55 Comments

1. thoughttheater:

To view a cynical and satirical visual of George Bush playing a round of “Hangman”…link here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

Dec 30, 2006 - 12:08 pm 2. promoguy:

With glee I say with glee. Now where is the youtube video. I wanna see the whole deal.

What I loved about this execution is it came about 60 days after the verdict and within a week after the appeal. You gotta love it.

And by the way I’m not being sarcastic.

Dec 30, 2006 - 12:18 pm 3. Godzilla:

The idea that it is immoral to kill mass murderers breaks down for me when I contemplate the fact that just to stay alive requires that I eat the dead remains of various plant and animal life on a daily basis just to stay alive. Let’s see, what did that poor cow-turned-hamburger ever do to deserve ending up in my stomach?

Morality needs a makeover if we are going to sweat the likes of Sadaam Hussein.

Dec 30, 2006 - 12:58 pm 4. Patrick S Lasswell:

There is a strong argument that the German General Staff would have invaded France again by 1955 at the latest even if Hitler had been strangled in his crib and the perpetrators of the beer hall putsch would have hanged to a man. The drive to military confrontation was that strong and, with France’s General Staff, that rewarding.

Having said that, even if another stalemate had arisen, the German General Staff would not have slaughtered a tithe as many civilians as the Nazi’s did. The political-racial dimension of the fascist dementia certainly caused the death of tens of millions in WWII.

With that quibble out of the way, I offer the following:

Do not mourn the brutal dead. The rest they receive is better than they deserve. Do not yield one more second of the future to them, they have stolen too much already.

Dec 30, 2006 - 12:59 pm 5. WichitaBoy:

“Why, you simple creatures, the weakest of all weak things is a virtue which has not been tested in the fire.” –Mark Twain

Anybody who’s had it easy in life with a trust fund or dot-com win under his belt can sit in a tony American or European suburb of the 21st century, peck at a keyboard, and feign a faux moral superiority over the Iraqis concerning Saddam Hussein before depositing the monthly interest check. Naturally his moral experience of life doesn’t make him worthy of holding their coats. Naturally that won’t stop him from typing. We all have to grab our sense of moral superiority wherever we can get it.

Dec 30, 2006 - 2:51 pm 6. Terrye:

Well you know what? It is their country and if the Iraqis want to execute the man that is their business. I keep hearing how we should mind our business, stop meddling etc…how about the people making all the noise about poor Saddam do the same.

As long as Saddam was alive there was hope that he would return to power. He has done enough damage to Iraq, I say good riddance.

Dec 30, 2006 - 3:38 pm 7. Charles Bird:

I wonder how Scheer would’ve responded had Pinochet gotten a similar trial, conviction and sentence.

Dec 30, 2006 - 4:08 pm 8. ricpic:

“I almost always oppose capital punishment for the usual moral and practical reasons.”

The lack of capital punishment, or the failure to apply it where it does exist, makes the death of innocents at the hands of released monsters certain. What’s moral about that?!

Dec 30, 2006 - 5:44 pm 9. Roger:

To be honest, ricpic, I have never been convinced that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. The statistics are certainly inconclusive. I am convinced, as I indicate above, that in instances like Saddam it is necessary as a preventative.

Dec 30, 2006 - 5:49 pm 10. joec:

Surely Roger Simon isn’t saying that all people who oppose capital punishment are on the same intellectual level as the nonsensical Robert Scheer? Oh well, maybe I’m “blinded by a form of narcissism.”

Dec 30, 2006 - 5:56 pm 11. The Sanity Inspector:

The main point of capital punishment is to eliminate murderers. Its deterrent effect, if any, is gravy.

Dec 30, 2006 - 6:13 pm 12. David Thomson:

“I wonder how Scheer would’ve responded had Pinochet gotten a similar trial, conviction and sentence.”

