They Did It
June 18, 2010
Joseph Bottum
They did it, the blood-hungry fools. Last night, just after midnight out in Draper, Utah, they trussed up Ronnie Lee Gardner like a scarecrow, pinned a target on him, and pumped four .30-caliber bullets into his chest.
This execution was so unnecessary, and because it was unnecessary, it was simply and completely wrong. They shouldn’t have done it—because they didn’t have to do it.
The odd thing is that Gardner might have made a good example for legitimate imposition of the death penalty, once upon a time. He had a history of escapes, and, on trial in 1985 for the barroom murder of Melvyn Otterstrom, he was smuggled a gun and shot down an attorney named Michael Burdell in a botched attempt at a getaway from the Salt Lake courthouse. He was an open threat to the public, and the system appeared incapable of containing him. The ordinary course of social justice might well have required his death.
But that was twenty-five years ago. For more than two decades, the Utah State prison proved competent to restrain him—and to age him from the murderous twenty-four-year-old into a less dangerous forty-nine-year old.
The usual arguments one hears for the death penalty are risible. As all who’ve examined the studies know, the evidence about impact on crime is so riddled with contradictions and counter-indications that it’s meaningless. Some studies say that capital punishment does decrease crime. Some say that it doesn’t. Some even say that it increases crime (Clarence Darrow’s old claim). Don’t trust any strong conclusion on the topic: There is simply no determination that can be drawn from the data.
And as for the economic argument that sometimes gets made—the claim that it’s so much less expensive to kill prisoners than to jail them—the answer is that the argument just isn’t true. In the current legal regime, it is an astonishing expense to bring someone to execution. Besides, a government that kills to save money would be a government that had lost anything resembling legitimacy.
There is, in fact, only a single reason that Ronnie Lee Gardner died last night—a single explanation that makes any sense at all. And it is that he deserved it. The murder he committed twenty-five years ago still cries to the heavens for justice.
And maybe it does. Certainly it does. But where, exactly, does the State of Utah get the authority to answer the calls on heaven? Where, exactly, does a modern nation, founded on no deliberate godly principle, derive its power to kill in the name of high justice? This is a nation, after all, that refused—with the infamous “mystery” passage in Casey v. Planned Parenthood—to protect the unborn, precisely because, the Supreme Court said, no such metaphysical foundation can be imposed by government. So where do these assertions of divinely based power for the death penalty come from?
It cannot be simply that the government is the one in power; there has surely been, sometime in the history of the world, such a thing as an illegitimate government. For that matter, there has surely been, at some point, an illegitimate claim of power by an otherwise legitimate government. The question of authority for a government’s action cannot be simply dismissed or ignored. Justice there must, and will be, for Ronnie Lee Gardner’s crimes—but political theory demands some account of why the prison system of Utah gets to enact and impose that justice.
I have written of this before, and those who disagree point to biblical passages that suggest otherwise, particular Romans 13: “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
But the Christian theological tradition has always understood, as well, that there can be illegitimate rulers—and the Christian tradition is fundamentally the tradition that brought to the West the understanding that there are powers that governments cannot claim or exercise. For that matter, Paul in Romans is using the word sword as a metaphor for all forms of punishment—of which death is only one. Paul cannot be read here as demanding capital punishment for every crime.
Nor can he be read as licensing every claim of power by every form of government through the history of the world. The pagan Roman empire still understood itself to have a divine foundation that offered, in some confused way, an account of how it possessed the authority for high justice and revenge. What has that to do with a modern, social-contract democracy like ours?
More to the point, there is nothing in Paul that demands death in every situation of punishment. And if we don’t have to kill a prisoner, in the ordinary social justice that demands protection of citizens, then we have a responsibility not to kill a prisoner. The death of Ronnie Lee Gardner last night, four .30-caliber bullets in his heart, was unauthorized, wrong, and foolish.
We have so devolved that we kill even while we cannot explain how we are allowed to take matters of life and death into our hands. And that is a door I fear to watch our government—or any government—walk through.
Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things.
Comments:
6.18.2010 | 9:59am
J. Bob says:
Ex:20:13, Deut. 5:17, "Not shall you murder". Hebrew Bible. Note, murder (the shedding of innocent blood), and different then the later Greek translation. This individual was not innocent. But if you want the NT, see what Jesus says, Matt. 15:4-5, Jerusalem Bible.
6.18.2010 | 10:08am
Only reason the Death penalty doesn't work is because of LOVER'S of MURDERER'S and RAPIST'S like you DENY the rest of us SWIFT and SURE JUSTICE for decade's. Trie them and once convicted 30 day's for these lazy court's to review the case and on day 31 they are DEAD. Ever think that if he hadn't been on DEATH ROW( in ISOLATION) all these pathetic year's and been sentenced to LIFE how many prisoner's or guard's he may have MURDERED or RAPED in the last 25 years of his PATHETIC 49 years of EXSITENCE?
