Is the Death Penalty in America based on 'an eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth

Factual Questions
1

I have a couple of questions .

The death penalty as we know it today in America . Is it based on ‘An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth’ from the bible and if that is the original justification for what we know as the legal ,time honored Death Penalty of today ?

Does the ‘separation of church and state’ apply here ?

I went first to Google and then to the Home page search on The Straight Dope and typed
‘The history of the Death Penalty in America.’
this is what I got searching on SD it’s a staff report

[URL text](http://URL_HERE
What’s up with the biblical story of drunken Noah? (Part 1) - The Straight Dope)

This one of many hits on google search

URL text

This link tells the history of the Death Penalty starting in the 1600’s more than one hundred years before we became the country known as the USA of today up to to 2004

I realize that it goes back many many years
world wide ,
This also one odf the many hits from my google search
History of the Death Penalty – The Ancient Laws of China established the death penalty. In the 18th Century BC, the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon ,

URL text

2

  1. The use of the death penalty more likely comes from English common law, but I am not a legal scholar. Judeo-Christian tradition has no monopoly on the desire for revenge.

  2. No.

FWIW,
Rob

3

What is this “separation of Church and State?” I don’t find that in my copy of the Constitution.

The Constitution contains three specific prohibitions relating to religion. First, no religious test may be applied as a prerequisite to a federal appointment.

Second, laws establishing a state religion are not allowed.

Third, the government may not interfere with the free exercise of your religion (within reason – you can’t claim that your religion requires you to smoke crack; or you can, but TS).

What you seem to be implying is if the government ever bans X or endorses Y, and X is also banned, or Y also endorsed, by some religious group, then that ban/endorsement somehow violates the Establishment Clause. But it is very, very clear that this is not necessarily (or not even most of the time) true. The government could have an independent, non-religious rationale for reaching the same conclusion as the Church (or, it could have an independent morally-founded rationale very similar to that of the Church). Many things forbidden by the Ten Commandmants are also forbidden by statutory law. Those statutes are cool constitutionally.
There are at least three independent moral/ethical/legal rationales for the death penalty.

The one you mention is “retribution.” Criminals must be punished. The death penalty as retribution theory says that no punishment other than death is sufficient for certain murderers.

A second rationale is deterrence. Deterrence comes in two flavors: specific deterrence (an executed murderer will most definitely not kill again); and general deterrence (e.g., I argue that would-be killers will be deterred from murder by the knowledge that the State routinely administers execution for those who murder).

The third rationale could be termed an “exemplary” rationale. The justice system needs to work, but it also needs to be seen to be working. This may seem to overlap with “general deterrence,” but it’s more than that – on this theory, even the most law abiding citizens, who would never even be within the realm of possible murderers, benefit from a highly-visible affirmation that the State is in control of marauders and that the justice system functions even in the most severe cases of wrongdoing. This is why we use the phrase “execute” – the State is literally executing, that is, putting into effect, the will of the jury (proxies for the people at large) and the judiciary.

4

So that is a no ‘separation of church and state’ should not apply . Thank you.

5

The First Amendment has never even been invoked as an issue when people have challenged the death penalty or when the Supreme Court handed down its bogus ruling that a penalty that had existed for oh 1000 years of common law (and that was explicitly referenced in the Constitution, which mentions “capital” crimes) was suddenly “unconstitutional.”

The purported rationales are always under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (claiming that the death penalty, or the death penalty as administered, is cruel and unusual puniishment, or denies equal protection, or denies due process).

6

If it were, wouldn’t the legal penalty for injuring someone (e.g. putting someone’s eye out) be having the same injury inflicted on oneself?

7

Plus, if you’re going for the Christian part of Judeo-Christian,

Matthew 5: 38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’

39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

8

Actually, you’ll find “an eye for an eye” in the Code of Hammurabi

9

Well first I am not in any way going for any thing
Christian or Judeo-Christian and haven’t opened that book some folk swear is the guide to clean living or whatever and haven’t been in a building where those same folks seem to need to be on a Sunday or Saturday every week for many years.
What made me wonder about if separation of church and state or in other words “separation of organized religion and civil authority,” should apply to the ‘Death Penalty in America’ is our American government has done away with anything that pertains to religion of any kind in all government funded schools , properties or any place ‘owned’ by government.

And if the Death Penalty was based or justified from a religious standing , from the bible, hence ‘an eye for an eye etc…’ shouldn’t the government change their stance on it some way or other ?
The links from google show that the Death Penalty started a long time ago in other parts of the world long before modern America was ‘discovered’.

And to answer Huerta88

URL text

10

srry for the double posting

11

Brushing over a lot of stuff, I will make it very simple why the death penalty cannot possibly be required to “change” (what you really mean is, should it be abolished because it violates the Establishment cause of the Constitution).

The SAME GUYS who wrote the Establishment Clause ALSO repeatedly refer in the very same Constitution to “capital crimes” and to the conditions under which the government can “deprive” someone of “life.”

The Constitution itself cannot be unconstitutional.

12

Linky no workee.

13

Well ain’t you a funny guy ** Huerta88** :smack:
Just for FYI I believe a convicted criminal on death row should have to experienced the exact same pain and suffering that the victim did for as long of time and just as painfully.

With that said what I mean is our American government being rather ‘two faced’ somewhat ?

14

Ah, the link was intended as I think a response to a fairly snarky post by me pointing out that “separation of church and state” doesn’t mean what everyone seems to think it does. The substantive action here that the OP was thinking of is in the Establishment Clause, and I hope I’ve made clear why it’s not germane, though I’m troubled that the OP’s last post sort of repeats the same erroneous analysis.

15

I’m not trying to be snide. It’s just that my original explanation of how Establishment Clause issues get decided was intended to help but seemed not to have.

We are in GQ not GD. Your second sentence could make an interesting GD. I do not agree with it, because I suspect that torturing someone to death because he tortured his victim to death would meet even my rather elastic definition of both cruel (because cruel) and unusual (because not AFAIK found in the common law ca. 1780). But, your idea is not on-its-face crazy or undebatable. I say open a GD thread if that has not already been done.

Again it isn’t GD, but I’m not sure what you mean about the gov’t being two-faced. I can imagine that description applying in many areas (banning bookies but running a lottery). How is it two-faced w.r.t. capital punishment?

16

I think of it as carmma coming back to bite the convict in the rear end jf he/she were made to experience the exact experience as the victim did.

17

Oh, I understand the rationale behind your thinking exactly. And can sympathize. A big part of sentencing/death penalty law revolves around “proportionality,” and it is very easy to understand the argument that a punishment which is exactly the same as that which the criminal inflicted on his victim is proportional and fair on a one-to-one basis.

I just don’t know if that would pass muster under our present constitution, English common law, or societal expectations which may weigh against having the government go into the business of enforcing karma (and in the process lowering itself to the level of brutality of society’s worst members – that would be the big policy argument against such an approach).

18

Note that this was based on leniency. You did not execute a man for blinding someone; you put out his eye and no more. Similarly, you didn’t execute a man for causing another to lose a tooth – the penalty couldn’t be more than just having his tooth put out.

19

The Bible says, somewhere or other, that you shouldn’t steal. Should we drop all the laws pertaining to theft?

20

I know it wouldn’t have a chance in **** of " passing muster" any where and I also understand that just because IMO it would be the right thing right doesn’t make my opinion better or more right . And I also know without a dought my thinking is not considered 'politically correct or socially acceptable to many people.