I had hoped that my first post after a self-imposed moratorium on blogging was going to be my story about how the flags at Club One had been replaced. (This, in fact, was done yesterday and today I brought my camera to take pictures.)
Alas, about 30 minutes ago, the Wesson trial ended. As I walked across the street to hear the fate of Marcus Delon Wesson, I wondered what it must have been like to sit on the jury and try to decide whether another human being should live, or die.
As the jurors returned to the courtroom, I felt certain they’d settled on life without possibility of parole. It didn’t seem possible that they had just decided that anyone, even Marcus Wesson, should be put to death.
Juror #6 — unless my count was off — literally looked like she’d just arrived at the front of the line for her first Disney ride, or perhaps as if she’d just won the world’s largest lottery. She was laughing, smiling and even waved to someone in the audience.
And she wasn’t the only happy juror.
Now, I don’t know. Maybe I’m just built differently. I’m not saying Marcus Wesson doesn’t deserve the death penalty for what he did. Although I’m still a little uncertain myself as to whether the death penalty is ever appropriate, I don’t feel that I have enough evidence — after all, I didn’t sit through the entire trial — to make any comment on that.
But I think there’s something wrong with people who can go giddy over the idea of killing another human being, even if they believe he does deserve that penalty.
Of course, maybe they were giddy for another reason: With California unable to pay teachers to educate our citizens so they grow up to make valuable contributions to our society, we are nevertheless about to embark on a multi-million-dollar spending spree to put Marcus Wesson to death.
And anyone familiar with American culture today understands this, if they understand nothing else: From the President on down to the lowliest citizen, we will spare no expense when it comes to killing.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Bob // Jun 29, 2005 at 11:58 am
My knee jerk reaction is that you have to put yourself in the juror’s place before passing judgement over them. The sense of relief must be considerable knowing that you’re going back to your own life, that you don’t have to listen to stories of control, incest and finally the murders of children.
There also must have been substantial relief in relieving, even temporarily, the burden of deciding someone else’s fate. I’m sure that this decision will echo through many lives on the jury.
Waving at friends from the juror box at such a time has no class but is not enough evidence to say they were giddy about sending another human to their death.
I think as much humanity has to be offered to the jurors as you’re offering to the defendant.
2 Rick Horowitz // Jun 29, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Well, I guess we just have different knee-jerk reactions. Mine was to find it offensive that the jurors would react the way they did, given what they (and no one else yet) knew.
Wesson is, apparently, slightly insane. The jurors, in theory, are not. I think I’m giving the appropriate nod to “humanity” under the circumstances.
But then, too, my thoughts on the death penalty probably interfere somewhat. For one thing, I’m not sure killing people is the right thing to do, even for a Christian nation. For another, it’s terribly expensive to give someone the death penalty. Numerous states have published studies indicating that death penalty cases are a drain on our budgets. California, for example, spends $90 million more per year on death penalty cases than would be spent if we did not have the death penalty. When you consider that we’re in such dire straits that our Gropinator has to refer to teachers and nurses as “special interest groups,” this is appalling.
At any rate, if I were to think that someone deserved death, I’d have to agree with one of Wesson’s defense attorneys, Pete Jones, when he said Wesson is certainly not one of “the worst of the worst.” The death penalty, if used at all, should be reserved for them.
And, even there, I’d be offended at jurors laughing and smiling as they returned a death verdict.
3 Steve // Jun 29, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Well, that’s a real interesting comparison, eh Bob? I’m sure the author has the capacity to judge whether certain jurors were giddy with glee or not. Were we to extend the same compassion to the jurors that they will extend to Wesson, none would leave the courtroom alive.
Every time a jury comes back with a death verdict it erodes all respect and sanctity for life. Wesson made a decision that his family was better off dead than in government hands, the jury decides Wesson deserves to die. What’s the real difference?
In our culture the lust for killing and revenge is so profound that we employ the state to do that which we would not do ourselves. Only when we approach a reverance for life, all life, such that we leave the dichotomy out of it and deny death as a penalty will be begin to see that value of life retored.
No, I don’t really blame the jurors, laws being what they are. But I do agree with Rick that the same disrgard for life displayed by jurors who callously vote for death mimics the very madness shown by Wesson. The blame falls with all of us.