6.18.2010 | 10:27am
Paul says:
Setting aside the merits of the argument, I find this argument condescending in the highest degree. As for the merits of the argument, it still depends on the line of reasoning in the prior post (and that Joseph Bottum has articulated before)--a line of reasoning that quite explicitly commits that fallacy of equivocation. For Bottum just assumes that the ground of the authority of the state and the state's recognition of that ground (two modally discrete states of affairs) are the same thing. Until Mr. Bottum comes to terms with this fly in the ointment, I see little reason to take the argument too seriously. What charity requires of us as Christians is, of course, an altogether separate matter. I suppose that might have required a little less condescension on Mr. Bottum's part with respect to those who no doubt with sobriety and perhaps even hesitation and reluctance carried the execution out.
6.18.2010 | 10:37am
bill bannon says:
Joseph,
The only correct insight in your rant is that Paul does not demand execution in all cases. And "sword" therein is a synecdoche not a metaphor but in fairness you implied the meaning of synecdoche and did not try to water it down. Paul was inspired by God to say what he said in Romans 13:4 within the context of Nero's Roman Empire....hardly a place up for a Nobel Peace Prize. Romans 13:4 is barbell connected to Genesis 9:5-6 wherein God demands of both Jews and Gentiles that they execute murderers precisely because man is made in God's image. This area was Pope John Paul II's weakness exercise in logic. He held that God's immunity from death for Cain after his killing of Able was iconic for us. John Paul never noticed that subsequent to Cain, God festooned the Pentateuch with death penalties in the first person singular.
Inside Catholic has a link wherein it was proven that the firing squad is more humane than lethal injection and produces a much faster and thus suffering death.
The only correct insight in your rant is that Paul does not demand execution in all cases. And "sword" therein is a synecdoche not a metaphor but in fairness you implied the meaning of synecdoche and did not try to water it down. Paul was inspired by God to say what he said in Romans 13:4 within the context of Nero's Roman Empire....hardly a place up for a Nobel Peace Prize. Romans 13:4 is barbell connected to Genesis 9:5-6 wherein God demands of both Jews and Gentiles that they execute murderers precisely because man is made in God's image. This area was Pope John Paul II's weakness exercise in logic. He held that God's immunity from death for Cain after his killing of Able was iconic for us. John Paul never noticed that subsequent to Cain, God festooned the Pentateuch with death penalties in the first person singular.
Inside Catholic has a link wherein it was proven that the firing squad is more humane than lethal injection and produces a much faster and thus suffering death.
6.18.2010 | 11:15am
bill bannon says:
Here is the Slate link that contains the research finding that firing squads produce less not more suffering than lethal injections. The last words of my first post should read "and thus less suffering death".
http://www.slate.com/id/2256766
http://www.slate.com/id/2256766
6.18.2010 | 11:35am
Stuart Koehl says:
It's funny, but death by firing squad has traditionally been regarded not as barbaric but as an honorable form of execution, particularly for soldiers. Major John Andre of the British army, captured in civilian clothing and sentenced to death as a spy during the American Revolution, didn't mind dying, but he very much objected to being hanged like a common criminal, instead of shot like a soldier. Similarly, Field Marshal Keitel, sentenced to death for war crimes at Nuremberg, asked only that he be shot, not hanged; in his case, rejection of his wish was more understandable.
More broadly, I find myself standing against Joseph Bottoms, the USCCB and the last two Popes on the matter of capital punishment. The most coherent and convincing argument I have seen was made by David Gelernter, in his Commentary Magazine article, "What Do Murderers Deserve?"
Gelernter rejects the conventional arguments in favor of the death penalty, such as deterrence (if we did, he says, we would insist on public executions). Is answer is paradoxical: capital punishment is an affirmation of the value of life:
"In fact, we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher Robert Nisbet wrote: 'Until a catharsis has been effected through trial, through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and, above all, contaminated.'
"When a murder takes place, the community is obliged to clear its throat and step up to the microphone. Every murder demands a communal response. Among possible responses, the death penalty is uniquely powerful because it is permanent. An execution forces the community to assume forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech that allows no waffling or equivocation."
In the process, he also rejects the notion of life imprisonment as an adequate and more humane substitute for the death penalty:
"Of course, we could make the same point less emphatically, by locking up murderers for life. The question then becomes: Is the death penalty overdoing it?
The answer might be yes if we were a community in which murder was a shocking anomaly. But we are not. 'One can guesstimate,' writes the criminologist and political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr., 'that we are nearing or may already have passed the day when 500,000 murderers, convicted and undetected, are living in American society.'
"DiIulio's statistics show an approach to murder so casual as to be depraved. Our natural bent in the face of murder is not to avenge the crime but to shrug it off, except in those rare cases when our own near and dear are involved."
