Lethal Injection Is Pretty Much the Worst Way to Execute People. So Why Do We Use It?

New York Magazine ^ | 05/06/2014 | Benjamin Wallace-Wells

[thackney]

Genesis 9:6

Romans 13:4

Exodus 21:17

Leviticus 20:14

Exodus 21:16

Exodus 21:15

Leviticus 20:27

Exodus 22:18

Leviticus 21:9

Hebrews 10:28-31

Zechariah 5:3

Leviticus 20:2

Ecclesiastes 8:11-13

Proverbs 29:1

Proverbs 21:11

Proverbs 20:26-30

Proverbs 19:25-29

Matthew 5:17

[Tenacious 1]

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.

[PapaNew]

Well, Paul's instruction is not to civil authorities but to those under civil authorities, ie. don't mess with 'em, like, if you rob a bank and the cops say "Stop", then stop or they may shoot you. It's a warning to civilians, not an instruction to civil authorities to kill evildoers, although it is in their power to do so. But if a civilian doesn't yield to authority, there's a good chance he'll end up like Bonnie and Clyde and civil authorities have a right to use deadly force if necessary in their enforcement of their (legitimate) authority.

But I'm not talking about civil authorities right to use deadly force. I'm talking about just and unjust reasons for judgments and sentencing of consequences upon wrongdoers. Punishment, especially CP, is an unjust reason for sentencing consequences. Truth holds together very well. Falsity falls apart if its own accord. An important piece of evidence that CP is wrong is, after 6000 years, they still can't figure out a way to "humanely" execute CP. That right there should tell you something. Again, the reason it is unjust is NOT becasue they still can't figure out how to do it right. But it is evidence that there's no right way to do the wrong thing.

I know most have never heard this stuff before. It's novel. It's different. We're used to the way things are. People generally don't like to be shaken from the status quo. I hope I've given at least some pause to think and reconsider long-held assumptions that IMO, need a "paradigm shift."

[PapaNew]

Since one had not taken punishment for another's wrongdoing in the OT, I'll stick to the NT. In Romans 13, Paul's instruction is not to civil authorities but to those under civil authorities, ie. don't mess with 'em, like, if you rob a bank and the cops say "Stop", then stop or they may shoot you. It's a warning to civilians, not an instruction to civil authorities to kill evildoers, although it is in their power to do so. But if a civilian doesn't yield to authority, there's a good chance he'll end up like Bonnie and Clyde and civil authorities have a right to use deadly force if necessary in their enforcement of their (legitimate) authority.

But I'm not talking about civil authorities right to use deadly force. I'm talking about just and unjust reasons for judgments and sentencing of consequences upon wrongdoers. Punishment, especially CP, is an unjust reason for sentencing consequences. Truth holds together very well. Falsity falls apart if its own accord. An important piece of evidence that CP is wrong is, after 6000 years, they still can't figure out a way to "humanely" execute CP. That right there should tell you something. Again, the reason it is unjust is NOT becasue they still can't figure out how to do it right. But it is evidence that there's no right way to do the wrong thing.

I know most have never heard this stuff before. It's novel. It's different. We're used to the way things are. People generally don't like to be shaken from the status quo. I hope I've given at least some pause to think and reconsider long-held assumptions that IMO, need a "paradigm shift."

[PapaNew]

Deterrence is implied in all that I propose.

pro capital punishment, as was Jesus

If Jesus was for CP, why when given the opportunity to execute CP, did he instead say, "I don't condemn you" and rather sent the capital criminal's accusers away ashamed?

[thackney]

Since one had not taken punishment for another's wrongdoing in the OT, I'll stick to the NT

Good idea. Christ said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-20

[thackney]

Punishment, especially CP, is an unjust reason for sentencing consequences.

And that is a damaging belief. Punishment of all types is a deterrent and protects society.

[PapaNew]

Yes, at the root of all of this is a basic understanding that since the cross, we are no longer under the law, but we are under grace (Rom 6:14) because Jesus has fulfilled the law and we are now under the New Covenant in which God declares he does not remember your sins and iniquities (Heb. 8:12). That is the life-changing gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ. It changes everything and gradually moves a legalistic, judgment-based person like what I used to be, to a grace-based person.

Enlightening and joyous. Try it. You'll like it.

[avenir]

Perhaps it is “novel” and “different” because it simply does not jibe with God’s revealed word IN TOTO (sans cherry picking)?

The Father instituted capital punishment under Moses. Do you find stoning inappropriate for the sexually immoral? He didn’t. I shudder at the gruesome nature of such an event, but will not for a moment malign His wisdom in commanding it!

The exquisitely cruel punishments of the Middle Ages went beyond Scripture and were, I believe, energized by Satan. God our Father is not like that.

Today, we bend over backwards so as not to wrongly convict someone of a capital crime. Miscarriages of justice have and do occur, but that’s life in a fallen world. America is the best place to be if you’re accused of murder when the death penalty may result. The many years it takes to finally remove a murderer from our midst are a testament to our extreme fairness.

