Remembering Carla Faye Tucker and the Death Penalty

[DaveXR650]

 

[Jerome]

At least get her name right!

Karla not Carla.

 

[Van]

The premise of this thread is that Christians should not support the "death penalty."

We know that God supports the death penalty. Everyone not saved undergoes the second death.

It is true that acting on our own, we are not to take a life to punish someone. But acting under the color of government authority, we can take a life, such as finding a defendant guilty of a crime carrying the death penalty.

I certainly do agree that Christians should support their understanding of scripture when choosing those who make and enforce our laws.

 

[Ascetic X]

Capital punishment is an essential element of justice.

On the whole, the full range of biblical data weighs in its favor.

Genesis 9:6

“Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Society should not execute capital offenders merely for the sake of revenge, but to balance the scales of moral justice that have been disturbed. The death penalty is warranted and should be implemented only in those cases where evidence is certain, in accordance with the biblical standard and where no other punishment can satisfy the demands of justice.

In the public debate over the death penalty, we are dealing with values of the highest order: respect for the sacredness of human life and its protection, the preservation of order in society, and the attainment of justice through law.

The function of biblical sanctions against a heinous crime such as murder is to discourage the wanton destruction of innocent life. And undergirding the biblical sanctions against murder is the utter sacred character of human life. The shedding of blood in ancient Israel polluted the land—a pollution for which there was no substitute—and thus required the death penalty.

This is the significance of the sanctions in Genesis 9 against those who would shed the blood of another. It is because humans are created in God’s image that capital punishment for premeditated murder was to be a perpetual obligation. To kill a person was tantamount to killing God in effigy.

The Noahic covenant (Gen. 9) antedates Israel and the Mosaic code; it transcends Old Testament law per se and mirrors ethical legislation binding for all cultures and eras. The sanctity of human life is rooted in the universal creation ethic and thus retains its force in society.

— FEBRUARY 21, 2017 | CHARLES COLSON

 

[canadyjd]

When we read that Jesus tells his disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36-37, it can seem that he is encouraging violence.

Yet when Peter does use a sword in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebukes Peter and heals the man’s ear. So, whatever Jesus was up to in telling his followers to buy swords, he clearly didn’t intend for them to use them as lethal weapons.

A close look at the passage reveals Jesus’ purpose. Immediately after he tells the disciples to buy swords Jesus says, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the lawless ones’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (vs. 37).

To fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be viewed as a “lawless” one. In other words, he had to at least appear to be a political revolutionary who was going to try and overthrow the Roman government in Jerusalem. In order for the Jewish authorities to feel justified in arresting him and bringing him to Pilate for crucifixion, he had to have enough weapons to be viewed as a law-breaking rebel.

In the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says, “That is enough” (vs. 38). Obviously, if Jesus intended for the 12 disciples to actually use swords, two wouldn’t be nearly enough. But it was enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus look like a “lawless” one.

Another explanation is the Greek word used for sword in the original text here is machaira.

In the ancient Roman world, this term was used for a wide range of bladed weapons.

In a military context, it can be used to refer to a heavy, long-bladed military sword.

However, in day-to-day contexts, it is commonly used to refer to a short-bladed instrument – what we would think of today as a dagger or even a utility knife. So, why would his disciples have a couple of daggers or utility knives with them?

When we remember that they were constantly on the road, traveling town to town, the answer instantly emerges. When traveling around, a couple of knives would come in very handy for any number of practical reasons, such as cutting up and preparing food, and protection against wild animals. Jesus’ disciples could be expected to have a couple of knives along for the journey, just as people today always take a knife with them when they go hiking and camping.

Very well stated

Peace to you

Are we only focused on the criminal? Does the victim, who sometimes survives, and their family not get any justice?

There was s no justice this side of heaven. If we expect justice from secular government we will be disappointed.

Is it merciful to allow criminals to be freed from the consequences of their actions?

Every Christian is freed from the consequence (eternal damnation) of their actions.

I did not advocate that criminals not be prosecuted. I don’t even advocate the government not use the death penalty.

I was m persuaded by scripture, especially 1 Timothy 1:15, that Christians take no part in the death penalty.

I’m not saying that removing future opportunities to come to Christ is my goal. (Which by the way, your opinion, from your Calvinist perspective makes no sense. If God saves who He will, what difference does more time make if they may not come to Him? What difference does less time make if they inevitably will come to Him?)

This is not a discussion about the election. The difference is whether or not Christians will demonstrate the same kind of mercy toward others that God did to Paul as an example for us to follow.

We are called to be different from the world.

I don’t see how any of this actually affects us unless any of us are the arm of government. Is there anyone here with the power of pardon? Is there anyone here who has the authority to show the mercy you are calling for?

I have sat as a juror in a murder trial (death penalty was not an option). Christians may have that experience at some point.

Additionally, there are new laws being proposed to expand the crimes that could receive the death penalty. Christians may use their vote to voice their conscience.

I am for mercy. But if justice does not exist, there is no such thing as mercy……..

Again, not saying people are not punished for their crimes. You can have justice without killing people, and I am confident God will be the ultimate giver of justice.

Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

At least get her name right!

Karla not Carla.

I stand corrected. Thank you

Peace to you

 

[kyredneck]

Then, by that reasoning, Christians should also not join the military or take part in killing enemy combatants in warfare…. and Christians should not serve as security or police, who may have to kill a criminal.

@canadyjd is our resident pacifist. If I remember correctly, he has gone so far as to claim he would not defend his family against an intruder.