Robert Scheer would not utter a single word to save the life of Pinochet. In that case, he would likely consider the death penalty to be

Dec 30, 2006 - 6:16 pm 13. Buddy Larsen:

I gotta echo promoguy–what a bold statement of statehood.

Dec 30, 2006 - 7:47 pm 14. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

rog’

ever see the movie dead man walking?

stars that cretin sean penn and that left wing loon sarandon.

dem and the real nun the story is based on think that the story is a powerful statement AGAINST capital punishment, when in fact it’s just the opposite.

because he is about to be executed, the evil murderer confronts his darkness and sees the light and is saved. his immortal soul is saved.

only the fact that he is about to die forces him to confront his inner demon and find the light.

the anti-death penalty nun should be happy she helped saved his soul – but it would NEVER have happened if he was not about to be killed.

not every killer repents before his execution.

saddam did not.

eff him.

BTW: facts prove that the death penalty is administered fairly in the USA. blacks in mostly black counties who mostly murder other blacks are tried by mostly black juries and do not get the death penalty more often than whites elsewhere. often the death penalty is not sought.

and also: the death penalty allows our law enforcement people to get plea bargains and make deals to get higher ups. without the death penalty it would be much harder to get many perps to turn cop a plea and become state’s evidence.

all the best!

happy new year!

Dec 30, 2006 - 8:09 pm 15. Captain Hate:

Reading the comments on the Scheer linkie makes me appreciate just about all the posters here on this outpost of sanity, including most of the trolls.

Dec 30, 2006 - 8:37 pm 16. Godzilla:

For anyone who wants to see the hanging, a video of it via a cellphone is available at this site:

Sadaam’s hanging

It’s a little grainy, but he can be seen falling through the trap door.

Dec 30, 2006 - 9:09 pm 17. Bob_R:

I agree that the execution of political mass murderers is the easiest case for capital punishment – for the reasons Roger gives. Note that that those reasons don’t apply to Pinochet, who gave up power voluntarily and assisted in the transition to the current far more democratic political system. If you want to make the case for him, it has to be on the same basis as other nonpolitical murderers.

My only objections to the death penalty as it exists in the US are practical. We execute very few of our murderers and the reasons seem so random. If you want to be cynical, you could say that we execute only those who commit the sin of getting really bad lawyers. Now it may be that the penalty is applied fairly on a local basis (which is the correct test in our system), but seems unfair when looked at on a larger geographic basis. (Here in Virginia it is clear that the standards in Northern VA are different than those is SW VA. But the fact is that the culture of the two areas differ as well.)

Dec 31, 2006 - 6:05 am 18. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Contrast the “progressive” anger about Saddam’s execution with the general lack of interest in the Cory Maye case…

Dec 31, 2006 - 7:14 am 19. mg601:

While I am against capital punishment for normal people, I am all for it for heads of state.

The fact that Saddam faced the judgement of his people, had a trial and was certainly not summarily executed should be applauded for its high standards when compared to the fate of other dictators.

I’ll bet Robert Scheer, in his heart of hearts, has a soft spot for Czar Nick too.

Most would agree that the French Revolution was a great moment in in the West’s democratic evolution and no one would say Louis XVI’s execution made it illigitimate.

Dec 31, 2006 - 7:39 am 20. TomTom:

It seems that Roger’s “usual moral and practical reasons” for opposing capital punishment are quantitatively based, not qualitatively. Causing the deaths of millions is deathworthy, but killing one, or a few, is not. I suggest that view is inconsistent with moral logic.

Dec 31, 2006 - 7:40 am 21. Roger:

You may be right about that TomTom, but I have noticed I live in a world where I have to make practical choices all the time. There is a constant collision between the theoretical and the actual. When I was young, I liked socialism in theory quite a bit. Economic equality made quite a bit of “moral sense,” if you know what I mean. Then I visited several socialist countries (China, Soviet Union, Cuba) and they felt like jail. The dream and the reality did not coincide. So I bent and changed. On most issues I’m capable of movement … or like to think I am.

