Re: Death penalty

From: Mike Findlay [email protected]

 
I was talking about the death penalty in cases where there is no question of 
guilt.  Those cases do exist as is evidenced by the example I provided.  And 
I've only talked about it as a deterrent for the person being executed.  I do 
think the law is a teacher and does send a message about what society will 
tolerate but I don't care about its deterrent value in an abstract sense.

Then I suppose I'm misunderstanding the concept of the death penalty as a 
deterrent. How can it act as a deterrent AFTER the crime has already taken 
place? If it's only for the person being executed, what good is it? They'll be 
dead and unable to do it again. Is that what you mean? It's a deterrent as far 
as they'll never be able to harm someone else? Then that's different than I 
usually hear it discussed - as setting up the criminal as an example of what 
happens to those who go against what society will tolerate.


>The fact that lifetime imprisonment could bring danger to those guarding them 
>doesn't wash for me - guards know the risk going into it. <
 
Wow, the life of a guilty murderer is more worthy of protection than that of a 
man/woman doing a job.   

I realize I combined several different arguments into this reply - you didn't 
talk about the personnel cost of life imprisonment, someone else did and that's 
what I was responding to. Of course I don't think a murderer's life is 
more worthy of protection. But neither is it less worthy. And those working in 
such conditions are aware of what could await them. I don't know how those jobs 
are assigned, but I'm guessing they're not being forced to work there against 
their will. 

>Neither does the cost - when it comes to life and eternal souls, money doesn't 
>hold much weight for me.<
 
I don't know why either of you inject money into this equation when I have 
explicitly ruled it out as a factor in my support of it.  As far as I'm 
concerned the money argument is a straw man.

Again, sorry, mixing my arguments. Was responding to others. Money isn't a 
factor in my lack of support. So I guess we have that in common. ;)

>From a faith standpoint, I can't support anything that puts vengeance in the 
>hands of human beings.<
 
You keep saying it is vengeance.  I will keep saying it is not. 

You may have answered this earlier and I deleted the email, but then what do you 
call it if not vengeance?

> We're far too fallible. My primary objection is the death penalty completely 
>removes the possibility for grace in the criminal's life. Killing them takes 
>away any opportunity for the grace and love of God to reach them. God's grace 
>and love is more powerful than any crime. And while it might satisfy our 
>concepts of justice, I think it oversteps God's.<

Yes humans are a fallible, we wouldn't have to punish criminals if we weren't.  
But the criminal removes the possibility of grace in his/her life when he/she 
chooses to take the life of another will malice and without justification or 
mitigating factors.  

 
Are you against the use of deadly force in self defense for the same reason?  

I am. And I don't believe the criminal's choices take him/her beyond the 
possibility of grace. At least that's my hope.
Æ

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot