Gen. 4:22
Properly Enforcing the Death Penalty
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Killing people who should not die and keeping alive people who should not live both are profane to God.
And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?” - Ezekiel 13:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel13:19&version=NKJV
It's not possible to devise a system capable of fully eliminating doing one or the other, so we should strive to do either as little as possible, and a proper justice system should be designed as such.
We (as humans) don't have the proper authority to take an innocent life in the interest of not letting the guilty go free, just as we do not have the authority to let the guilty go free in the interest of protecting the innocent.
The only one who can do so justly is God. He did not delegate that authority to anyone.
God determined that two or three witnesses (two or three, meaning that we should weigh the evidence presented, and not just take it at face value (because that would indeed result in innocent people being killed and the guilty being let free), and witnesses means testimony, not just from humans, but from items, locations, reason, etc.) is enough to establish a matter. We don't have the capability of determining if a judgement had the possibility of some good coming from it. We are simply expected to follow God (not blindly, of course), and His commands.
That means, we put the convicted to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses, and we set free the person judged to be innocent on the basis of two or three witnesses. Any more than that is stepping outside the bounds of what we as humans are capable of, in that we're trying to make calculations that we are incapable of making, simply because we aren't capable of looking at a situation and instantly knowing exactly all the details pertaining to it, as God is capable of (i.e., His "omniscience" in the open theist sense), nor are we able to truly know the hearts of men (except on a surface level), as God is capable of.
If the evidence (two or three witnesses) says a man is innocent, we let him go.
If the evidence (two or three witnesses) says a man is guilty, we punish him swiftly and painfully.
God does not tell us to go beyond those boundaries, because He tells us "by two or three witnesses a matter is established."
If a mistake is made (the likelihood of doing so goes up as the amount of crime increases), then the judge who made the mistake should be held responsible.
The only way to rectify letting a murderer go free is to punish the murderer for his crimes. God will handle the rest, for "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
The point is that we don't have to choose between the risk of executing an innocent man or risking a murderer set loose, because God makes it clear that doing either is wrong, and he has given a way for fallible humans to make a judgement, basing it on the evidence we can obtain, to determine guilt.
The reason a system like this works, even if an innocent person is wrongly executed, is the deterrent effect from the execution. If the real murderer in a case avoids being caught, and someone else is punished in his place, he will either murder again, because he thinks he can get away with it, in which case the likelihood of him getting caught goes up, and when he is, he will face justice here on this earth, and his punishment will deter other criminals, OR he will never murder again, in order to avoid being caught for his crime, and he will face God on judgement day unless he repents. In other words, he has been deterred from committing the same crime again, which is the entire point of having the death penalty in the first place
It ALSO has the effect of deterring the innocent from putting themselves in a position that would undermine their innocence. (For example, if the innocent person witnessed a murder in a back alley, and then when the murderer tosses the murder weapon and runs, they go pick up the murder weapon and stand over the victim with it and are found in that position.) In addition, it promotes reporting suspicious activity, with the law against bearing false witness, and the punishment for the false accuser being whatever punishment is at stake for the accused, deterring frivolous reports.
Stripe did not claim to be an expert on right and wrong. However, to be an expert on right and wrong is quite simple. All you need to do is know and understand the Bible. God is the source of all truth and all goodness and anything that goes against God is evil. And that's the end of that story
Now, having said that, I think the issue here is more of a matter of guilt or innocence of a crime, not arguing whether or not a crime is actually a crime.
In my previous post I was stating that a person's guilt must be as proven as it can be before we take a life.
But, as for knowing what is right and wrong, or in other words knowing what is good and evil, or in other words knowing what is sin and not sin, is where faith in God comes in. In that area, you fall very short of the mark because, as has been proven in other threads, you embrace evil and you vote for evil and then you deny even doing it
Agreed. Absolute, indisputable evidence should be required for any penalty to be enforced.
Of course murder has been deterred. Dead murderers can never murder again. Prisons should be utilized for individuals who are capable of rehabilitation. Though I would extend the DP to child molesters and rapists as well.
Well that would be one less murderer cluttering up the prisons.
Your standard is too high, and would result in too many criminals being set free, because all they need to do is provide enough evidence that brings other evidence that they committed a crime into question.
God does not require "absolute, indisputable evidence."
His standard across the board is "two or three witnesses.":
Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. - Deuteronomy 17:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6&version=NKJV
“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. - Deuteronomy 19:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15&version=NKJV
But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ - Matthew 18:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew18:16&version=NKJV
This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” - 2 Corinthians 13:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians13:1&version=NKJV
Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. - 1 Timothy 5:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy5:19&version=NKJV
Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. - Hebrews 10:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews10:28&version=NKJV
Rehabilitation of criminals has been shown extensively to not work.
No, prisons, or rather, suspects should be locked up only until they face a judge, evidence is presented, and the judge passes judgement.
The only punishments to be given to any convicted criminal should be restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty. Anything else is unjust, or worse, inhumane.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Just as well because he isn't.
I contend that a person's guilt must be proven absolutely else you risk executing an innocent person. Do you agree with that?
Your latter is predictable and can be discarded each and every time you spew it forth. You are not the arbiter of good/evil and your grasp of politics is laughably simple and frankly, embarrassing.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's no way better to risk executing an innocent man than it is to let a guilty one go free. There's the obvious explained to you in basic terms.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Pretty easy to explain away dumb and ignorant soundbites. I'm no doubt what you consider a "liberal" and I detest needles rules and regulations that don't do anything in themselves at all. Not a fan of bureaucracy/red tape whatsoever. There have to be rules/safeguards in place absolutely but not some endless stream as you daftly contend...
But you won't explain why.
You just declare and expect that your opinion be accepted blindly.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It should be obvious. If you're willing to execute someone without absolute proof of guilt then you risk killing a person who isn't culpable of the crime they're suspected of which is the shedding of innocent blood. Is it correct that this is something that God abhors? Likewise, letting a potentially guilty person go free who then goes on to commit murder or some execrable crime is just as abhorrent. Not as black and white as you might like it to be.
Then it shouldn't take much to explain.
And what would that be?
Is it attainable?
In what scenario would it be unattainable?
Is this your idea of "obvious"?
It's confusing why you would believe that this is a serious challenge to what I said. The idea that executions should be carried out on what you might consider to be less than "absolute proof" did not originate with me. God was explicit: "Execute without mercy" on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Yes, He also said it is bad to kill innocent people.
If you can't figure out how those two concepts can be rationalized, perhaps you shouldn't be appealing to scripture in an attempt to ridicule my posts.
No. It's worse. Even without the second murder.
Nothing good can ever come from letting a guilty man escape justice.
To explore the nuances of a justice system would require you to first understand what it is you are opposing.
You don't want to understand. You're determined to disagree at any cost.
Last edited:
If there is anything that Democrats have proven over the last few decades, it is that they will deny facts and truths. Therefore your requirement of absolute indisputable evidence can never be achieved because there will always be liars out there who dispute the truth.
It is a fact that almost all prisoners are not capable of rehabilitation. The vast majority of prisoners are repeat offenders. Drug addicts are addicts and they usually remain addicts. Criminals who have the criminal mind and criminal heart rarely rehabilitate themselves. So, where do you suggest those people go to?
Oh man, I can't believe that question came from you. You are the person who denies the most basic facts. In your world there is no such thing as a thing being proven absolutely, because in this forum you have proven that you will still deny things that have been proven. So , basically you are suggesting a requirement that you yourself have demonstrated is unattainable. If I was a prosecutor, and you were the jury, and Hitler was a Democrat, you let Hitler go free and find a reason to blame everything on the Jews.
I agree with what I said earlier. Post jury safeguards should be put in place to double check for any mistakes. Those safeguards should be reasonable so that Justice can still be carried out within a reasonable amount of time.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If a person isn't guilty of a crime and is wrongfully executed then that is the shedding of innocent blood which is abhorrent. If you consider life to be precious then it should be abhorrent to you without need of explanation.
What do you mean, "What would it be"?! Pretty self explanatory Stripe. Evidence that confirms guilt with no room for doubt and yes it can be attainable. There have been cases where it's happened ya know...
So, you think directions applied to bronze age tribes should have bearing in the present? The Bible does encourage to judge with discernment doesn't it? What did tribes of the time have but the testimony of a few witnesses? They certainly had nothing like the means we have nowadays at their disposal such as DNA/forensics/security footage etc. Is it your contention that God wouldn't want us to utilize advancements that are far more effective and reliable at determining guilt/innocence?
Nothing good comes of putting an innocent person to death. It's abhorrent.
I'm well aware of what I'm opposing thanks and don't pretend that you understand how a justice system works given your forays on the subject in the past...
I disagree for reasons outlined
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You mean basic facts like Trump losing the 2020 election? You ought to be ashamed and embarrassed at yourself for the risible rubbish with Hitler but I doubt they're in your remit.
Now you're implying that I said executing an innocent man is a good thing.
As is typical, you are adding nothing but confusion to the discussion.
Give us an example of "absolute proof."
Give us an example of when it could not be attained.
Gen 4:22.
You have no respect for scripture and no credibility when you appeal to your cartoon idea of it.
Please explain how modern lines of evidence could be presented without a witness.
You've been part of these conversations for a decade and still refuse to acknowledge even basic points that the other side believes.
Jesus was executed.
Nope. You refuse to acknowledge even the simplist things that the other side believes. When we say "witness," you hear "eyewitness," even though the distinction has been pointed out to you many times.
When we say good can arise from executing an innocent man, you insist on the opposite, even though the example of Jesus has been put forward before.
You refuse to even acknowledge ideas from the other side.
A justice system works primarily by deterrence.
By what means do you think justice works?
Your reasons are always idiotic.
Last edited:
We agree.
Give an example.
What about when "absolute, indisputable evidence" is not obtainable? Can a conviction still be made without it?
CONSIDER:
A woman is taking a stroll through a forest alone. A man assaults her, rapes her, and then leaves her for dead. She never got a clear look at his face, and he wore a condom. She's discovered barely alive by someone else within a short period of time. She files a police report, and an investigation is done, but because she lacks "absolute, indisputable evidence," her case is eventually dropped, and the man is never found, and he eventually rapes more women.
ALTERNATIVELY:
A woman is taking a stroll through a forest alone. A man assaults her, rapes her, and then leaves her for dead. She never got a clear look at his face, and he wore a condom. She's discovered barely alive by someone else within a short period of time. She files a police report, and an investigation is done. Thankfully, with a standard of "two or three witnesses," there's just enough evidence to find the rapist, arrest him, and convict him, and the judge sentences him to an immediate execution.
Arthur, your standard is too high, and would result in more innocent people to be harmed or killed, and fewer criminals being caught and punished.
Scripture is given by God for doctrine, reproof, and correction. Why do you disagree with scripture simply because of when it was written?
But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ - Matthew 18:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew18:16&version=NKJV
Even Jesus affirmed the standard of "two or three witnesses." He did not require "absolute, indisputable evidence."
Moral standards don't change over time, Arty, that's how we know they're objective.
It does. That's WHY God said, "two OR three witnesses."
It's BECAUSE He expects the judges to judge with discernment. In other words: Some cases will require only two witnesses. Other cases will require three. No case can be decided on the testimony of only one witness.
Take my example above, but instead of it being in modern times, consider the same situation in ancient times.
The woman is out collecting herbs or berries, and she's assaulted by a man whose face she doesn't get a clear look at. In her struggle with him, she manages to scratch his face, and even manages to tear a piece of his robe off, which she clings to. She goes to a judge, and tells him that she was assaulted, and presents the torn piece of robe as a second witness. But she coud have just torn her own robe up and be making a false accusation, the judge points out. She responds by telling him that she scratched her attacker's face badly, and shows the blood under her fingernails to the judge, a third witness. The judge commands that any men with even somewhat fresh scratches be brought before him. A few men are brought before him and the woman all with scratches on their face, all of them deny raping the woman, but one of the men's faces looks like it was scratched by a human hand, the corollary to the third witness, so the judge demands him to bring all of his robes for inspection, and for his home to be searched. A torn robe is found, and the piece of robe that the woman tore off is matched to it, the fourth witness.
And yet, as demonstrated above, "two or three witnesses" is a perfect standard, because it still works with or without modern technology.
You're missing the point of contention, or worse, moving the goalposts.
No one is arguing that we shouldn't use modern evidence gathering techniques, nor is that what we've been discussing.
In fact, Christians (at least, those who were close to Bob Enyart) have been advocating for a nation-wide DNA database, so that matching crimes to criminals becomes much easier, and could be used as one more witness against them, a secondary deterrent.
Regardless, that's a totally different matter than whether "two or three witnesses" is a valid standard for a judgement to be made regarding a crime.
I am onboard with this — unlike Brain, who refuses to acknowledge your points — but I think you and I have a semantic impasse.
For example, you say: "We (as humans) don't have the proper authority to take an innocent life in the interest of not letting the guilty go free, just as we do not have the authority to let the guilty go free in the interest of protecting the innocent."
I agree, but this is a description that would be more appropriate in outlining the law, not how a justice system should work. The distinction between lawmaking and execution of justice is among the many nuances that should be the focus of this thread.
This isn't a "black and white" issue as some with no credibility accuse.
For example, God's admonition to execute "without mercy" is more directly applicable in a discussion over how enforcement should work than the commandment "do not murder."
I think my approach is more in line with the way the law discusses the subject of capital punishment. God demanded an answer in every case, including by measuring distances to the nearest city to determine jurisdiction. He did not focus on the possibility of guilt being established by mistake. What would be the point?
He put the emphasis on determining guilt and carrying out sentences, not worrying about the consequences of the inevitable errors that would arise.
I think that our approach should mirror that.
So when I say that letting the guilty man go is worse than killing the innocent man, it should carry with it the implication that all seriousness and rigor must go into judgement in such cases.
It also has entertainment value in how much it makes liberals squeal.
Right Divider
Body part
In our current world, that would be a horrible idea. The misuse would be terrible.
DNA can get in many places for many reasons. DNA is not the perfect "witness".
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Here's a recent one from over here. Granted, the guy admitted to the heinous crimes but given the evidence against him he didn't really have much choice. A sickening case to be sure:
Met Police officer David Carrick admits to being serial rapist
David Carrick admits 49 offences against 12 women, including multiple rapes, over two decades.
www.bbc.co.uk
Your scenario - one you've trotted out before I believe - is weak. What "just enough evidence" are you talking about that satisfies a secure conviction or at least enough to detain a suspect? Be specific.
No, it isn't too high, it should be the yardstick before putting a person to death. Your argument fails as I'm in no way arguing that those suspected of committing such crimes should be let back into society, in fact guidelines in regards to parole and probation should be tightened up as there's too many times where that happens. It's not one or the other here JR. Requiring absolute proof before executing someone doesn't equate to a laxity where other people are put in harms way.
Again, with the Bible, use some discernment as it encourages. Tribes in the bronze age had no choice but to rely on the testimony of a few witnesses so there were hardly going to be passages describing all of the means that modern societies have in the present - ones that are far more reliable in determining the likelihood of guilt/innocence. There'd have been plenty of times where innocent people would have lost their lives for want of reliable proof so the logical thing to do is take advantage of those means at our disposal now. Your scenarios simply don't work in this regard. With the science and technology we have today we can determine through DNA and forensics etc whether a suspect is indeed at the scene and the most likely culprit. There's no excuse for not doing so when people's lives and livelihoods are at stake.