Dec 31, 2006 - 7:54 am 22. Bostonian:

Saddam’s execution is bound to be far more frightening to the dictators of the world than all the condemnations of the UN, combined.

And I consider it a Good Thing to frighten dictators.

Dec 31, 2006 - 8:22 am 23. AskMom:

The history of brutal tyrants imprisoned and then returned to power is long. The millions of humans who died agonized deaths at the hands of these monsters cry for them to be placed safely in the grave.

After a term of captivity, dictators never are humbled and wiser. Without exception their demons have grown and they work terrible revenge on the world that sought to contain them.

Saddam is now facing the unimaginable mind that created him. What used to be a man, formed to love and learn, allowed himself to devolve into a machine and then simply debris. What God does with the remmants of these lost souls we cannot know. But we can renew our commitment not to become such.

And a new year is born.

Dec 31, 2006 - 10:17 am 24. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Qualitative and quantitative factors cannot be completely isolated. If Hitler had been only a gang leader, killing a few people every year and without prospects for political power, then it wouldn’t have been justifiable to destroy Hamburg, Berlin, and Dresden in order to get at him.

Dec 31, 2006 - 10:24 am 25. wennejunk:

I generally agree with the Catholic Church’s perspective on Capital punishment.

I’m paraphrasing here, but it is allowed when the criminal cannot safely be removed from society. As a practical matter, nearly always the criminal can be safely removed from society and Capital punishment is not warranted.

In this case, however, I agree with Roger that it is unlikely Saddam would remain imprisoned for life. Even were he to stay imprisoned, I am sure he would slowly gain the ability to influence his followers, something that cannot be tolerated.

From a broader perspective, I oppose the death penalty simply because I see life as sacred. When possible, life should be spared, including that of a murderer and in all cases unborn life. A murderer on death row should be given as long a possible to repent and accept Christ.

Dec 31, 2006 - 10:34 am 26. promoguy:

“From a broader perspective, I oppose the death penalty simply because I see life as sacred. When possible, life should be spared, including that of a murderer and in all cases unborn life. A murderer on death row should be given as long a possible to repent and accept Christ”

1. Richard Ramirez
2. Charlie Manson
3. Richard Allen Davis
4. “Tookie” Williams-snuffed

I think not. And that’s only in the State of California.

Dec 31, 2006 - 11:27 am 27. TheManTheMyth:

Tom Tom—I dont’ see the inconsistency, except perhaps the as the opposite of the foolish consistency denigrated by Emerson (was it?) as the “hobgoblin of little minds.” Or would you argue that a child who steals a penny should be subjected to the same punishment as an Enron executive who steals millions and wipes out hundreds or thousands of retirement account–and that anyone suggesting otherwise was being “morally inconsistent”??

Dec 31, 2006 - 12:54 pm 28. wennejunk:

promoguy,

You list 4 who have committed terrible crimes, three who are still alive.

What’s your point? That these deserve death because their crimes are so severe? Perhaps you misunderstood my point.

From the Christian perspective, their souls are just as precious to The Lord as any of ours. Yes, they’ve committed grievious sins, but that doesn’t mean their souls cannot be saved or that God no longer loves them. Jeffrey Dahmer is a case in point. Before other inmates murdered him, he repented and came to know the Lord. This means that today he is in heaven praising God, in spite of the terrible things he did. I’ll be honest, as disturbing as that is to me, it gives me great hope.

Once society is able to permanently remove the threat they pose, folks like Manson and others should be kept alive until they die a natural death. That gives them the chance to come to know the Lord under his terms and timeline.

As a society, we have a responsibility to protect ourselves. If we can do it without continuing the killing, that is always the correct path. In Saddam’s case, we could not guarantee the threat was removed and I agree with his execution. However, Retribution and Vengence is not our responsibility – that belongs to God.

