we as a society agree with the death penalty, then all executions should be public and required viewing of all people lest we become enamored with the practice.

From a biblical standpoint, I believe Jesus removes the "eye for an eye" position and offers grace for injury instead. We no longer seek judgment but provide grace in the face of violations. Vengeance is the Lord's, not ours.

Good discussion RD.

I think what you said in bold is 100%, absolutely correct. But I believe it breeds confusion that is not of God to say we are pro-life but okay with the death penalty. Life is life.

And our right to demand anyone's life for anything ended at The Cross.

 

[Zaac]

If there is absolutely no doubt regarding the crime and who committed it..., then justice should prevail even if it calls for the death penalty.

The problem is however that most DA's are shooting for their next election and too many jury members want to be home in time for supper.

I am of the opinion that if there is one shred of doubt in the minds of any jury member the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. That's the way of the law. That attitude constitutes a fair trial.

But the question was "IS IT BIBLICAL"? I took that to mean is it right Biblically?

Either way, you're presenting worldy reasons for why it should be right or wrong. Does the whole of Scripture support it as right or wrong?

 

[Jkdbuck76]

I had a math teacher who told me that he was against the death penalty. His reason was different and I'd never heard it before....he said "people who murder DO deserve death. However, I do not believe the corrupt government we have should get the authority to take our lives." He didn't want a bunch of corrupt officials to be able to kill us.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

But the question was "IS IT BIBLICAL"? I took that to mean is it right Biblically?

Either way, you're presenting worldy reasons for why it should be right or wrong. Does the whole of Scripture support it as right or wrong?

It is biblical;
Gen 9:6

Num35;
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

32 And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.

33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
rom13;
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 

[Zaac]

It is biblical;
<SNIP>.

Oh I agree it's Biblical. The concept is very evident.

That's why I was saying perhaps he needs to rephrase his initial question to something like "Is it Biblical for Christians to support the death penalty?"

 

[Revmitchell]

We should always be looking at our justice system with a critical eye but the death penalty in and of itself is fine. Leave it in place.

 

[righteousdude2]

Oh I agree it's Biblical. The concept is very evident.

That's why I was saying perhaps he needs to rephrase his initial question to something like "Is it Biblical for Christians to support the death penalty?"

Oh I agree it's Biblical. The concept is very evident.

That's why I was saying perhaps he needs to rephrase his initial question to something like "Is it Biblical for Christians to support the death penalty?"

Zaac, since you seem to have an eye for how I should phrase things, if you don't mind, I'll start sending you my posts for pre-approval and corrections. Wink

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the OT the death penalty was acceptable for certain sins against mankind. But so was the "eye for an eye" teaching, meaning a thief would lose a hand for stealing. This seems barbaric and almost like the teachings of the Koran and application of Sharia law.

Really? Losing a hand for stealing? Where in the Bible?

 

[Zaac]

Really? Losing a hand for stealing? Where in the Bible?

I think he's confusing the Bible with the Qur'an again. Where's that doctor?

 

[righteousdude2]

Really? Losing a hand for stealing? Where in the Bible?

Let's see if I can, accommodate you. Try Ex. 21:24 ...then Matthew 5:35-39; Lev. 24:20; and Duet. 19:21. Let me know if there are any further verses you need clarified. You should note that in Matthew 5 Jesus as much as validated the practice of the OT laws when He says "it was taught ..." But it was clear He was teaching a new way. To turn ones cheek.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Let's see if I can, accommodate you. Try Ex. 21:24 ...then Matthew 5:35-39; Lev. 24:20; and Duet. 19:21. Let me know if there are any further verses you need clarified. You should note that in Matthew 5 Jesus as much as validated the practice of the OT laws when He says "it was taught ..." But it was clear He was teaching a new way. To turn ones cheek.

Perhaps I'm being dense, but where do any of these verses say that a thief should get his hand chopped off?

 

[JonC]

Both within Scripture and within ANE culture the command "an eye for an eye" (or Hammurabi's code, if we are speaking extra-biblical sources) was not a call for a severe but a just punishment. It limited retaliation to "in kind" actions.

I believe that we can justify the death penalty, but to be biblical it needs to be in accordance with Scripture. I do not think, for example, that without two witnesses a man should be put to death (and in Scripture these are two men bearing testimony of what they have seen, not evidences of the crime). So there have been cases where I think it would be difficult to prove were biblical executions.

Insofar as "love thy enemy", I also believe that the death penalty was advocated to both deter capital offenses and also to remove a danger from society. To be biblical it must be exercised from the base of a love for man as he is created in the image of God, and therefore a love for God as well. It is not to provide a sense of retribution or even a satisfaction for revenge or payment to the victim (indeed, it cannot do so). If hate for a person is what drives men to implement the death penalty, then it may be better to find another means.

 

[HAMel]

Should this guy get the death penalty? He killed his girl friend and their 5 month old baby and while in jail tried to hire a hit man (another inmate) to kill a witness.

http://www.wcti12.com/news/da-goes-after-death-penalty-in-murders-of-mother-baby/37750694

 

[JonC]

Should this guy get the death penalty? He killed his girl friend and their 5 month old baby and while in jail tried to hire a hit man (another inmate) to kill a witness.

http://www.wcti12.com/news/da-goes-after-death-penalty-in-murders-of-mother-baby/37750694

If the man's conviction is also on the grounds of the testimony of at least two witnesses, then I do not see why the crime would not justify the death penalty.