He can clarify if I'm wrong.

 

[kyredneck]

But showing mercy does not mean letting criminals go unpunished.

God's saints are capable of doing anything/everything they're told NOT to do in The Book, and that includes capital offenses. I lean towards the repentant thief on the cross was exactly that, a saint that had committed 'a sin unto death'.

1st John Chapter 5

16​	If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request.

 

[kyredneck]

Duvall passed yesterday (I think) day before yesterday. He was one of my all-time favorites.

 

[Ben1445]

When we read that Jesus tells his disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36-37, it can seem that he is encouraging violence.

I’ve never read it as encouraging violence.

 

[JonC]

The reasons Jon gives start with the premise that there must be some concrete societal benefit. Some of the points he makes are arguable on that basis but that's not the real reason.

The first reason, yes. It is a real reason. In fact, it is the reason that executions (and other forms of punishment) were at one time public. If you hang a criminal in secret the deterrent to crime is not as effective as hanging the man in the public square. It is a real reason.

The other points I made are not related.

I did not mean providing justice to the victim as therapeutic jurisprudence (although that may be another reason some use). I meant it literally. The death penalty does not provide justice to the family, although we often present otherwise. It may provide a type of closure (which would be therapeutic). But I meant actual justice (like "making whole", or settling a debt).

Removing the criminal from society (expelling the wicked) is also not therapeutic jurisprudence. It is the purpose of the punishmeny the Law as it applied to Israel in the OT (removing evil from a chosen nation).

The idea (in secular justice) is that one removes the criminal in order to protect the population. The reason it cannot be a justification for the death penalty is the criminal is removed regardless. The reason shifts from expelling from society to cost efficiency (savings money rather than caring for a prisioner).


My personal argument against the death penalty is that the death penalty as practiced in the US is unbiblical (we use it without meeting or maintaining sny type of biblical criteria). And even here that assumes biblical descriptions apply outside of OT Israel (a theocracy).

 

[canadyjd]

@canadyjd is our resident pacifist. If I remember correctly, he has gone so far as to claim he would not defend his family against an intruder.

He can clarify if I'm wrong.

You are wrong

I have never claimed to be a pacifist.

Peace to you

 

[Salty]

There was a movie a few years ago about Desmond Doss. He was a congressional Medal of Honor winner while serving as a combat medic in WW2. He refused to kill, or even carry a weapon, yet he still served honorably.

I was watching a TV episode of "Tour of Duty" A medic who did not believe in killing anyone - found himself in the position of a Viet Cong was ready to shoot a GI. This medic picked up a M-16 but was unable to kill the enemy. Then the Viet Cong killed one of his buddies.

 

[Salty]

You are wrong

I have never claimed to be a pacifist.

Peace to you

But would you defend your family against an intruder; even if you had to kill him?

 

[canadyjd]

But would you defend your family against an intruder; even if you had to kill him?

I would not even hesitate.

Defending your family from immediate harm is very different from supporting the execution of someone in custody.

Peace to you

 

[DaveXR650]

The death penalty does not provide justice to the family, although we often present otherwise. It may provide a type of closure (which would be therapeutic). But I meant actual justice (like "making whole", or settling a debt).

The reason for the death penalty is to provide justice and honor the sanctity of the lives of fellow humans before God first of all. It was put in place before the law was given. That does not mean there are not also practical benefits to human society. Deferring to government authorities for justice helps reduce vigilantism, feuding, dueling and it protects the weak from the stronger and more aggressive. Deterrence is a benefit but is limited as you see in the case @canadyjd used. Karla did not plan it and no conscious thought was in play as it happened.

The idea (in secular justice) is that one removes the criminal in order to protect the population. The reason it cannot be a justification for the death penalty is the criminal is removed regardless. The reason shifts from expelling from society to cost efficiency (savings money rather than caring for a prisioner).

Like I said, this is not the real reason for it. It is sanctioned by God. In the US there is I think an attempt to limit it to cases where there is no provocation by the victim or in cases where there is extreme disregard for the life of another individual. There is nothing unbiblical about that except that some might argue that certain time periods in the Bible went much further. Go ahead and gather sticks on the sabbath if you want to in America.

 

[Ascetic X]

I would not even hesitate.

Defending your family from immediate harm is very different from supporting the execution of someone in custody.

Peace to you

How are they different? An intruder in your home who tries to harm your family is just more personal than a murderer who harms some stranger. Both are criminals. You will kill the first one, but will not support the death penalty execution of the second one.

 

[DaveXR650]

I was watching a TV episode of "Tour of Duty" A medic who did not believe in killing anyone - found himself in the position of a Viet Cong was ready to shoot a GI. This medic picked up a M-16 but was unable to kill the enemy. Then the Viet Cong killed one of his buddies.

@Salty. I know it's shallow to bring up movies all the time but since we all watch them it's a good point of common contact. There is an old movie, set in the Civil War, where a Quaker family tries to ride out the war in a neutral area. It's a good study in those issues. Called "Friendly Persuasion" I think.

 

[canadyjd]

How are they different? An intruder in your home
who tries to harm your family is just more personal than a murderer who harms some stranger. Both are criminals. You will kill the first one, but will not support the death penalty execution of the second

They are different because an intruder produces an immediate threat, a person in custody does not.

Peace to you

 

[Ascetic X]

They are different because an intruder produces an immediate threat, a person in custody does not.

Peace to you

An intruder who poses an immediate lethal threat to your family, you will kill. A murderer who ended the life of a stranger, you will not support the death penalty to be imposed upon them.