Posted on 09/11/2011 12:25:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I said here last night that the California GOP audience cheering the announcement that Texas has executed 234 condemned murderers under Rick Perry was a vile, repulsive thing.
Even when I was for capital punishment, I believed this.
Justice may require execution, but we should never rejoice in taking the life of another human being. At best, capital punishment is a necessary evil. I quit believing in capital punishment when I became convinced that the state is not trustworthy to use this power responsibly.
It happened about 10 years ago, when it emerged that a forensic scientist in Oklahoma whose testimony had been key to many convictions, including capital convictions, was actually quite incompetent. I lost track of the story, so I don't know if any of the prisoners executed thanks in part to her testimony were later exonerated. Even if they hadn't been, the fact that men were sent to their death based on the expert testimony of an incompetent scientist is chilling.
In Texas, If you are a conservative inclined to trust Rick Perry's remarks about its soundness, I invite you to read the New Yorker's long report about the Cameron Todd Willingham case. When this became a controversy in Texas, Perry went out of his way to block an official inquiry into the facts. I don't believe this hurt him, either. People have a strong need to believe in capital punishment, and they will accept anything that allows them to support it with an untroubled conscience.
I understand why people believe in capital punishment.
Personally, I believe that if you take a life cold-bloodedly, you should have to forfeit your life. But I do not believe that the government is capable of delivering the ultimate punishment in a fair, accurate manner, 100 percent of the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearreligion.org ...
I did notice that Jesus has set a standard here, not for "Who can be executed?" but for "Who can do the executing?"
At #114 I question whether an abortion-state can be trusted with life-or-death powers. It's a legitimate question.
The governing authorities also have the obligation to secure society from aggressors. If this security can be obtained by life imprisonment, then the state must do this and carry out its responsibility by making it stick.
By no means do I think this is a simple matter. There's a man in my church who, at age 7, exactly 30 years ago, witnessed his father brutally murder his mother and older sister. Beat and strangled them to death. And every 5 years for the past 30 years, Chuck has had to go and testify against his father at the parole hearings.
Why the #@%$#$ are there parole hearings? Why was there any consideration of parole at all for this despicable man? Why does Chuck have to be re-traumatized (and believe me, he is re-traumatized) over and over again for thirty years?
And in another 5 years, his father will max out. This is so wrong, so blasted wrong. If there is not going to be true life imprisonment without possibility of parole, I could see bringing back the guillotine.
Libs cheer for murderers: see Fidel, Che’, etc....
But if he had to witness his father's execution, or --- think of it --- actually pull the trigger, I know it would be in deepest, unimaginable sorrow. There would be no cheering there.
What a moron. I hope you're reading this Dreher, you ignorant jackass.
This is a good example of how Marxists have warped our society. They took the inclination of Christians to give a first time offender a break and made getting away with rape and murder a glorious “civil” right, always in the name of Christ and often in the name of race.
After freed criminals had murdered and raped the public to a degree of terror while the liberal elite and their judges condoned it, shouting down and shaming anyone who complained, the public had to take up the cause of justice and protect themselves from liberal lawyers, activists (many were Christians killing us as they turned their cheeks to the gore in the streets) and politicans.
The death penality was appealing to many at the time because the liberals could not be trusted to keep the predators in prison for life. The other thing we had to do to keep liberals from using predators to kill us was introduce minimum sentencing guidelines. I would rather have judges with a sense of justice and duty to protect the innocent of society from the guilty than mandatory sentencing. But Leftist judges and politicans gave Americans no choice.
They hated justice and loved murder and rape. Idiots like Chuck Baldwin killed us in the name of Christ caring for the outcasts of life. We had to box them in with the law so they would stop murdering and raping us by freeing predators.
And we find ourselves cheering for the death of murderers in opposition of Marxists who want them out on the streets to murder more people. If we did not cheer the death penality liberals would be the only voice heard in society once against shaming the innocent for wanting to live and coddling the criminals who would gladly kill and rape us. We are a sick country.
All Perry did was uphold the laws of the state of Texas. As he should do.
The Crowd was cheering for Justice that was administered to Killers and Murderers. Justice for Victims....as California debates Charles Manson’s release from prison.......
Jesus knows that God has ordained government as a necessary step to keep the peace and administer justice. If government could never execute anyone, why didn’t Jesus tell Pontius he had no authority to execute Him or anyone else? Why did not Jesus preach as part of the Good News that human governments because they were made up of flawed people, saved or not, could no longer execute people because they’d be under God’s grace?
He did not do this.
I never said you said the death penalty is the same as murder. I don’t know where you misread that.
There needs to be a death penalty. Life is a gift. When one robs another of it (murder), they have lost their claim to their own gift of life. The state needs to stand up for life and have such a penalty; for some people it’s the only thing that they fear that keeps them from murdering anyone and everyone they have problems with. It also is a measure of a society in terms of how much value they put on their citizens’ lives. They value life so much that if you murder someone, you’ve forfeited your own right to live. It’s the only thing that stops many people from doing this. They don’t want to get caught and die themselves.
This last response proves you don’t read others posts.
