Perhaps it does. . . Does that make it right?
I concede that the death penalty has been necessary through much of human history. Frankly, it is only long term incarceration that provides an opportunity to do otherwise. Without it, even non-violent repeat offenders needed to die if society was to survive.
However, in an age in which we CAN incarcerate long term, the death penalty strips away from the offender the opportunity to repent and, so, avoid the hell-fire.
This is the core reason for my objection to the death penalty.
If you believe, as I do, that God's love is boundless and offered even to the very worst offenders, then the death penalty should strike you as out of keeping with Christian tradition.
Arguing that the Old Testament sanctions, indeed calls for, the death penalty does not save the argument. Again, we are talking about an age in which society had few alternatives other than to kill; though I would point out that sanctuary cities and blood payments called for in Mosaic Law argue against biblical sanction for death as a justice measure.
This is tough. I'm with G-Veg with almost everything he said, but I have to admit that if studies prove conclusively that the dp causes a significant reduction in the murder rate, then it would cause me to reconsider my opposition to the dp.
Of course that leads into the question of whether we may enter into evil to prevent evil. But the dp is not inherently evil, or else the Church would not permit it - even with heavy qualifications.
Anyway, something to chew on.
I married a damn dirty hippie.
I see it as a Lockian contract of sorts. If a criminal steps outside the bounds of civilized society -- by murdering, raping, etc -- he or she does not deserve the protection that civilized society extends to its members.Their destructive behavior should be removed from society -- permanently and SWIFTLY.
I'm willing to let go of my more bloodthirsty criteria of PAINFULLY and concede to the needle, rather than blowtorches, rock salt and small household appliances, but that is the limit of my compassion for such creatures.
Paul,
I am not sure that the church would sanction the death penalty when other options present themselves. Sure, killing to prevent murder is a subject long debated within the Church, but killing as vengeance is not.
I also harbor serious doubts that any study can be conclusive about social policy. If we do this then we can save this many lives or this much money. . . Such studies are rarely a definitave answer.
CrankyProf,
I am grateful that the compassion of Christ is not limited to those who deserve it. . . Were it so, my feet would presently be feeling the warmth from below. We are called to share in His compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves. It is noteworthy that Christ specifically called on us to care for those in prison. . . I think He recognized such as the most lost of souls and so needing of love and tenderness as to be especially "deserving."
While I have the greatest respect for the prevalence of Lockean thinking in the Framers, I don't think that Locke is the final arbiter of good social policy.
To use your construct, how much crime is enough to warrant death?
In Iran, holding hands is enough. In gang culture, making eye contact may be enough. During the English Civil War, owning the wrong bible, saying the wrong prayers, or marrying a member of a different religious sect was enough. In the last year, over an hundred "honor killings" of westernized arab women have been committed in Europe.
You say "murdering, raping, etc." but surely you allow that each sentence must be situationally dependent? And, if situationally dependent, doesn't that admission undermine the underlying thesis that the state can, as an act of vengeance, justly kill those that it could incarcerate?
There are situations when vengeance is just and entirely called for. It falls to society to take vengeance for those who can not.
John Evander Couey (of the Jessica Lunsford child rape/murder -- he buried her alive) was a FOUR-TIME loser in the pedophile/sex offender lottery. Why was he paroled to offend a second time, much less a fourth?
Alejandro Avila -- another pedophile/murderer -- paroled to offend again.
Dahmer? Heidnick? Wesley Allan Dodd? Wayne Williams? God help us all, Scott friggin' Peterson?
I can keep listing them ad nauseum. At what point do we stop "rehabilitating" and "warehousing" and acknowledge that some people are just broken, and that society is better off and safer if they're dead?
How is imprisoning them, feeding them, allowing them conjugal visits, keeping them healthy, educating them and allowing them appeal after appeal just punishment?
It is fair and acceptable to give death penalty to one who is threatening the society or guiding it towards danger..
mobile phone deals
RE: New Study -- Death Penalty as Deterrent
woah, "found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides."
First off, is this peer reviewed, publicly published FOR peer review before it is finally submitted to an academic journal?
Staticians, mathematicians, and other type of analysts who are trained in understanding correllates must basically "approve" before saying this makes sense.
I dont think it does. I'm going to guess, but this isn't like a laboratory with rats where we can commute a sentence, quickly observe, then execute, quickly observe, back and forth, while holding all other conditions equal. What they are claiming is science sounds duplicitous and I urge everyone to read about what standards science requires.
Commenting by HaloScan