4 Mike // Jun 29, 2005 at 1:06 pm
I think we have to give jurors enough credit to say that they were relieved to be done, but there is such a thing as tact as well as respect for the power that a juror holds over someone’s life and livelihood. There is no doubt in my mind that regardless of each juror’s personal opinion of the case, they will all have a tough time clearing the thought of that story from their minds.
As far as Wesson getting death, if I remember correctly, there was no evidence that he directly shot the children in question, the death penalty seems like a stretch. It doesn’t change the question of indirect control over the murder weapon, and that in and of itself is enough to put someone away for life. The death penalty is a tough issue quite simply because although we can put the burden of the killing of the criminal in the hands of faceless person that we call “Society”, someone still is responsible for the actual killing – some person or group of people. Answering killing with more killing doesn’t even seem remotely Christian.
5 Brad Mills // Jun 29, 2005 at 3:18 pm
I believe in the death penalty BECAUSE I value life. The punishment should fit the crime. It’s not about the money for me, but about morality.
“I think people would be alive today if there were a death penalty” – Nancy Reagan.
By the way, nothing in the Bible prohibits capital punishment. The Old Testament certainly encouraged it, and the New Testament is silent on the subject.
6 Rick Horowitz // Jun 29, 2005 at 4:59 pm
I’m glad it’s not about money for you. It’s good to know that you agree with killing people no matter the financial or social cost. Full speed ahead — damn the torpedoes!
The Tanakh — oops! I forgot this is christian America; I meant, “the Old Testament” — does not “encourage” capital punishment. It is, however, very specific about the crimes for which the death penalty should be given. Some of those crimes were quite serious (murder, Exodus 21:12-24, Leviticus 24: 17,21).
But if, as many christians claim they believe, the Bible is the very word of God “himself,” then we might have a problem. Because I doubt that even you would agree that a woman should be put to death if she is not a virgin when she gets married. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21.) Similarly, when you hear your neighbor “blaspheme the name of the Lord” and you obey God’s word by stoning him to death, I don’t think society, the police, or the courts are going to let you continue to live free. (Leviticus 24:16.)
What do you say about adulterers? If you followed the Tanakh (oh, excuse me, I meant “the Old Testament”), America would quickly be de-populated. According to Leviticus 20:10, having sex with another man’s wife is a death penalty offense for both the wife and the man with whom she had sex.
This isn’t even to speak of what happens to people who collect firewood on the Sabbath. (Numbers 15:32-36 (KJV).)
As for the so-called New Testament, it is not, as you suggest, “silent” with respect to such things. In John 8:3-11, Jesus was specifically challenged regarding the death penalty. The Pharisees brought a woman caught in the act of adultery. They said to him, “You know what the law says. The law of Moses tells us that this woman must be put to death.” Jesus pretended not to hear them at first. But they pestered him about it: “The word of God says we have to kill this woman! So, what do you say?” And finally he said to them:
And that is just one example of what the Christian Bible teaches about the death penalty.
But if one were a real Christian — and this, in fact, is just one of many reasons why I’m not — one would understand a bigger reason why the death penalty is contrary to Christianity.
If one believed in the Christian message, then one would believe that while a person still lives, they have an opportunity to turn to God, and be redeemed. Once we kill them, that possibility is gone. If one believed in the Judeo-Christian concept of God, one would believe that “God is the Judge.” (Psalm 75:7 (KJV).) It is not your place to condemn someone to an eternity in Hell.
Of course, this only matters if one believes in Christianity.
But then,
And, after all, this is a christian nation.
[Note: The alternations between capital-C and lowercase-c in the word “christian” are not accidental. I use the lowercase to designate the majority religion in America: neo-Pharisaical christianity.]
7 Bob // Jun 29, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Interesting position. My position was offer “humanity” to everyone. I never said you had to make a choice.
Nowhere in my statement did I take a position on the death penalty. I expressed my empathy to the jurors for what they have been through. To have to be immersed in the horrid details day after day
and then come to decisions that have profound impact on another’s life must take an emotional toll.
And let’s keep one small detail in mind: none of the jurors volunteered for jury duty. None selected this case, OUR system of justice selected them.
I express empathy, sympathy and mercy for the jurors at what may have been their collectively toughest moment. They were soon to be freed from their duty but perhaps grieved by the decision they made. Perhaps the book definition of “bittersweet”?
It may not have been their finest hour in terms of behavior but my empathy extends to them especially in their failings. No one, except them, knows how many times they successfully struggled to keep composure, maintained a dispassionate distance from the case all while struggling with horrid detail.