Again, the eternal horror that awaits Manson, Saddam – and you and I – if they do not repent and accept Christ far outweighs anything that can be done to them while they are yet alive. That is something I would not wish on any other human, regardless of the terrible things they did to others.

Dec 31, 2006 - 1:52 pm 29. promoguy:

Wennejenk, two things that come to mind when I read your post

1. Maybe Saddam would under your theory find redemption also, yet you say it was okay to kill him. Not sure if that is a double standard or hypocrasy or something else

and

2. D**n it’s easier to be a Jew.

And a third that I thought of as I was typing this. Jeffrey the Flesheater, probably found his repentence in prison since there was nothing else for him to do. I notice lots of them do. And also I understood no one chose him for any basketball teams.

And, now for my fourthly. I definitely do not misunderstand you.

Dec 31, 2006 - 2:19 pm 30. Rhod:

I take C.S. Lewis’ view of criminal punishment.

I don’t recall if he addressed capital punishment in this formula, but he remarked that criminal punishment expresses society’s outrage and condemnation for certain kinds of behavior. Criminal punishment is vengeful. It has to be.

If we’re dispassionate about punishment, and dismiss the quality of revenge as morally contaminated, all punishments are then rendered unjust.

Saddam Hussein needed to die for the practical reasons mentioned Roger. He also needed to die because there was no other just remedy for his conduct. And even then, it couldn’t be enough.

Dec 31, 2006 - 2:46 pm 31. TheManTheMyth:

Promoguy—you’re also overlooking that fact that with the ever-changing standards inherent in our 50-state legal system, “lifers” are released every day, and many of them go right out and start murdering again. I read a study somewhere a few years ago (sorry–can’t give cites as I sit here, which sucks but there it is) that concluded that for every one murderer sentenced to “life” in prison, 1.4 people end up getting murdered by someone supposedly sentenced to “life” who wound up getting out one way or another. So which way does the morality really cut? I don’t like the idea of people buying a good nights sleep for themselves by condemning the execution of profoundly evil people who may have murdered one or thousands of people the condemner never knew/has no “stake” in–especially when the result of “mercy” is statiscally likely to result in the murder of more innocent people than it saves guilty. Seems kinda analagous to liberal’s infamous “putting your money where my mouth is” approach to taxation, somehow…..

Dec 31, 2006 - 2:47 pm 32. TheManTheMyth:

Rhod, you too are overlooking the “deterrent” effect of the death penalty. By this I don’t mean the likelihood that the existence of the death penalty will deter other would-be killers–at least as it is administered in our society with 30-year delays between verdict and punishment–but rather its ONE HUNDRED PER CENT deterrent effect on executed criminals. And again, any counter-argument based on the availability of “life” imprionment is a facally, both because “lifers” routinely kill prisoners and, more to the point, because most “lifers” eventually get out of jail.

Dec 31, 2006 - 2:53 pm 33. TheManTheMyth:

Not only is the “life imprisonment” argument a “facally”—it is also, I would contend, a fallacy. Thank god there is not capital punishment for failing to review spelling before posting….

Dec 31, 2006 - 2:55 pm 34. wennejunk:

Promoguy,

No double standard or hypocrisy. The duty to protect society comes before the life of the guilty. If we cannot protect society, then Capital punishment is justified. In Saddam’s case, I don’t think it would have been possible to permanently keep him from doing further harm. In that case, execution was appropriate.

As to being Jewish, I see your point: The whole eye for an eye thing is easier to understand for sure, but even in Deuteronomy, God says Vengeance belongs to him.

I probably would not choose him to to be on my team either. I didn’t say I like these guys, just that their salvation is more important than others desire to have them executed.

Dec 31, 2006 - 3:23 pm 35. Rhod:

TMTM:

I’m convinced of the deterrent effect of the death penalty on killers already incarcerated. There seems to be some evidence for it, too, although I can’t cite the sources either. Lifers are less inclined to kill behind bars because of it.

Roger says the evidence for the same effect on potential killers is mixed; it might be, I don’t know. Roger is usually right on these matters.

My point is that draining the death penalty, or any penalty, of revenge is to neutralize the ethic in the penalty. Some insidious secular transformation of an important feature of Christanity has taken place if we’re told to be disinterested in criminal punishment as a means to redress an imbalance.

If all we can muster is a sense of relief that a perpetrator has been removed from civil society, then the piety we’ve attained is rather cheap and shallow. Saddam had to die because no other punishment had enough weight. If that’s untrue, then we could have chained him to a reef at Trunk Bay.

The NYT seems to think so, since their ed page stated that Iraq will not be better off because of the execution. Duh. So much is misssing from this conclusion that you can only conclude that the Times is staffed by idiots.

Dec 31, 2006 - 3:35 pm 36. wennejunk:

Rhod,

I have read much of Lewis’ work and will go review it again with your comment in mind.

I completely agree with the perspective that “criminal punishment expresses society’s outrage and condemnation for certain kinds of behavior”.

However, I disagree that Criminal punishment is vengeful or has to be. Punishment and revenge are two differ concepts. Punishment involves both penalty and restitution, where possible. Revenge involves a vindictive spirit and a desire to inflict pain for personal satisfaction. They are distinctly different.

In this sense only punishments fueled by revenge become tainted. This is why the rule of law becomes so important as the penalites for offenses are codified so that all can know the penalties for actions.

Dec 31, 2006 - 3:38 pm 37. Rhod:

Wennejunk:

Nothing in Webster’s supports your contention that revenge is “tainted”. You’ve introduced the ideas of vindictiveness and personal satisfaction on your own, where they don’t, by definition, exist. Revenge is to pay in kind, to “avenge” is the same. We have no other word, in my view, that explains the act of avenging. Do you have one?

Dec 31, 2006 - 3:58 pm 38. wennejunk:

TheManTheMyth,

I guess you’re pointing at me with the comment regarding getting a good night’s sleep.

You are correct in that it is easy to write and talk and take the moral high ground when I am not personally involved. It is possible I would feel completely different were it my family that were murdered.

However, I would argue that the time to think about this kind of stuff is when you are not affected – and then hope it never happens. If a moral code is only good in theory, but then discarded in practice it wouldn’t be much of a philosophy would it? I would then become the hypocrite that Promoguy suggests.

On your other points: The fact that lifers get out of prison and can kill again is a call to fix the system, not to to speed up the execution process to put them in the ground before they can go free.

You cite a bunch of trends, (”lifers” routinely kill prisoners” and most “lifers” eventually get out of jail.”). I’m not saying you’re wrong, because I don’t know, but it feels exagerated. Some stats would be helpful here.

I’m all for more severe prisons. Life in prison (whether a life term or otherwise) should suck. No weights, no TV, no track shoes, no porn, no smokes, no hot meals and so on. That system is clearly broken and needs to be fixed. The death penalty may not deter, but my gut tells me that a really tough prison does.

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:00 pm 39. Rhod:

And by the way, Wennejunk, there’s a long list of reactions the spiritually aware can perceive in themselves in the ACT or observance of vengeance. I think that’s the moral lesson. I take no pleasure in a convulsed man hanging from the rope, but he had to be shown the magnitude of his crimes, and that’s agreeable to me.

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:03 pm 40. wennejunk:

Rhod,

Not my words. Websters.com: Revenge

1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother’s murder.
�verb (used without object)
3.to take revenge.
�noun
4.the act of revenging; retaliation for injuries or wrongs; vengeance.
5.something done in vengeance.
6.the desire to revenge; vindictiveness.
7.an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction.

I guess we’re using different versions of Websters.

You introduced the idea of “revenge as morally contaminated” which I liked the sound of – hadn’t thought of that myself. I used the word ‘taint’, a synonym, because…well I like the word ‘taint’.

