[billmc]

My wife and I were watching an episode of "Boston Legal" in which a woman whose daughter was murdered by her husband (who got off by reason of "temporary insanity") decided to take matters into her own hands and murdered her former son-in-law. She knew she was going to kill him, it was well premeditated. But, at her trial, she also pleaded "temporary insanity" and got away with her own form of "private justice".

A liberal, democratic attorney on the show, Alan Shore, is definately against the death penalty. He strongly feels that it is barbaric and unjust for a government to execute any of its citizens. At the same time, he is okay with "private justice" in cases where the court system fails (for whatever reason) and people find it necessary to exact revenge on their own.

What do you think of the death penalty? Do you find it barbaric or unjust?

Would you be for private justice in certain cases?

Do you think our penal system should be based upon punishment or revenge or upon reform?

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Sep 28 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

(snip)

What do you think of the death penalty? Do you find it barbaric or unjust?

Would you be for private justice in certain cases?

Do you think our penal system should be based upon punishment or revenge or upon reform?

It seems to me that taking the life of another human being will not liberate an individual or society from the bondage entailed by the act.

There is no such thing as private justice. Sowing and reaping still applies to the private party.

Personally, No

In my view, Reform.

[October's Autumn]

I think lynching was a form of private "justice." It doesn't make sense to kill someone to say that killing someone is wrong. Ultimately the death penalty is about revenge. It doesn't reform anyone and it doesn't act as a deterrent.

Sorry, forgot to respond to the rest of your question. Prison/jail is for both consequences and reform. When one of my 1st graders, 4th graders, or 5th graders breaks a rule (a law for an adult) there are consequences. Some of those consequences are imposed by me or the school. Bottom line is certain behaviors are unacceptable and the best way to teach that is to have consequences. The goal is for the student to get to the point that they regulate their own behavior (at the very least -- to avoid consequences). Obviously the reason people break laws is varied. For some reform is going to work if it is done right. Unfortunately in our society that doesn't seem to happen. Regardless they have to pay the consequences of loss of freedom for having committed said crime.

This post has been edited by October's Autumn: 28 September 2008 - 03:47 PM

[bobve2]

I am against the death penalty however according to Martha Stout in "the sociapath next door", one in twenty five of us is a sociopath and therefor we have no conscious and I am not convinced that 4% of the population can do anything but harm to society. As a society it seems to me that we are very challenged to decide whom the least of our brothers and sisters truly are. bobve2

[davidk]

We can see why God commands capital punishment simply because of the unique value of that which the murderer has killed. When a man is murdered, an image bearer of God is killed, and that's what makes murder so heinous. It is also not to be administered carelessly. It is that a distinction should be made for accidents or mistakes. If it is demonstrated that there is a clear case of premeditated murder, a serious crime has been commited because he has personally taken it in his own power to destroy a unique and tremendous being, one that stands qualitatively and quantitatively different from all else. That is ideally what the courts are for, to determine the proper administration of capital punishment. (Gen 9:5,6; And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man")

If we do not understand the tremendous stature of man, we will see no reason why murder is inherently any different from any other crime.

This post has been edited by davidk: 09 October 2008 - 12:58 PM

[billmc]

wayfarer2k, on Sep 28 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

What do you think of the death penalty? Do you find it barbaric or unjust?

Would you be for private justice in certain cases?

Do you think our penal system should be based upon punishment or revenge or upon reform?

Weighing in on my own topic:

I think the death penalty should only be used in EXTREME cases where there is reason to believe that a person would cause further harm to society. I find the Old Testament's notions that the death penalty is the only "legal" action to be taken for breaking the law to be barbaric. I.e. I don't believe in killing people for adultery, worshipping other gods, bearing false witness, or for disobedient children.

Yes, I would defend my family in our home.

I think our penal system should be based upon reform.

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Oct 10 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Weighing in on my own topic:

I think the death penalty should only be used in EXTREME cases where there is reason to believe that a person would cause further harm to society. I find the Old Testament's notions that the death penalty is the only "legal" action to be taken for breaking the law to be barbaric. I.e. I don't believe in killing people for adultery, worshipping other gods, bearing false witness, or for disobedient children.

Yes, I would defend my family in our home.

I think our penal system should be based upon reform.

I am pleased you seem to agree murder is inherently different from other crimes.

Could you please explain something? I am assuming 'extreme' means murder here. How could it possibly be determined definitively whether someone would cause future harm or not? (We have yet to reach the technology level of "Minority Report") Had they not already commited murder at least once. Do you recommend only reform on the first murder?

[billmc]

davidk, on Oct 10 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

Could you please explain something? I am assuming 'extreme' means murder here. How could it possibly be determined definitively whether someone would cause future harm or not? (We have yet to reach the technology level of "Minority Report") Had they not already commited murder at least once. Do you recommend only reform on the first murder?

I don't think there is an "easy answer" to this, David. I just think it warrants alot of consideration, discussion, and discernment.

I don't agree with the Old Testament's view that death is the only recourse to "breaking the law" and that first-time offenders should "get what's comin' to 'em".

On the other hand, I don't think that murderers should be allowed to simply go free. I guess I would say that these situations would need to be judged on a case-by-case basis -- considering the criminal's past, tendencies, patterns of behavior, etc.

It is a well-known proverb that no man is an island. Whenever we publically execute someone, there is always more people at fault than just the criminal. Someone (or a whole bunch of someones) failed along the way.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Oct 9 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

We can see why God commands capital punishment simply because of the unique value of that which the murderer has killed. When a man is murdered, an image bearer of God is killed, and that's what makes murder so heinous. It is also not to be administered carelessly. It is that a distinction should be made for accidents or mistakes. If it is demonstrated that there is a clear case of premeditated murder, a serious crime has been commited because he has personally taken it in his own power to destroy a unique and tremendous being, one that stands qualitatively and quantitatively different from all else. That is ideally what the courts are for, to determine the proper administration of capital punishment. (Gen 9:5,6; And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man")

If we do not understand the tremendous stature of man, we will see no reason why murder is inherently any different from any other crime.

When did God speak to you and command capital punishment?

It seems to me that it is not the flesh that is an image bearer of God. It is the spirit that is the image bearer.
The flesh profits nothing and shortly returns to the dust from which it came.

You seem to speak as a representative of the Book as if it contained Life or understanding. God has no interest in books and neither has God any interest in the folly of man nor does God command or have any pleasure in the taking of any life. Nor does God consider man as more valuable than any other creature of creation. For God is equally All in All. Of these things I testify as true.

Joseph