Yup, call me any name you choose but I can state this: YOU are all fortunate that these citizens did the job YOU asked them to in OUR system of justice.
And just for the record, I also never stated if “justice” had been served. In my opinion, there is no “justice” from a jury, nor is there resolution or closure for those who lost their loved ones.
We simply protected ourselves. By serving “justice”, we have insured one way or another, that this man will be nowhere near us or our loved ones ever again.
Ironically, the prosecution acted as the defense for society.
8 Rick Horowitz // Jun 29, 2005 at 9:32 pm
And thank God for that, nu? Because God knows that defense attorneys don’t serve that function.
I am confused about one thing, though. Could you please point out where in my post I said one had to choose? I believe my words were that my reaction was different from yours. I believe I said that I found it offensive that people who had just voted to kill a man came back from that vote laughing and smiling. I don’t believe I said anything different from that.
I certainly don’t remember presenting it as a choice of one thing (or group, or person) over another.
9 Brad Mills // Jun 30, 2005 at 12:34 am
This could be the social cost of abolishing capital punishment: “In Britain, between abolition in, the murder rate more than doubled (to around 750 per annum) and is now around a 1000 a year in 2004. There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving “life sentences” in the period between 1965 and 1998, according to Home Office statistics. Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965 – 1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence”
Here is the social benefit American’s have gained by implementing capital punishment: “Interestingly the murder rate in the U. S. dropped from 24,562 in 1993 to 18,209 in 1997 the lowest for years (a 26% reduction) – during a period of increased use of the death penalty…Texas carries out far more executions than any other American state (between 1982 and 2000 it executed 254 men and 2 women) and there is now clear evidence of a deterrent effect. My friend Rob Gallagher (author of Before the Needles website) has done an analysis of the situation using official FBI homicide figures. Between 1980 and 2000 there were 41,783 murders in Texas. In 1980 alone, 2,392 people died by homicide, giving it a murder rate of 16.88 for every 100,000 of the population. (The US average murder rate in 1980 was 10.22, falling to 5.51 per 100,000 by the year 2000. Over the same period Texas had a population increase of 32%, up 6,681,991 from 14,169,829 to 20,851,820. There were only 1,238 murders in 2000 giving it a rate of 5.94, just slightly higher than the national rate which had dropped to 5.51/100,000. In the base year (1980) there was 1 murder for every 5,924 Texans. By the year 2000 this had fallen to 1 murder for every 16,843 people, or 35.2% of the 1980 value. If the 1980 murder rate had been allowed to maintain there would have been, by interpolation, a total of 61,751 murders. On this basis 19,968 people are not dead today who would have potentially been homicide victims, representing 78 lives saved for each one of the 256 executions. The overall US murder rate declined by 54% during the period. Therefore, to achieve a reasonable estimate of actual lives saved we must multiply 19,968 by 0.54, giving a more realistic figure of 10,783 lives saved or 42 lives per execution. Even if this estimate was off by a factor of 10, (which is highly unlikely), there would still be over 1,000 innocent lives saved or 4 lives per execution. One can see a drop in the number of murders in 1983, the year after Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in America.” (source)
It’s good to know that you value 1 murderer’s life over 1,000 innocent lives.
I’m sorry, you’re right, the Old Testament doesn’t encourage capital punishment, it COMMANDS it.
With regards to the woman caught in adultery look at the context. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus between the Roman law and the Mosaic law. If He said that they should stone her, He would break the Roman law. If He refused to allow them to stone her, He would break the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Jesus’ answer avoided the conflict: He said that he who was without sin should cast the first stone. Since He did teach that a stone be thrown (John 8:7), this is not an abolition of the death penalty.
Rom.13:4 “For he (governing authority) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”
Acts 25:11 “For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying…”
Both the Old and New Testaments affirm Capital Punishment according to these verses.
When a person is convicted of their sin, they are ready to receive Jesus as their savior…not a second before. Being sentenced to death can definitely bring about a repentant spirit. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer. Should he be forgiven of his sins? Absolutely! Should he be punished still? Absolutely! Convicting someone of the death penalty in no way removes the possibility for him/her to be saved.
I’m not condemning anyone to hell by agreeing with capital punishment. That would be a giant leap to assume so.
10 Rick Horowitz // Jun 30, 2005 at 8:16 am
Yes, the Tanakh (for those of you who continue to insist on being insulting, that’s “the Old Testament”) does command the death penalty. And, as I noted, it commands it for such things as marrying someone when you aren’t a virgin and for committing adultery.