Being in the South, it’s a great multipurpose word:

i.e; ‘taint so

Hey, all of you. Thanks for the discussion. Roger thanks for the original post. Got to go and get ready for the New year thing. Best wishes to all of you and happy New Years. May 2007 be much better than 2006.

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:16 pm 41. promoguy:

Rhod,

please not Trunk Bay. We’ll be there for our usual couple of weeks. It’s at the end of June so if we’re tying to reefs can we do it at the end of July.

Wennejunk

Actually, I’m a fallen Jew with an Episcopalian Liberal wife. But that aside, it has nothing to do with an eye for an eye. I just have the fervent believe that evil people who commit murder should be put down. If I believed in an eye for an eye, I guess I would have to believe that a women who kills a husband that has been torturing her be also executed….NO I DON’T.

I wish I read as much as most of you do, Hume, Lewis, The Bible, Emerson but alas I don’t so can’t quote, LOL

Sorry but must bid adieu for a bit to get all my tailgate equipment and food together for the Rose Bowl. I’m taking tomorow off from saving the world.

Happy New Year to all and may all progressives and liberals find the light in 2007.

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:23 pm 42. Rhod:

Weenejunk:

Enjoy your evening, and when you can, Google Lewis’ “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”. It’s controversial, without a doubt, and it’s been 30 years since I read it. But I still think it still supports my view.

My source is the 7th Webster’s New Collegiate” (very old, but it shouldn’t matter). I still hold the position that vindictiveness is subordinate to the principle definitions you provided. Not excluded, but not dominant either.

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:28 pm 43. TheManTheMyth:

Vennejunk: I think you make a valid point re crafting policies from a point of (relative) disinterest–i.e., someone whose relative has just been murdered might not be the best person to draft generally-applicable death-penalty statutes. Also, your comments re the value of citations for statistics is well taken. The funny thing is, I heard the “1.4 dead per lifer” stat from a passionately anti death-penalty guest-prof teaching a winter-break anti-death-penalty “you can help” clinic in law school. As to the “majority of lifers eventually getting out”, I believe I read that was true—not majority as in 99 per cent, but majority as in more than 50%. That said, one’s arguments are only as good as one’s evidence, so someone who isn’t about to head out (public transport) to tie one, two, or three on in honor of the passing of the old year ought to do a bit of internet reasearch. I’ll bet it wouldn’t be hard to come across figures, though one’s “bias-filter ” should probably be turned up to the highest setting in light of the emotional nature of the debate. Heck, if my head isn’t throbbing too hard tomorrow afternoon, I’ll jump on the task myself and will report back on my findings. I do believe that it is important to remember that in gaining a trivial amount of a sense of moral superiority for ourselves, we might be sentencing entirely innocent people to death–and to be open to the possibility that such a bargain might be more immoral than putting mass-murderers to death.

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:30 pm 44. TheManTheMyth:

Vennejunk–forgot to mention–I think that in evaluating the value of “fixing the system” re life imprisonment, one must bear in mind that it is really impossible to fix that system. Given that criminals can survive 30, 40, 50, 60+ years in prison, and an election in our highly-polarized society can flip a state government from “don’t coddle the scum” to “poor underprivileged child–it wasn’t really his fault” in any given November, I submit that there is no practical way to ensure “lifers” will in fact remaing behind bars for the rest of their lives short of executing them. Finally, while I think it is sophistical to argue that it is better that ten thousand guilty men go free than that one innocent person should be executed (using a reductio ad absurdum as an example–what if each one of those ten thousand men went out and killed 100 people–would it still have been the “better” choice to have released them?), the awesome power of the state to kill in the name of the people should be exercised only in cases of the most serious crimes, where guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (no need to cite the DNA/innocence project cases to me–when I say “reasonable doubt” I mean that in the metaphysical sense–not in the legal sense–has anyone argued that Saddam was “innocent?”). Oh and btw–happy new year all!!

