Pjen, as a death penalty opponent, I want to say that you totally dropped the ball in this debate. There are some very convincing arguments against the death penalty including the botched execution of Lockett, but your immediate dismissal of the opponents in the debate as barbaric and uncivilized completely poisoned the well and made any debate impossible. I am opposed to the death penalty but I immediately had my hackles up when I opened this thread due to your dismissive, condescending, and judgmental stance. Just my opinion…
Why in the world do you think this would be remotely convincing? It’s an entirely circular argument. A murderer deserves to die because it is an injustice that they stay alive. Those mean the exact same thing. You’re just begging the question.
If you have a reason for being pro-death-penalty, give it. If you don’t, feel free to believe what you want, but why are you here trying to debate people?
Revenge is a loaded term, but I’m struggling to see where ‘the Bible’ says that exacting retribution on the offender is a sin. For example, here’s St. Paul.
“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…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.” (Romans 13: 1-4).
Here’s St. John:
“He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.” (Revelation 13:10).
Here’s the repentant thief on the cross:
"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds." (Luke 23: 39-41).
The strongest biblical argument against capital punishment is John 8, and it’s indeed a strong one. Put together with the rest of the New Testament, though, it seems to me that the message of John 8 is to greatly limit our use of capital punishment, but not to do away with it entirely. It’s a tool that should be used sparingly, but not be abolished.
Nejp, as a slavery opponent, I want to say that you totally dropped the ball in this debate. There are some very convincing arguments against slavery including the removal of children from slave families for sale, but your immediate dismissal of the opponents in the debate as barbaric and uncivilized completely poisoned the well and made any debate impossible. I am opposed to slavery but I immediately had my hackles up when I opened this thread due to your dismissive, condescending, and judgmental stance. Just my opinion…
Maybe we should not rely on a pre-inductrial largely uneducated society such as Palestine and the rest of the area 2000 years ago, and listen to what Christian ministers actually preach.
Perhaps, but until then you won’t do anyone any good by comparing your opponents (or in this case somebody who’s on your side) to supporters of slavery.
So people who cast a group of people into bondage because of dehumanisation are different just how from people who kill a class of people because of dehumanisation.
The same justifications are offered for both practices.
I didn’t say the Bible condemned capital punishment, just that it condemned revenge as a motivation. My entire post was how the “revenge” motivation of capital punishment makes no sense.
The Bible always makes a justice-based argument for capital punishment. The authority figure in Romans is given a God-given duty. The thief on the cross says his death is just, what he deserved. The line in Revelation is poetic justice.
My ideas about revenge are based Romans 12:19
or Proverbs 24:29
or Leviticus 19:18
The Bible goes on and on about how you should wait for God to avenge wrongs against you.
And this sort of thing is just the opposite version of what Snapti is doing. I’m sure there’s more in the thread, but I saw this just as I was leaving.
Appeals to any universal sense of morality is pointless in a debate.
I’ve never seen anyone defend slavery on the grounds that it protects the public or prevents recidivism. I’ve never seen anyone defend slavery on the grounds that it offers “true justice” to the victims (or anyone else.) I’ve never seen anyone defend slavery that it deters people from criminal activity (or anything else.)
I have seen arguments that justify the death penalty by dehumanizing convicts (Love Rhombus’ post above is a perfect example) but that seems to be the only one.
People used the defence of necessity- it was necessary to avoid worse effects- collapse of the economy particularly of the South (even though this was not necessarily true, many then current states managed well without it- it was really a means of saving Slave owners money). The excuse was that the African Americans were less than human and therefore could be treated thus.
People use the defence of necessity- it is necessary for the maintenance of Law and Order (even though this is not necessarily true- it just satisfies blood lust- many modern democracies manage without it). The excuse is that criminals are less than human and can be treated thus.
I appreciate this. One followup issue is that “certainty” is not a neutral term. It sound neutral, but the poor are going to find their trials end with certainty far more often than the wealthy.
The cost of defense is already a deciding factor, and will continue to be, for the forseeable future.
Honestly, if we had a justice system that was truly neutral and reliable, I would feel much less antipathy towards the idea of the death penalty. I don’t weep for executed murderers, but I don’t think the collateral damage is worth whatever marginal justice we might squeeze out of Death vs. Life without Parole.