So when do we start killing 90% of the United States population? You go first.
As for your attempt to explain away Jesus’ action, did you write that with a straight face? I mean, essentially what you’re saying is that Jesus copped out to avoid the appearance that he encouraged breaking Roman law. But I don’t think that was the lesson he was attempting to impart at all. And various other things he was purported to have said and done support my line of thinking, rather than yours.
As for your citation of John 8:7 for the idea that Jesus taught that a stone should be thrown, and thus endorsed the death penalty, I accept it. I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that we do exactly as John 8:7 says. So what was that again? Oh, yeah…
So, whichever of us is without sin should serve on juries that are “death-eligible.” And only those without sin may cast their vote for death.
Speaking of context, the incident with Paul and Festus that you quote (Acts 25:11) was handled under Roman law. It’s not clear from the fable as presented in our text, but it appears from this that Paul is indicating a willingness to acquiesce to Roman law. Furthermore, he’s clearly saying what a lot of people today, such as U.S. Marines, say about Iraq: “I’m not afraid to die for what I believe.” This is not an acquiescence to Iraqi insurgents’ rights to kill our Marines; it’s a statement of commitment on the part of the one making that stand.
Similarly, when you look at the context, reliance on Romans 13:4 is quite interesting. A fair reading of Romans 13:1 would have required those under Hitler to willingly and quietly go to the death chambers; Pol Pot wasn’t a bad guy, either, because “there is no authority except that which God has established.” This discussion can lead into an indictment of the Bible, which is outside the scope of this discussion, but it weakens any sane reliance upon that text for endorsement of the death penalty.
Lastly, I agree that you aren’t condemning anyone to hell by agreeing with capital punishment — but I agree for reasons most christians wouldn’t like: there is no such place. What I said before, though, was that if you believe in the message of Christianity, then you, in fact, are potentially condemning someone to hell by putting them to death before they’ve embraced your God.
That you set a timetable for them to do this doesn’t change that fact. “We’re going to condemn you to death. So you have a certain amount of time to repent and then we’re killing you. Better hurry and get it done now.”
No surprise to me, though, that you think it’s okay to give a little push in the form of a death threat. Someone’s not ready? Too bad. Off to hell he (or she) goes.
Just to make sure there’s no mistake: Whatever reservations I have about the death penalty are unrelated to the Bible. I’m not a Christian and, frankly, even if I could overlook the craziness and inconsistencies (some of which you yourself brought to light in this discussion) of the Bible, all it takes is watching those who claim to be Christians to convince me there’s nothing there that should command my allegiance.
My own beliefs about the death penalty are not yet fully thought out. One thing I do know, though, is that if we’re going to put someone to death, it should be for a very narrow range of crimes. As Peter Jones said in his closing argument — and I already mentioned this previously — Marcus Wesson does not appear to fit into the category of “the worst of the worst” for whom the death penalty might be appropriate. I agree, with a strong emphasis on “might.” Evidence presented in the trial does not show that Wesson committed the murders himself; the theory was that his teachings (brainwashing, really) of his family lead to these murders. He was held to be guilty for the acts of another because he supposedly overrode her free will through indoctrination. This may very well be a crime worthy of serious punishment, but I’m not sure myself that it warrants a death penalty.
Frankly, I think in Wesson’s case, a more serious penalty would have been life without possibility of parole. Given that the closing argument of the prosecution relied heavily upon Wesson’s “need to control everything and everyone around him,” I can’t imagine a worse punishment for such a man than being told everyday when he could eat, sleep, wake up, shower, etc.
But then, I believe once your life ends, your life ends. Period. So in my mind, while the fear of death might be punishment for some people, death itself is not.
In that sense, Wesson’s punishment, if any, extends only until his appeals run out.
And, frankly, I think that’s a good reason not to kill him right there.
As for the purported deterrent effect of the death penalty, studies done over numerous years have been presented to “prove” that deterrent effect. In fact, a look at the studies often reveals the opposite. As the Death Penalty Information Center notes,
This isn’t the first time that I’ve seen information showing that states without the death penalty have lower murder rates. (For more information, see also this other page at the DPIC.)
From what I can tell, no one really knows what connection, if any, there is between the death penalty and murders. However, many — if not most — murders occur “in the heat of the moment.” Either a robbery goes bad, or an emotionally-driven exchange like a lover’s quarrel, or a fight, results in a murder. You’ll often hear things like, “No one was supposed to get hurt,” or “I didn’t mean to kill him/her.”