My first post on this clearly explained why people were cheering. It wasn’t for the death of the person, it was because a politician made it clear that some capital crimes deserve death, and most people feel that way, but hardly ever hear a politician agree with them by standing up for real justice. The death penalty is totally appropriate for certain crimes. Most people know this, Perry inasmuch said it, he’s not sorry for it, and THAT is why people cheered.
It’s not bloodlust. It’s justice. That’s why they were cheering.
* The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance... So that men will say, "Surely there is a reward for the righteous; Surely He is God who judges in the earth." Ps. 58:10-11
* Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccl. 8:11
>> Rod Dreher: “the California GOP audience cheering ... was a vile, repulsive thing”
I wonder if Dreher cheered the killing of UBL.
God forgave the New Testament adulterer just as He forgave Old Testament adulterers, ((Hos. 3:1). Still, He demanded that His people obey His law (Hos. 4:6)) in neither instance revoking His law(King David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11). Yet God forgave him (Psalm 32:1-5)). Jesus knew that even doing so caused problems. "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However... by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme..." 2 Sam. 12:13
God has all authority to forgive the criminal and disregard temporal punishment. Contrariwise, Men must obey God and cannot ignore punishment.
The Pharisees Wanted to Trap Christ, remember they hated him.
The Pharisees wanted to accuse Jesus of rebelling against the Roman Empire:
This [the Pharisees] said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. John 8:6
Rome had revoked the Jews' authority to put a criminal to death (John 18:31). A straight-forward answer to the Pharisees would have brought Jesus into premature conflict with Rome before His "hour had come." Jesus solved this problem stating, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" (John 8:7). Christ often frustrated the Pharisees giving clever answers that thwarted their wicked intentions (Mat. 22:15-22; 21:21-27; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26).
Jesus Did Not Repeal The Law
Without the law, lawlessness cannot exist. Yet as Christ said, "because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold" (Mat. 24:12)
RE: So how did the fire start? Don’t post a link; tell me in your own words.
According to an August 2009 investigative report by an expert hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, the original claims of arson were doubtful.
The Corsicana Fire Department disputes the findings, stating that the expert’s report overlooked several key points in the record.
The case has been further complicated by allegations that Texas Governor Rick Perry impeded the investigation by replacing three of the nine commission members in an attempt to change the commission’s findings ( see here : http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-01/justice/texas.execution.probe_1_willingham-case-cameron-todd-willingham-execution?_s=PM:CRIME).
Perry of course, denies the allegations.
Dr. Gerald Hurst, an Austin scientist and fire investigator, reviewed the case and concluded there was “no evidence of arson”, the same conclusion reached by other fire investigators. Hurst’s report was sent to governor Rick Perry’s office as well as Board of Pardons and Paroles along with Willingham’s appeal for clemency. Neither responded to Willingham’s appeals.
See here for further info:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=10401390
BTW, I am personally NOT against the death penalty with one proviso -— if the evidence that the accused did it is beyond dispute ( for instance, Colin Ferguson, who massacred 6 people in the Garden City Long Island Railroad in 1993 in broad daylight should be executed).
I however, still believe that the stay of execution should be a facility that governors can and should use if the evidence is disputed.
“I’ve seen this brought up several times...Adultery is not murder. It is not an analogy that works.”
It’s brought up because adultery is a death penalty crime, biblically, along with murder, kidnapping, Sabbath breaking, disobedience to parents. . .
“I question whether a State which “authorizes” abortion-on-demand -— child sacrifice by the tens of millions -—can atill be thought of as “God’s servant.””
That’s a different bucket of worms, and I see your point.
When does a state become so depraved that it should no longer bear the sword?
I am not ready to abandon my support for the death penalty in the U.S. at this point. But at some point I would. I am not sure when that would be.
In Texas, the accused have several chances. DNA evidence, they go through several appeal processes, and up to the Supreme Court if needed. Once that is completed, if the court ruled the individual should be executed, then they are. If there is a last minute appeal, then Governor Perry listens to the recommendation of the Prison Board. One thing the Governor will not do is let a convicted criminal escape justice. Brian Williams attempted to portray the Governor as an extremist, but was a big fail.
As for the people cheering the hundreds of executions in Texas, who knows the exact interpretation of their cheers? Do they write essays earnestly clarifying that they are not cheering for death? Of course not. I suspect there would be a range. I do know that enthusiasts show up for executions to have tailgate parties in the parking lot and offer loud huzzas for the press. This constitutes a counter- witness to the solemn justice of death to which you and others have alluded.
That said, reading my other posts you should have noticed that I have made no argument against the death penalty per se.
Good day to you.
“The real social contract that is civilization is that the individual surrenders the right to seek his own justice to the state. If the state fails to carry out that justice for enough of the people who have been wronged for long enough the criminal element in society will come to no longer fear justice for crimes committed and will commit crimes at will. When justice for the injured carried out by the state comes to be seen by the people as a failed contract the people will seek justice for themselves and civilization will fail.”
We are drawing very close to that point now, particularly in some areas of the country.
It will come to that, eventually.
Not sure what will happen _after_ that time comes....
Just predictin’....
It's interesting that the death penalty for a variety of non-homocide crimes (cursing one's parents, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, bridal non-virginity, etc.) in practice has been repealed, and its restoration has little or no support among contemporary religious Jews or Christians. There seems to be a development of doctrine here--- unless I am mistaken.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.