“Life becomes cheaper when the cost for taking it does”—Ernest van den Haag

The above quote says it well. We execute murderers to graphically demonstrate our respect for life. Those who wantonly take it will forfeit theirs. Kant believed we treated murderers with dignity by executing them! As a responsible human being you did this wicked thing and we treat you AS a man before God (not some unthinking animal).

We don’t sway on such topics. The die is cast. Just a few of my thoughts. Take care!

[thackney]

we are under grace

For our salvation, if we accept that we need grace and cannot earn it.

You keep trying to equate sin to crime. They are not the same. There is no biblical basis for your claim.

[Tenacious 1]

If Jesus was for CP, why when given the opportunity to execute CP, did he instead say, "I don't condemn you" and rather sent the capital criminal's accusers away ashamed?

I assume you speak of Jesus invitation for a sinner to cast the first stone against the prostitute. Jesus' action and behavior had nothing to do with CP. He was challenged to accept the laws of the state and participate in the execution. His response was, let he has not sinned cast the first stone. Out of compassion he saved a person and a soul. He used the occasion to teach of forgiveness for sins. He also told her to repent and change her ways. In this way we are all called to be compassionate as well. Jesus was constantly being tested and trapped into speaking against government and laws. He also said Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's (taxes). Render unto God what is God's. He was always careful to avoid pitfalls that would make him an enemy of the state (Roman law). The high priests finally had to convince the Romans that Jesus was a threat to them and only after Jesus made such a show in Jerusalem during the Passover celebration/festivities. That ultimately god him crucified.

Jesus was an activist and a leader. But he always seemed careful to avoid confrontation with government leaders. The objects of his ridicule were the hypocritical religious leaders that assumed God's judgement on the peasants based on social stature, appearances, wealth, race, etc.

[PapaNew]

we are under grace For our salvation, if we accept that we need grace and cannot earn it.

The gospel of grace is how we are to live (Colossians 2:6).

equate sin to crime

Already been over that. Starting to go in circles here.

I thought early on you said something that made me feel like you were at least listening. Anyway, I hope so. What I'm saying is worth consideration maybe not to agree immediately (I don't expect that - this is new stuff for many) but also without immediate knee-jerk reaction. Give it a little time. Might grow on you.

[thackney]

equate sin to crime

Already been over that.

- - -

I do not see any way to get past that. Your ideas seem to start from two basic premises that I find incomprehensible.

You want to treat crime and sin as equals and they are not.

You think punishment is wrong and it is not.

Continuing discussions to past those points without resolving is convoluted at best, waste of time at worst.

- - - - - - - -

I thought early on you said something that made me feel like you were at least listening.

- - -

I am trying. I have no problem with my beliefs challenged based upon that found in the Bible. I could be wrong. I could be right and still learn something. I could teach someone else about what is found in the bible.

[thackney]

I hope this does not sound insulting. I am trying to explain my perspective in the conversation.

I find little difference from what I think you are trying to tell me than saying Blue is Green.

When I question that, you say because God loves you and wants you to love others. I get that, but that does not make Blue into Green.

You haven’t made your connection. Either I cannot grasp it, or you have not expressed it. Blue is not Green. Talking about salvation and love is not bringing me anywhere close to what you want me to see.

[PapaNew]

equate sin to crime

Not the equal or not interchangeable doesn't mean that they don't overlap. Probably every named crime is also a sin, however, not every sin is a crime. Here, however, we're dealing with act as a crime. The full penalty was paid for that criminal act, which also happens to be a sin.

That seems simple and straightforward enough.

Blue is Green

Don't get what your symbols represent here.

[thackney]

The full penalty was paid for that criminal act

That is false. Cutting and pasting the same reply over and over doesn't make it true.

[PapaNew]

The full penalty was paid for that criminal act

That is false.

Your argument needs to be more than a blank assertion.

[thackney]

Essentially the rest of the world agrees with me.

You made a counter claim. You have not proved that point.

Good Luck just claiming it is different. If you want to change the world, or even just our corner of it, you will need to do more to convince others. I don’t see you have done that yet with one here.

[PapaNew]

Essentially the rest of the world agrees with me

Not much of an argument, huh?

Not much of a good-faith answer my FRiend. You claim you want to understand some of these things and talk about confusion between "sin" and "crime" and some vague "blue and "green". I answer twice about crime and sin but got back neither reasoned disagreement argument or agreement.

I try to give reasons and examples for my assertions unlike many who seem content with flat assertions. That is usually a sign they haven't questioned their beliefs. It might be a age thing. I've been around awhile and am more comfortable than ever with reexamining stuff that I was told or accepted when I was younger.

As I've said, if nothing else, I hope this stuff gives you and others who might be reading along food for thought.

[thackney]

. I answer twice about crime and sin

Sorry but no. You talked about it without an answer. Just because a single act can be both sin and a crime, does not equate sin and crime. They are separate wrongs and have separate punishment.

I try to give reasons and examples for my assertions unlike many who seem content with flat assertions. That is usually a sign they haven't questioned their beliefs.

Insulting others because you failed to make your point is not going to be a convincing argument.

It might be a age thing.

Nope. The problem does not lie with others. You are not making an valid points.

God Bless.