As Americans prove daily, stupidity is not easily deterred because so much that happens happens either because someone didn’t think in the first place, or because “things went wrong.”
The death penalty has no impact in these situations. And therein lies one of my reasons for leaning in an anti-death-penalty direction.
There are others, but this response is too long already. Hopefully, I’ve at least given some folks (including, maybe, you) reasons to consider another point of view, rather than simply accepting your argument above.
11 Bob // Jun 30, 2005 at 11:23 am
For what’s its worth…
There is no clear cut direction for Christians in scripture as regards the death penalty but there are a few points to keep in mind.
1 – It is a common mistake to refer to the ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’ commandment as ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’. Big distinction there. If you look at church history, killing non believers was quite popular for a while.
Murdering, on the other hand, is not historically condoned by the church and still is not today.
2 – A very highly regarded thought in Christianity is that ALL life is precious to God. This is often the backbone of any arguement supporting life imprisonment versus the death penalty.
As the penduluum swings to the more Fundamental side of Christianity, this thought is generally less and less respected.
3- Civil judgement is not as crucial to a Christian as the eternal judgement the murderer faces. The Death Penalty is often considered a civil judgement by Christians. If there is a lack of passion about the Death Penalty from some corners of Christianity, this is often the reason.
On another topic…
This description of your opinion implies a certain disdain for the jurors because of their actions. It is not common to offer disdain and mercy at the same time. You Rick are obviously uncommon.
My bad.
12 Rick Horowitz // Jun 30, 2005 at 2:36 pm
It’s probably important to draw a distinction between “reasons based on Christianity” and “reasons not based on Christianity,” including “reasons not based on religion at all,” when discussing the Death Penalty.
The reason for this is that I, myself, don’t actually rely on “reasons based on Christianity” for my own views about the Death Penalty. I do, obviously, sometimes rely on “reasons based on Christianity” when discussing the Death Penalty with people who claim to believe in, or rely on, the Bible and teachings of Christianity, or when I think I’m talking to such people.
I do this because it appears obvious that the arguments based on Christianity and its Bible are inconsistent, if used to support the Death Penalty. I have been mislead into believing that if either Christians, or christians (e.g., “real” Christians versus the 99% of Americans who just play at being Christian) — if either of these folks are shown the inconsistency, they’ll revise their views. It often turns out, however, that this doesn’t happen; they simply deny that there is an inconsistency.
Now, I don’t think that Bob is being inconsistent. At least, so far I have not seen anything that clearly indicates to me that Bob is being inconsistent.
However, it surely seems inconsistent to me for someone — not Bob, but the people to whom he refers — to argue that because the Hebrew word for “killing” and “murder” are different, it would be okay to kill murderers.
And, as I argued above, it seems to me clearly inconsistent for a Christian — at least one following the teachings of Jesus — to think that it’s okay to kill someone because he has committed a capital offense, and thereby forever bar him from entering heaven. Again, this is (as I’ve repeatedly said) if one believes the doctrines espoused by Jesus.
If one does not believe what Jesus taught, then there’s no inconsistency. This might happen because one thinks “to hell with Jesus’ redemptive power and, furthermore, to hell with this sinner!” Or it might happen because one isn’t religious at all and therefore doesn’t think that killing a murderer before he has a chance to “get right with God” doesn’t doom him to hell; it just kills him.
So far, in this discussion, I’ve seen a boatload of inconsistencies when religious arguments are put forth for killing murderers. For one thing, if we truly are going to base our decisions about killing people on the teachings of, say, the Tanakh, then it’s inconsistent to refuse to kill people who aren’t virgins when they marry, or adulterers. I mean think about it. Here’s your argument:
1. The Bible says if a man murders another, he should be put to death.
2. Wesson was convicted for murder, so it’s biblically-okay to put him to death.
But then what do we do about the rest of what the Bible says about death penalties?
1. The Bible says that if a woman is not a virgin when she is married, she should be put to death.
and
1. The Bible says that if a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the adulterers should be put to death.
Yet I don’t know a single Christian who would support killing women for not being virgins when they married, or who would support killing people for committing adultery.
In my mind, this isn’t just inconsistent. It significantly weakens the idea that we should kill people like Wesson “because the Bible says so.”
The reason the fundamentalist swing of the pendulum results in a greater desire for the death penalty is, frankly, because the fundamentalist swing of the pendulum is not Christian; it’s neo-Pharisaic. At best, it’s some kind of twisted Calvinism. Frankly, if I were inclined to believe in such things, I’d say it’s satanic.
As far as not taking the Death Penalty seriously because it’s a “civil” judgment, rather than an “eternal” judgment, I’m not sure that makes sense. I sort of get what you’re saying, but what I’ve tried to point out is that it is a judgment that — again, only for those who believe what Jesus taught — leads almost inexorably to an eternal judgment. If I were a Christian, I’d think I’d want to allow the murderer to live as long as possible, to enhance the opportunity for that murderer to embrace Jesus. Because, as you said, all life is precious to God. So far as I read the Christian Bible, Jesus sought out sinners and never said, “Sorry, but you’re a really bad sinner. I’m not going to save you!”
The only justification for denying this is that if you feel you can make the decision to deny them an opportunity to know Jesus. But, unless I totally misunderstand the Christian Bible (and I don’t think I do), that’s not up to mortals to decide. Jesus, theoretically, died for the sins of the murderer as well as for any other sinner.
In one sense, there is no difference between Marcus Wesson and an ordinary Christian. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23 (NIV).) If this is true, all who sin are condemned without Jesus — and there is no distinction between a minor sin versus a major sin. If this is true, eternal life is a gift from God and should not be taken away by anyone other than God.
Christianity would gain more respect — not just from me, but I’m certain from the rest of the world — if Christians remembered that they are the light of the world and not the judges, juries and executioners of the world. Matthew 5:14-16 suggests that Christians allow their light to shine before men “that they may see your good deeds.” That light doesn’t come from the end of a rifle barrel, or from the glow of an electric chair. It doesn’t come from the way you force others to live their lives, but from the way you live yours.
One other thing I’d like to clear up, by the way: it’s my recollection that only two jurors came into the courtroom laughing. Some others were smiling. Only one waved to somebody in the gallery. My reference to “gleeful executioners” was not intended to cover the entire jury, but only those I saw laughing.
13 Brad Mills // Jun 30, 2005 at 5:08 pm
I think somehow you have the impression that I believe in the death penalty “because the Bible says so.” If you remember my original comment you will be reminded of why I agree with the death penalty. I explicitly stated that the Bible is “silent” on the issue to imply that it is not black and white. I believe there are committed Christians on both sides of the issue. My complaint with your comments was how you tried to show that Jesus opposed the death penalty. Of course, if that were true, I would no longer agree with the death penalty. But I am not convinced by your arguments that is the case.
As a Christian, I value all life because God has created all life. As I stated before. The death penalty is a practice of which I believe upholds the value of life to a greater degree, being that innocent lives are spared.
So I guess being a Christian means I can have no opinion of the death penalty, because I would be choosing their eternity. I can never classify sin as sin, because that would be “judging”. Therefore, I could never inform someone of their need to repent and believe. I could never present the Bible’s plan of salvation, because that would imply that they have reason to be saved.
Basically, being a Christian means I need to keep my mouth shut and hope that people somehow stumble upon the message of the gospel. For that I could earn your respect, at the cost of dishonoring God. Sorry if I conclude that the cost is too great.
14 Rick Horowitz // Jun 30, 2005 at 5:53 pm
There’s a world of difference between keeping one’s mouth shut — as you say I’m advocating that you must do — and advocating the killing of a person.
It would appear that we’ve reached an impasse in our discussion. If you seriously believe that Jesus’ refusal to allow the enforcement of a death penalty which was prescribed by Jewish law does not indicate his opinion regarding that death penalty, then I’m afraid there’s nothing I can say to convince you. Jesus’ statement that “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to [enforce the death penalty]” (John 8:7 (NIV)) can hardly constitute “silence” with respect to the death penalty. As I said above,
I’m afraid all I can do is reiterate what I said before — and you have already decided that there is no inconsistency there:
Moreover, that last point brings up something even more interesting, that I neglected to mention before. Apparently, some christians (you being one of them) don’t mind killing innocent people. It is undoubted that some people on death row in various states have been proven to be actually innocent of the crimes, even though they were convicted and given death sentences. In one state, this happened often enough that the Republican governor suspended the death penalty; he put a moratorium on carrying out the sentences.
But that shouldn’t really be a problem for you, right? After all, “christians aren’t perfect; just forgiven.”
Leave a Comment