Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 8/22/2016 1:42:53 PM EDT
I'd like to hear some views on this.  Since I am bringing it up let me offer this for thought.

How do Christians justify the idea and morality of executing murders?
If we say it is ok because God laid it out in the bible, which I think most would say, then we are saying His civil law is still applicable today.
If we say it is ok, but not because God ordained it, but because the Government said so, is that not placing the Government over God?  And we still have the fact that the Government is still in agreement with Gods law, so that is really not an answer.
If we say it is OK because God ordained it, what do we say about the death penalty for adultery?
If we say that Jesus forgave the woman at the well, so He obviously has let it lapse, what about the fact that Saul murdered Christians and God didn't have him executed...that would be an identical case for the halt of the death penalty.  But most Christians say the death penalty is just.
To complicate, or maybe clear up the woman at the well analogy, in the civil law, there had to be two witnesses who brought charges, and that was not the case here, and it was the civil magistrate who passes down judgement.  Jesus was and is our high priest. Not the judge in mosaic law.  So one could now argue that those aren't as similar as they first looked.

No, I am not saying we should go and execute adulters, I am just bringing this up for discussion to see how we justify the execution of criminals.
Link Posted: 8/22/2016 2:55:54 PM EDT
[#1]
Generally opposed to the State executing those who are no longer a threat to the public due to confinement.

That said, those executed are generally not innocent, so it's a lower priority to me than other social/societal issues

Regarding the woman at the well, another issue in that episode was that both adulterers were to be executed, not just the woman.  The accusers only brought forward the woman.
Link Posted: 8/22/2016 3:00:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Thank you. I understand your reasoning I think.  You do not promote the death penalty, so you don't have to justify it.  If that is what you are saying, that is consistent.  There are many Christians however who do agree that we are justified in carrying out the death penalty.  So where is their moral or ethical basis for this?
Link Posted: 8/22/2016 3:23:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Thank you. I understand your reasoning I think.  You do not promote the death penalty, so you don't have to justify it.  If that is what you are saying, that is consistent.  There are many Christians however who do agree that we are justified in carrying out the death penalty.  So where is their moral or ethical basis for this?
View Quote



I think it's normally wrong, but because those wronged are not generally innocent, it's lower on my "things to fix" priority list.
Link Posted: 8/23/2016 4:39:41 PM EDT
[#4]
I like the RCC stance of "outside an immediate threat to society, no".

Plus I don't trust a state to not mess it up anyway.
Link Posted: 8/26/2016 9:56:04 AM EDT
[#5]


From the catechism. I think think this is a good summary of Catholic teaching and is consistent with the universal pro-life stance of the Church. My only point of argument is with the last paragraph. The arguable point is what actually constitutes adequate public safety? I think each of us has his own answer to that, but I personally don't consider that society is 'safe' just because a monster is behind bars. There are truly evil people out there that remain threatening to the whole of society. Maybe its all the training I've had that preaches 'eliminate the threat.'  



Oh, and my cut and paste erased the paragraph numbers. Sorry about that.





Legitimate defense








The
legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the
prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes
intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect:
the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.
. . .  The one is intended, the other is not."65








Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.
Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to
life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is
forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:




If a man in self-defense uses more than
necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with
moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . .  Nor is it necessary for
salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid
killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own
life than of another's.66 </dd>
</dl>




Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who
is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of  the common good
requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For
this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right
to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to
their responsibility.








The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to
people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to
the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public
authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to
the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing
the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted
by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then,
in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety,
has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the
correction of the guilty party.67









Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been
fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not
exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way
of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.







If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect
people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such
means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the
common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.







Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state
has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed
an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away
from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the
execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if
not practically nonexistent.




 
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top