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:38 pm 45. Rhod:

Promoguy:

Well, maybe Leinster Bay. Shallow, lots of jellyfish, sharp coral and sharks. Chain me out there any time of year.

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:38 pm 46. Godzilla:

If the Bible is going to be used as the moral authority to support/refute the death penalty, let’s not forget about the Book of Esther…one hellacious case of revenge, and for an intended deed that was never actually committed, no less.

Verdict by analogy: Sadaam should have gone to the gallows in 1992, along with everyone that supported him.

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:44 pm 47. TheManTheMyth:

With full respect to the Christians or members of whatever other non death-cult religion who may be reading, my preference would be to leave the Bible out of it—”render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s” and all that…..

Dec 31, 2006 - 4:52 pm 48. Godzilla:

With full respect to the Christians or members of whatever other non death-cult religion who may be reading, my preference would be to leave the Bible out of it—”render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s” and all that…..

I think that you’ll find Christians to be quite divided over the death peanalty, and “other non death-cult religions” probably would not make reference to the Bible anyway.

It’s hard to keep some reference to the bible out of any discussion involving moralty, even implicitly.

The reference I made, ironically enough, supports the death peanalty as an extreme sanction.

Dec 31, 2006 - 5:29 pm 49. TheManTheMyth:

I’m not arguing with your facts Godzilla–nor am I anti-Christian. However, I would observe that tying any discussion of this nature to any religious text tends to take it out of the realm of the social/political and into the realm of religious discourse. Nothing wrong with religious discourse per se, except to the extent that it tends to marginalize persons based on factors other than objective morality and logic….

Dec 31, 2006 - 5:54 pm 50. Godzilla:

TheManTheMyth,

The problem with refraining from references to the bible in dealth penalty discussions is that, for many Christians, their rational against it is largely based on a choice sampling of various biblical readings. Personally, there is no more enjoyable argument than when you can take your debating opponent’s own gun and turn it against him. When it comes to support for the death penalty, I can easily produce 5 examples of santioned death edicts for every act of mercy. The Book of Esther, which I referenced, is a story of mass murder and revenge that boggles the mind, and the moral of that story, if one wanted to draw anything from it, is that Sadaam Hussein was infinitely worse than Haman, who through a mere intention wound up being hung at the gallows, along with his 9 sons, plus tens of thousands of others associated with Haman were also legally murdered.

Point to this? After a few posts and rebuttals, all biblical, anyone who still has the stomach to use the Bible as an authority against captial punishment is going to find himself flapping on a set of wings that no longer fly.

Dec 31, 2006 - 6:29 pm 51. TheManTheMyth:

Godzilla–Agreed. The facility with which people who spend the vast majority of the time studiously ignoring the Bible can cherry-pick a few random passages to support their favorite parts of the modern liberal agenda is truly amazing. Not sure which way this cuts, but I agree with your observation.

Dec 31, 2006 - 6:41 pm 52. Rhod:

I don’t know if I’m among the people “using the Bible” in a discussion of the death penalty. I made the reference to C.S. Lewis opinion on the death penalty, and said I agreed with him. I didn’t mention “The Bible”.

But it’s impossible to evaluate any moral question without reference to some code, which derives from some Bible or another. Even the codes we describe as “secular” have some connection to objective morality.

My point was not that the Old or New Testaments have control of this issue, but that the penal codes of our society, in this case the death penalty, must have a purpose for the people who compose the society other than simply isolating the offender.

If punishment isn’t accompanied by anger, or a sense of insult, then the punishment makes no sense, and its simply utilitarian and mechanistic.

Jan 1, 2007 - 6:12 am 53. LarryD:

point 1. The death penalty is the only punishment that guarantees the murder will never kill again. As previous posters have noted, a “life sentence” isn’t really a sentence to remain in prison for life. And all too many murders kill again after being released.

point 2. The deterrent effect of any punishment is positively correlated with; its severity, its certainty, its swiftness. If it were possible to capture 90% of criminals in the act, and punish them then, it wouldn’t take a very sever punishment to maximize the deterrent effect. Our current system, on the other hand, is slower and more cumbersum than needs be to be just; the defense lawyers and the ACLU both have reasons to pour cement in the works. Nonetheless, there are criminals who have admitted that the death penalty has had a deterrent effect on them.

Jan 2, 2007 - 2:17 pm 54. markus:

“I almost always oppose capital punishment for the usual moral and practical reasons. But in the instance of political mass murderers like Hitler, Stalin and, yes, Saddam, I think public safety vastly outweighs any ideological considerations.”

Uh, that’s precisely right, Roger. And given the fallout from the video, it’s an excellent argument for COMMUTING his sentence to life imprisionment.

Executing Saadam just added more fuel to the fire, strengthening the positions of both the Sunni extremists and Moqtada al-Sadr.

Why don’t some of you neocons go back to one of the founding texts of your ideology: “Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding”, Moynihan’s study of the early Community Action Agency component of our tragic adventure in Iraq.

Jan 4, 2007 - 10:26 am 55. DelRioWildcat:

The Bible, Capital Punishment and the Constitution

Too often, individuals equate executions to murder. This is patently false and incongruent with God’s teaching. Ultimate vengeance is in God’s realm, and in His alone. However, valid executions are neither a province of murder nor of vengeance. The abysmal lack of understanding of this fact evidences false teaching and widespread ignorance.

Few Americans are conversant with the Bible’s original languages. The Hebrew and Greek – tongues in which the Old and New Testaments were written, respectively – employ more precision because of their extensive vocabulary than do later English translations.

The Bible condemns murder. Whosoever sheddeth mans blood (here the original language translates murder), by man shall his blood be shed (the language here does not translate murder): for in the image of God made he man. [Genesis 9:6] Capital punishment not only is authorized, it is commanded. The Bible is NOT contradictory. And of course, the import here is a fair trial based on sufficient and proper evidence.

Please also note the New Testament warnings concerning lawbreakers. Romans 13: (1) 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. (2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) 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.

Neither is self-defense a province of murder nor vengeance. Rather this is an attempt to prevent the taking of innocent life before the actual act is committed.

On a grander scale, this is the very reason for just wars being prosecuted. Many disagree as to what constitutes a just war. No reasonable man wants war; however, it is preferable to tyranny. The implication is that if society desires what is right and just; then reason, objectivity, and humility must prevail to learn, accept, and obey God’s teachings. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD? [Isaiah 1:18] O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. [Jeremiah 10:23]

The rights of the innocent must prevail over those of the wicked. The ?stiff-necked? never will accept these “hard” teachings.

We hear the proclamation for peace — even world peace. But again, the unmodified word, “peace”, in the English language is vague. There is the “peace” of the grave, “peace” in a totalitarian country or even ?peace? in a hospital ward full of the dying; no reasonable person desires these. Decent, law-abiding citizens want the removal of murderers (especially politically-driven murderers) from society.

And prison, except to hold murderers until trial and execution, is not the answer. Far too many murderers either are released to prey on society or remain incarcerated as a heavy burden on society (tax payers). The Bible COMMANDS death to murderers and so it should be.

(In the physical sense, true peace is defined as the removal of hostilities at the hands of the wicked. In the spiritual sense, it means being right with God thereby avoiding His terrible vengeance at the Final Judgment. No one will be to escape or hide from the Lord. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess at that time. Only for the lost, it will be too late.)

We all should adhere to the admonition and warnings of God to live peaceably among men or suffer the consequences now and in the hereafter. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. [2 Corinthians 5:10]

As a last point of capital punishment, the US Constitution (with few exceptions [i.e., treason]) does not grant this power (and therefore it is prohibited) to the central government. That authority is not prohibited to (and thereby remains the prerogative of) the states; subject to their respective constitutions.

Jan 7, 2007 - 6:50 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: