Yes, there are consequences he should face, but consequences and punishment, especially capital punishment, are not necessarily the same thing.
Capital punishment is an unjust consequence as I've mentioned. Punishment is what we all feel should happen to a guy like that. It's natural and human. But natural and human doesn't make it righteous or just. Since some else has already borne all punishment for what this guy did, we must look somewhere other than "punishment" for just and moral purposes behind the consequences and responses for his heinous acts.
Restraint (incarceration) for the protection of society is a valid purpose and response. Society should be kept safe from dangerous criminals. That is a top priority of government. "Punishment" misses the mark because the only standard is whether he's "paid his debt to society" whatever that means. So, as we see today, the priority of parole policy focuses not on safety to society but on "doing his time."
What about restitution to the victims and families of the victims? Well, you can't undo a heinous act against someone else, especially a child. The answer and healing for the victims is never vengeance, it is only found in forgiveness. Studies and actual history has shown beyond much doubt, that vengeance feels good for awhile, but don't heal the pain. The only thing shown to truly heal victims so they can move on with their lives is forgiveness. So the state isn't doing the victims any favors by killing the perp for "just" revenge.
However, what about the perp? I think there should be some sort of restitution depending on the crime that may include monetary and possibly personal service-type restitution. "Punishment" misses the mark here too because in our current set-up, the actual victim isn't not even a party in the case and is generally ignored for anything except for evidence. It's "the state" vs. whoever and again, the only standard is whether he's "paid his debt to society" (the government), not to the victims. If the victims want compensation, they have to spend their own money and time to retry the whole thing in civil court. I believe this could and should be changed.
Prison should be a pay-as-you-go deal. The whole sentencing paradigm and prison system need to be brought out of the dark ages and into the light of today. Prisoners should be productive and prison should be a productive place where prisoners not only pay their way but reasonably repay what they've taken from their victims. Again, this is not on the "punishment" agenda which is why the purpose and use of prisons are still in the dark ages in many ways.
Voluntary, solid, and verifiable rehabilitation programs should be available also. Not on the "punishment" radar screen at all.
Again, "punishment" is first and foremost unjust and immoral because it is a form of double jeopardy. And when you kick the tires, you also see how much "punishment" falls short of effective, meaningful purposes for consequences.
Sorry--can't agree.
Capital punishment should be reserved for those who maliciously and with intent take someone's life. That life was not his to take, so his is now forfeit. It is punishment, and has nothing to do with rehabilitation or lack thereof. It has nothing to do with whether the person is a threat to society or not.
Taking the life of another is the most egregious act, and must be met with the most egregious punishment.
Too many paragraphs. My eyes glazed over at the third.
The death penalty is a consequence for the crime of murder in the first degree (premeditated). Whether you call it a “penalty” or “punishment” is irrelevant. It’s not revenge, it’s not vengeance, it’s the logical consequence for the crime of premeditated murder.
The death penalty does not replace the victim to their family or loved ones, but it is the just consequence for intentionally taking the life of another person. There is no restitution possible to the victim because that victim is dead. That’s why the law in the Old Testament called for the death penalty in cases of first degree murder.
Jesus’s death on the cross paid the penalty of our sin toward God, but that has nothing to do with the consequences of the crimes we’ve committed against other human beings.
Whether forgiveness is given by the victim’s family is up to that family. I agree that “letting go” of one’s anger toward the murderer can be therapeutic, but that has nothing to do with the penalty or consequence of the crime.
I also agree that restitution should be the primary way of dealing with those who have robbed or stolen from their victims, but in the case of first degree murder, that is not possible.
Even God’s forgiveness of our personal sin does not always remove the consequences we face as a result of those sins. Our soul is saved for God, but the earthly life may still have to live with the consequences of our actions.
The death penalty is the only just way of dealing with the premeditated taking of an innocent person’s life.
“Forgiveness” does not take away the consequences - that’s why Jesus had to die to take away the guilt of our sin - it was the only just way to remove the guilt of our sins.
“Forgiveness” between two parties cannot be fully realized if the guilty party does not ask for forgiveness. Even with God we have to admit our guilt and ask His forgiveness. In the case of murder, family members may be willing to “forgive” an unrepentant murderer by “letting go” of their hurt and anger toward that person, but forgiveness is not possible between the murderer and his/her victim.
The role of government, as given by God (and explained by Paul) is to provide law and order. Part of that role is to mete out justice. And, that includes the death penalty, which Paul implies when he says in Romans 13 “For he (government 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.”
Not executing a murderer diminishes the value of the life of the victim. It elevates the life of the murderer above that of his victim. Again, God can forgive murder, but the consequence in this life remains.
What did God say?
“But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Note this is in the judicial sense. On a personal level, we need to forgive - but society cannot forgive the lawbreaker:
“But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
Capital punishment is an unjust consequence...
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
A life for a life is the epitome of justice.
For justice to be done, a harm perpetrated upon someone necessitates equal repayment by the perpetrator to the victim, plus whatever further loss was incurred by being denied use of the original loss.
In property crime, such as thievery or arson, that repayment is easily calculated since the property usually has a monetary value.
In corporal crime, it’s a bit tougher, since our bodies are not generally assigned a monetary value. So the only repayment that really can be considered justice is corporal punishment in equal measure to the crime.
Only in the last 200 years or so have we (Western civilization) decided that this is barbaric. So we have taken to imprisonment (or loss of freedom) as a repayment.
Only in the last 100 years, we’ve lost complete touch with why we’re doing what we’re doing, and decided that imprisonment is supposed to be for rehabilitation and not punishment.
So congratulations for falling into this trap of week-kneed progressives, and attributing your “enlightenment” to you thinking like Jesus, who didn’t save the lives of the thieves next to Him on Calvary, nor saved the lives of countless others who were executed during His life.
Papa, There is an element of the justice system that is left out of your note. It happens to be the most important element of it.
DETERRENCE
From a societal perspective, the justice system should be fair to all and the expectations and consequences should be crystal clear. The death penalty is NOT punishment. From the beginning of history it has been a deterrent. It is why for most of history it has been so public and gruesome. From crucifixion to public hangings and beheadings, it was so that all citizenry could see what would happen to offenders. It is only recently that we found some faked morality associated with it. Now we try to hide it and it is not the deterrent it should be. For this reason, I don’t support it either.
But I am certainly pro capital punishment, as was Jesus. In my Catholic Faith, while our leadership is mostly inept and confused, our mission is to save souls first and lives later. We screw this up regularly. Jesus noted that anyone who commits a sin against a child should have a millstone cast around their neck and be thrown into the deepest see. He also never spoke against justified killing, only the judgement of others and the need for forgiveness and repentance. In fact, the original dialect and ancient Aramaic language of the Hebrews suggests that the ten commandments are often mist translated. Thou Shall not Kill is better translated into Thou Shall not Murder (unjust killing).
If we as a society are going to use the death penalty, it should be relatively swift, public and consistent. For it does nothing to “punish” the perp. Punishment causes one to feel regret and change their ways. “Paying a debt” is a feel good fallacy. If not the death penalty, we, at a minimum, owe it to society to keep evil away from society as best we can when a proven behavior is identified. Minister to the evil while it is en some sort of exile or dispatch of it. But reform is a sensitive thing as well.