He also notes that the Bible affirms the moral necessity of the death penalty, and that society as a whole fails its responsibility when it refuses to put murderers to death:
"Murder in primitive societies called for a private settling of scores. The community as a whole stayed out of it. For murder to count, as it does in the Bible, as a crime not merely against one man but against the whole community and against God is a moral triumph still basic to our integrity, and it should never be taken for granted. By executing murderers, the community reaffirms this moral understanding and restates the truth that absolute evil exists and must be punished."
But he also concedes that the manner in which the United States does an horrendous job of administering the death penalty, in large part because we are divided in our opinion about it, with the elites steadfastly opposed, and the general population in favor. As a result, we have a convoluted and inconsistent system that does not deliver justice or affirm the sanctity of life.
Also, in what I would consider a just response to Joseph Bottom's tone of righteous indignation, Gelernter notes:
"Opponents of capital punishment describe it as a surrender to emotions--to grief, rage, fear, blood lust. For most supporters of the death penalty, this is false. Even when we resolve in principle to go ahead, we have to steel ourselves. Many of us would find it hard to kill a dog, much less a man. Endorsing capital punishment means not that we yield to our emotions but that we overcome them. If we favor executing murderers, it is not because we want to but because, however much we do not want to, we consider ourselves obliged to.
"Many Americans no longer feel that obligation; we have urged one another to switch off our moral faculties:'Don't be judgmental!' Many of us are no longer sure evil even exists. The cultural elite oppose executions not (I think) because they abhor killing more than others do, but because the death penalty represents moral certainty, and doubt is the black-lung disease of the intelligentsia--an occupational hazard now inflicted on the whole culture."
That's a powerful indictment, and appeals to emotion and/or authority do not suffice to answer it.
More broadly, I find myself standing against Joseph Bottoms, the USCCB and the last two Popes on the matter of capital punishment. The most coherent and convincing argument I have seen was made by David Gelernter, in his Commentary Magazine article, "What Do Murderers Deserve?"
Gelernter rejects the conventional arguments in favor of the death penalty, such as deterrence (if we did, he says, we would insist on public executions). Is answer is paradoxical: capital punishment is an affirmation of the value of life:
"In fact, we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher Robert Nisbet wrote: 'Until a catharsis has been effected through trial, through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and, above all, contaminated.'
"When a murder takes place, the community is obliged to clear its throat and step up to the microphone. Every murder demands a communal response. Among possible responses, the death penalty is uniquely powerful because it is permanent. An execution forces the community to assume forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech that allows no waffling or equivocation."
In the process, he also rejects the notion of life imprisonment as an adequate and more humane substitute for the death penalty:
"Of course, we could make the same point less emphatically, by locking up murderers for life. The question then becomes: Is the death penalty overdoing it?
The answer might be yes if we were a community in which murder was a shocking anomaly. But we are not. 'One can guesstimate,' writes the criminologist and political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr., 'that we are nearing or may already have passed the day when 500,000 murderers, convicted and undetected, are living in American society.'
"DiIulio's statistics show an approach to murder so casual as to be depraved. Our natural bent in the face of murder is not to avenge the crime but to shrug it off, except in those rare cases when our own near and dear are involved."
He also notes that the Bible affirms the moral necessity of the death penalty, and that society as a whole fails its responsibility when it refuses to put murderers to death:
"Murder in primitive societies called for a private settling of scores. The community as a whole stayed out of it. For murder to count, as it does in the Bible, as a crime not merely against one man but against the whole community and against God is a moral triumph still basic to our integrity, and it should never be taken for granted. By executing murderers, the community reaffirms this moral understanding and restates the truth that absolute evil exists and must be punished."
But he also concedes that the manner in which the United States does an horrendous job of administering the death penalty, in large part because we are divided in our opinion about it, with the elites steadfastly opposed, and the general population in favor. As a result, we have a convoluted and inconsistent system that does not deliver justice or affirm the sanctity of life.
Also, in what I would consider a just response to Joseph Bottom's tone of righteous indignation, Gelernter notes:
"Opponents of capital punishment describe it as a surrender to emotions--to grief, rage, fear, blood lust. For most supporters of the death penalty, this is false. Even when we resolve in principle to go ahead, we have to steel ourselves. Many of us would find it hard to kill a dog, much less a man. Endorsing capital punishment means not that we yield to our emotions but that we overcome them. If we favor executing murderers, it is not because we want to but because, however much we do not want to, we consider ourselves obliged to.
"Many Americans no longer feel that obligation; we have urged one another to switch off our moral faculties:'Don't be judgmental!' Many of us are no longer sure evil even exists. The cultural elite oppose executions not (I think) because they abhor killing more than others do, but because the death penalty represents moral certainty, and doubt is the black-lung disease of the intelligentsia--an occupational hazard now inflicted on the whole culture."
That's a powerful indictment, and appeals to emotion and/or authority do not suffice to answer it.
6.18.2010 | 11:36am
steve says:
"They did it." Not to sound like Bill Clinton, but who is the "they." Do you mean the jury of his peers who sentenced Gardner to death? No, apparantly it's the the "government." Could we stop invoking this simplistic Orwellian notion that the evil government takes the lives of these criminals? We should have a debate over the morality of the death penalty, but for God's sake stop repeating the canard that the government is taking someone's life.
6.18.2010 | 11:45am
RL says:
Now there's an argument for Catholic monarchy, ladies and gentlemen: We need a legitimate ruler who owns the sway of Christ and His Church in order that someone in our society may have divine authority to execute justice on evildoers, to avenge the innocent blood that cries out from the ground. But of course, a Catholic monarch who takes Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism to heart wouldn't do that anyway, not if he has supermax prisons at his disposal. Perhaps an old-school Presbyterian monarch instead...
6.18.2010 | 12:18pm
S.L. Hersey says:
It is well. If the state of Utah's justice is not for human government to mete out, then no human government has a firm enough claim on justice to be worth instituting.
I'm no authority on the disposition of the departed, but something tells me one wouldn't care to be in Gardner's shoes right now. But if Hell should yawn wide for the man, it yawns twice as wide for anyone who would add desecration of the victim to Gardner's crimes by opposing the latter's execution.
There are cold-blooded murderers in this world whose company one would prefer to that of a death-penalty opponent. Opposition to the death penalty is not murder, to be sure: it is far lower and nastier, seeking not to put a victim in the ground, but to relieve oneself on his grave and leave his death unanswered in any meaningful sense. It is less violent than murder, but almost infinitely more vicious.
I'm no authority on the disposition of the departed, but something tells me one wouldn't care to be in Gardner's shoes right now. But if Hell should yawn wide for the man, it yawns twice as wide for anyone who would add desecration of the victim to Gardner's crimes by opposing the latter's execution.
There are cold-blooded murderers in this world whose company one would prefer to that of a death-penalty opponent. Opposition to the death penalty is not murder, to be sure: it is far lower and nastier, seeking not to put a victim in the ground, but to relieve oneself on his grave and leave his death unanswered in any meaningful sense. It is less violent than murder, but almost infinitely more vicious.
6.18.2010 | 12:19pm
bill bannon says:
Stuart
Excellent.
RL
Catholic apologetic writers are forever lambasting Lambeth for giving in to the world on contraception. But that is precisely what the last two Popes and the catechism and the USCCB have done on the death penalty under pressure of the world's opinion as in Euro pundits and the NY Times. Evangelium Vitae section 27/par.3 refers to this outside world which adversely influenced Lambeth as now a good source when a Pope needs them: "In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty... Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform." You'll notice he implies that life sentences are brand new despite the Inquisition having them in their documents: they have always simply required a moderately affluent country that can afford a locked room and food for a person. When you are Pope, you can depend on such historical mistakes being as mentioned as the emperor's new clothes.
. When we do it..going along with the world on the death penalty (Cardinal Dulles in these pages years ago pointed out the origin of anti death penalty thought in non religious Europe), when we go along with the world, it is called development; when Anglicans do it, it is called caving in.
Excellent.
RL
Catholic apologetic writers are forever lambasting Lambeth for giving in to the world on contraception. But that is precisely what the last two Popes and the catechism and the USCCB have done on the death penalty under pressure of the world's opinion as in Euro pundits and the NY Times. Evangelium Vitae section 27/par.3 refers to this outside world which adversely influenced Lambeth as now a good source when a Pope needs them: "In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty... Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform." You'll notice he implies that life sentences are brand new despite the Inquisition having them in their documents: they have always simply required a moderately affluent country that can afford a locked room and food for a person. When you are Pope, you can depend on such historical mistakes being as mentioned as the emperor's new clothes.
. When we do it..going along with the world on the death penalty (Cardinal Dulles in these pages years ago pointed out the origin of anti death penalty thought in non religious Europe), when we go along with the world, it is called development; when Anglicans do it, it is called caving in.
6.18.2010 | 1:02pm
Jim N. says:
A couple thoughts. What is honorable about putting a hood over the head of a helpless person, strapping him to a chair and inflicting numerous gunshot wounds in his torso? Doesn't seem honorable to me for the victim or the killers. Also there seems to be a lot of discussion regarding the length of time between the sentence and the execution itself. Recently, probably because of the development of DNA technology, a frightening number of death row inmates have been conclusively proven innocent and released. In most cases the proof of innocence came many years after the sentence. I think those innocent former inmates would advocate a thorough appeals process and disagree with many of the above posts, and so would I if I were in their shoes. Finally could I get a citation for the OT or NT verses which say it is wrong to sentence a murderer to life imprisonment without parole.
6.18.2010 | 1:04pm
Garry says:
Why would anyone demand a "humane execution" of a murdurer? Was the victims murder committed in a human fashion? Anyone who murders/takes anothers life surely forfeits his own of his own free will as well as his rights.
6.18.2010 | 1:10pm
Craig Payne says:
"But where, exactly, does the State of Utah get the authority to answer the calls on heaven? Where, exactly, does a modern nation, founded on no deliberate godly principle, derive its power to kill in the name of high justice?"
If one inserts the word "kidnap" (hold captive against the will of the one imprisoned) for the word "kill," one could see that this argument would lead to the State of Utah having no just authority at all to punish in virtually any way. I am assuming this is not an argument for anarchy?
Delay of just punishment does not somehow become an argument for lack of just punishment.
If one inserts the word "kidnap" (hold captive against the will of the one imprisoned) for the word "kill," one could see that this argument would lead to the State of Utah having no just authority at all to punish in virtually any way. I am assuming this is not an argument for anarchy?
Delay of just punishment does not somehow become an argument for lack of just punishment.
6.18.2010 | 1:34pm
Umberto Sanchez says:
Dr. Bottum,
Wow, this is really unexpected. The column, perhaps consciously, has the tone of an emotional outburst. Such outbursts, I suppose, are understandable, but not purely conducive to thoughtful discussion. "Risible", indeed.
First and foremost, I would put forth that most Americans do understand themselves to be part of a divinely instituted social order - regardless of what the Supreme Court may have said in Casey. Most of us understand that a democracy is the form of government most willed by God, because it allows us to exercise our free will in common.
I like what Mr. Koehl has to say on the topic, but I think I would summarize more concisely. It's just justice, Man. Those who deny anything less than divine authority to execute terminal justice should consider whether we would apply the same principle to the other virtues. Shall we wait to practice charity until we can do it perfectly? I consider it a decline in virtue, rather than an elevation, this corruption of our understanding of justice and its equation with revenge - "bloodthirsty".
There is one case in which I find a single-minded passion for the preservation of human life admirable and that is in a priest or other holy man. It's their job to plead for the most undesirable lives, and for their preservation. I can understand JPII's sentiment, although I find his (and your) reason muddy. But despite that, I can admire their desire to fling themselves in front of those to be executed.
But here, in this context, I do not understand your passion, and to be honest, I find it misplaced.
Wow, this is really unexpected. The column, perhaps consciously, has the tone of an emotional outburst. Such outbursts, I suppose, are understandable, but not purely conducive to thoughtful discussion. "Risible", indeed.
First and foremost, I would put forth that most Americans do understand themselves to be part of a divinely instituted social order - regardless of what the Supreme Court may have said in Casey. Most of us understand that a democracy is the form of government most willed by God, because it allows us to exercise our free will in common.
I like what Mr. Koehl has to say on the topic, but I think I would summarize more concisely. It's just justice, Man. Those who deny anything less than divine authority to execute terminal justice should consider whether we would apply the same principle to the other virtues. Shall we wait to practice charity until we can do it perfectly? I consider it a decline in virtue, rather than an elevation, this corruption of our understanding of justice and its equation with revenge - "bloodthirsty".
There is one case in which I find a single-minded passion for the preservation of human life admirable and that is in a priest or other holy man. It's their job to plead for the most undesirable lives, and for their preservation. I can understand JPII's sentiment, although I find his (and your) reason muddy. But despite that, I can admire their desire to fling themselves in front of those to be executed.
But here, in this context, I do not understand your passion, and to be honest, I find it misplaced.
6.18.2010 | 1:37pm
andrew says:
professor j. budziszewski wrote an article in first things a few years ago that convinced me of capital punishment's legitimate role in jurisprudence. i also find it compelling that the catholic church has never officially condemned the practice, most likely because of -- not despite -- her conviction regarding the sanctity of human life.
nevertheless, while one may punish, one may never, ever enjoy it. death is always a tragedy, and i mourn mr. gardner's death. i shall pray for his soul. in the meantime, we must long for the day when all tears will be wiped away.
nevertheless, while one may punish, one may never, ever enjoy it. death is always a tragedy, and i mourn mr. gardner's death. i shall pray for his soul. in the meantime, we must long for the day when all tears will be wiped away.
6.18.2010 | 1:40pm
Keith says:
Your article concerning the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner is not up to your usual high standards of your contributions to First Things. By your own account ‘… social justice might well have required his death.’ you suggest that feel that execution of Mr. Gardner may have been justified. You then use the 25 years that have elapsed since his crimes as reason to begin the question the appropriateness of the punishment. From there you use an even more indirect argument against the use of the death penalty when you say that ‘…where, exactly, does the State of Utah get the authority to answer the calls on heaven?’ It doesn’t, but neither does it claim have that authority. The state is putting him to death not by claims of heavenly authority but on the valid claim of the civil authority as understood by ordinary men.
Your argument in this matter fails to adequately focus on the central issue and instead you bring up questions reasonably viewed differently by different people. By using this approach you fail to make your case against this or any other execution satisfactorily.
You do however approach the issue more closely when you say ‘…where, exactly, does the State of Utah get the authority to answer the calls on heaven?’ Where does a nation derive its power to kill?’. This is that question at issue in the abortion discussion and is the one that should be made in the Ronnie Lee Gardner case. The states right to kill anyone is the issue in the RLG matter as it is in the abortion question. When you give up on this approach for resisting capital punishment you have surrendered it in the abortion question as well.
Your argument in this matter fails to adequately focus on the central issue and instead you bring up questions reasonably viewed differently by different people. By using this approach you fail to make your case against this or any other execution satisfactorily.
You do however approach the issue more closely when you say ‘…where, exactly, does the State of Utah get the authority to answer the calls on heaven?’ Where does a nation derive its power to kill?’. This is that question at issue in the abortion discussion and is the one that should be made in the Ronnie Lee Gardner case. The states right to kill anyone is the issue in the RLG matter as it is in the abortion question. When you give up on this approach for resisting capital punishment you have surrendered it in the abortion question as well.
6.18.2010 | 1:48pm
bill bannon says:
Jim N.
If you are against killing prisoners, Jim, you should logically then be in favor of killing some prisoners (and often lifers) who kill within prison then you would be protecting the prisoners they kill.
In Catholic Venuezuela several years ago, 2% of the prison population was murdered within prison...they have no death penalty to prevent that. Evangelium Vitae failed to mention that problem because theology does best as an ivory tower in some areas....and because George Weigel stated in "Witness to Hope" that John Paul II did not read newspapers (which would have helped on this topic).
Actually your desire for a passage in the Bible about life sentences being wrong does exist.
It is implied in the 5th commandment as to certain countries only... wherein life sentences are doing zero to protect society from being murdered. Mexico has no death penalty and a murder rate this year that may propel it to the forefront of murderous Catholic countries (10 of wiki's top 20 murder rate countries are Catholic predominant as to population with one, Guatemala, having a death penalty and the rest forbidding it...a bad advertisement for the Vatican). We occupy 2nd, 3rd and 4th 5th 8th and 10th place currently while we tell the nations like pagan Japan how to protect themselves.
Japan with no Catholicism virtually is the 4th safest country in the world and hangs murderers without telling the prisoner when. Should Japan listen to Rome so that Japan also could be a disgrace like so many Catholic countries (three of them are foremost in cocaine production and trafficing also).
Lichtenstein is the only extremely safe Catholic country safer than Japan and that has no death penalty so that yes....life sentences work there as does their #1 rating in the world for GDP per person and their population of 35K which is 46 times less than the population of Manhattan. So life sentences work in some countries. In the US, lifers have killed very often: Jeffrey Dahmer was killed by one as was Fr. Geoghan killed by a lifer in prison. The thing about states that forbid the death penalty is that they can do nothing significant to lifers and gang members who kill others within prison. The NY Times years ago had an article that gave c.300 as the number of murders on California streets that were ordered in a decade from prison by gang leaders by district court ordered phone call privileges and letter writing privileges from prison.
So if you are against prisoners being killed Jim, one would think you would support at least prison murderers as subject to the death penalty because some of those lifers are killing other prisoners and you are concerned about prisoners not being killed....or are you?
If you are against killing prisoners, Jim, you should logically then be in favor of killing some prisoners (and often lifers) who kill within prison then you would be protecting the prisoners they kill.
In Catholic Venuezuela several years ago, 2% of the prison population was murdered within prison...they have no death penalty to prevent that. Evangelium Vitae failed to mention that problem because theology does best as an ivory tower in some areas....and because George Weigel stated in "Witness to Hope" that John Paul II did not read newspapers (which would have helped on this topic).
Actually your desire for a passage in the Bible about life sentences being wrong does exist.
It is implied in the 5th commandment as to certain countries only... wherein life sentences are doing zero to protect society from being murdered. Mexico has no death penalty and a murder rate this year that may propel it to the forefront of murderous Catholic countries (10 of wiki's top 20 murder rate countries are Catholic predominant as to population with one, Guatemala, having a death penalty and the rest forbidding it...a bad advertisement for the Vatican). We occupy 2nd, 3rd and 4th 5th 8th and 10th place currently while we tell the nations like pagan Japan how to protect themselves.
Japan with no Catholicism virtually is the 4th safest country in the world and hangs murderers without telling the prisoner when. Should Japan listen to Rome so that Japan also could be a disgrace like so many Catholic countries (three of them are foremost in cocaine production and trafficing also).
Lichtenstein is the only extremely safe Catholic country safer than Japan and that has no death penalty so that yes....life sentences work there as does their #1 rating in the world for GDP per person and their population of 35K which is 46 times less than the population of Manhattan. So life sentences work in some countries. In the US, lifers have killed very often: Jeffrey Dahmer was killed by one as was Fr. Geoghan killed by a lifer in prison. The thing about states that forbid the death penalty is that they can do nothing significant to lifers and gang members who kill others within prison. The NY Times years ago had an article that gave c.300 as the number of murders on California streets that were ordered in a decade from prison by gang leaders by district court ordered phone call privileges and letter writing privileges from prison.
So if you are against prisoners being killed Jim, one would think you would support at least prison murderers as subject to the death penalty because some of those lifers are killing other prisoners and you are concerned about prisoners not being killed....or are you?
6.18.2010 | 1:49pm
Will O'Hara says:
What I find disturbing about the comments here is the seeming belief, in several contributors' view, in an absolute divide between murderers and themselves. I admire Nisbet but the notion of a murderer contaminating a community seems to suggest a belief in that community's absolute purity to begin with. The sanguinary appeals to justice towards murderers in the form of execution are chilling, and do not lead toward peace any more than the execrable act of the murderer.
To be clear, I actually do think the state should have be option to use the death penalty. But I think that anyone who advocates for capital punishment must need seriously contemplate their own soul and their own lives, and then determine just how much justice they wish to see in the world.
To be clear, I actually do think the state should have be option to use the death penalty. But I think that anyone who advocates for capital punishment must need seriously contemplate their own soul and their own lives, and then determine just how much justice they wish to see in the world.
6.18.2010 | 2:19pm
Don Roberto says:
Mr. O'Hara, I want at least enough justice in the world to protect my children. And though I agree the 25-year interregnum is absolutely pathetic, law teaches, and capital punishment for a variety of crimes sends a very clear message: We abhore the crime. We are not going to provide nutritious meals and high-tech medical care not available to 95% of the world's population to this wicked individual. We are not going to subject his guards and fellow prisoners unnecessarily to danger—serious physical and spiritual danger. (Japan's "surprise, you're being hung now" technique might make sense insofar as the victim was not likely to have been warned of the date, except that some innocent and/or repentant people do get punished, and therefore it is cruel and unjustifiable.
I find Stuart Koehl's comments above most convincing. Nicely said! I once had a rapist among my employees. Coworkers did not seem to realize that there is no "Megan's" list for murderers, and that there are untold thousands of them walking the streets (and millions of abortioners). The world is filled with evil. In fact Jesus refers to this world as, as I read it, being under the control of Satan. Nevertheless we are called to strive wit hall our power for God, and for righteousness. This can be very difficult, but doing tough things is part of being a man.
I find Stuart Koehl's comments above most convincing. Nicely said! I once had a rapist among my employees. Coworkers did not seem to realize that there is no "Megan's" list for murderers, and that there are untold thousands of them walking the streets (and millions of abortioners). The world is filled with evil. In fact Jesus refers to this world as, as I read it, being under the control of Satan. Nevertheless we are called to strive wit hall our power for God, and for righteousness. This can be very difficult, but doing tough things is part of being a man.
6.18.2010 | 2:56pm
Will O'Hara says:
Mr Roberto,
I agree with you, to an extent. Perhaps it would be better to present my point as such: approval of capital punishment must only be undertaken with the knowledge of humanity's fallen nature in mind at all times. When it is possible, as you say, to protect the innocent without killing a person, it is best to not execute the fullness of justice. Furthermore, I would caution against those (yourself, of course, not included) who seem to relish and revel in the execution of a criminal. While this may be a natural human reaction, it is not a good one. When we no longer can provide mercy to a murderer, our reaction should be sadness over the necessity of his execution rather than a "fry 'em" mentality.
I agree with you, to an extent. Perhaps it would be better to present my point as such: approval of capital punishment must only be undertaken with the knowledge of humanity's fallen nature in mind at all times. When it is possible, as you say, to protect the innocent without killing a person, it is best to not execute the fullness of justice. Furthermore, I would caution against those (yourself, of course, not included) who seem to relish and revel in the execution of a criminal. While this may be a natural human reaction, it is not a good one. When we no longer can provide mercy to a murderer, our reaction should be sadness over the necessity of his execution rather than a "fry 'em" mentality.
6.18.2010 | 3:09pm
Jon Rowe says:
"But the Christian theological tradition has always understood, as well, that there can be illegitimate rulers...."
This is arguably not true. For a great deal of time in Christendom the view that prevailed was all rulers, even pagan tyrants, were legitimate according to Romans 13. What the tradition "always understood" was rulers can illegitimately use their powers.
"Nor can he be read as licensing every claim of power by every form of government through the history of the world."
As someone else noted, arguably the ruler to whom Paul told believers to submit to in Romans 13 was the pagan psychopath Nero. That would seem to license any form of government as having legitimate Romans 13 status. However, as noted, not everything such governments DO would be valid, accordingly.
This is arguably not true. For a great deal of time in Christendom the view that prevailed was all rulers, even pagan tyrants, were legitimate according to Romans 13. What the tradition "always understood" was rulers can illegitimately use their powers.
"Nor can he be read as licensing every claim of power by every form of government through the history of the world."
As someone else noted, arguably the ruler to whom Paul told believers to submit to in Romans 13 was the pagan psychopath Nero. That would seem to license any form of government as having legitimate Romans 13 status. However, as noted, not everything such governments DO would be valid, accordingly.
6.18.2010 | 3:18pm
Jon Rowe says:
"Japan with no Catholicism virtually is the 4th safest country in the world and hangs murderers without telling the prisoner when."
Are you sure you don't mean Singapore?
Japan and Singapore are very peaceful places and I think we can learn much from them; however cultural differences (some of which result from differences in religious heritage) would take learning from those models only so far.
It was my understanding (I'll have to check after I post this) that Japan had more LENIENT penalties than America, but lower crime rates in large part due to shame and the authoritarianism that is part of their culture that we couldn't even begin to understand.
A murderer may spend less time in a Japanese prison but they don't have the PERP's parents on TV sobbing that their child is innocent. Rather, it's more likely that the parents disown the child and refuse to even visit them in prison because of the disgrace s/he brought on the family.
Are you sure you don't mean Singapore?
Japan and Singapore are very peaceful places and I think we can learn much from them; however cultural differences (some of which result from differences in religious heritage) would take learning from those models only so far.
It was my understanding (I'll have to check after I post this) that Japan had more LENIENT penalties than America, but lower crime rates in large part due to shame and the authoritarianism that is part of their culture that we couldn't even begin to understand.
A murderer may spend less time in a Japanese prison but they don't have the PERP's parents on TV sobbing that their child is innocent. Rather, it's more likely that the parents disown the child and refuse to even visit them in prison because of the disgrace s/he brought on the family.
6.18.2010 | 3:34pm
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
Here is a very good example of yet another place where the Roman Church has gone wrong.
The Scriptures are exceedingly clear that the death penalty is a perfectly acceptable form of punishment.
The fact is that he did deserve to be executed. This is a matter of justice.
We can wring our hands and bewail the unfairness of the "system" and raise up a host of emotional arguments, as Mr. Bottom has done here, but none of this holds any water in light of the clearly Biblical foundation for capital punishment, via Romans 13.
There is nothing to "relish" in the death of anyone. But there is something to be said for justice, at least, I would hope there still is.
The Scriptures are exceedingly clear that the death penalty is a perfectly acceptable form of punishment.
The fact is that he did deserve to be executed. This is a matter of justice.
We can wring our hands and bewail the unfairness of the "system" and raise up a host of emotional arguments, as Mr. Bottom has done here, but none of this holds any water in light of the clearly Biblical foundation for capital punishment, via Romans 13.
There is nothing to "relish" in the death of anyone. But there is something to be said for justice, at least, I would hope there still is.
6.18.2010 | 4:22pm
bill bannon says:
Jon Rowe
I meant Japan and do check on yourself. Japan has a death penalty and very great public support for it.
I meant Japan and do check on yourself. Japan has a death penalty and very great public support for it.
6.18.2010 | 4:38pm
bill bannon says:
Rev. Paul T. McCain,
You can give it; can you take it?
As a Catholic, I agree with you 100% on the death penalty. Our ordinary magisterium and ordinary papal magisterium can err in morals which most Catholics on the net do not know but they could ascertain by simply going to the online Introduction to the Fundamentals of the Catholic Faith by Ludwig Ott and reading the ending paragraph of section 8 of the Intro.
Now let me say though that the non Roman Church has erred by spreading divorce all over the Western world. You began by attempting to be more strict than Catholicism and ended up destroying millions of families.
You can give it; can you take it?
As a Catholic, I agree with you 100% on the death penalty. Our ordinary magisterium and ordinary papal magisterium can err in morals which most Catholics on the net do not know but they could ascertain by simply going to the online Introduction to the Fundamentals of the Catholic Faith by Ludwig Ott and reading the ending paragraph of section 8 of the Intro.
Now let me say though that the non Roman Church has erred by spreading divorce all over the Western world. You began by attempting to be more strict than Catholicism and ended up destroying millions of families.
6.18.2010 | 4:52pm
Don Roberto says:
Amen, Mr. O'Hara. I assume you meant "...when is isn't possible..." I fear it is less possible than those good people who have never guarded prisoners (who curse them, rape each other, shower them with feces, stab them with sharpened plastic spoons, etc.), and who overlook the fact that we're borrowing vast sums of money we don't have to pay for our prisons think.
The ludicrous liberal legal knots we've tied ourselves into, whereunder it takes years to reach settled conclusions, add another layer to the complexity of this issue, but Mr. Bottum, wise and God-fearing man that he is, goes too far in his lamentation. Consider how Eli's inability to judge (1 Samuel) led to the loss of God's favor.
Godspeed,
The ludicrous liberal legal knots we've tied ourselves into, whereunder it takes years to reach settled conclusions, add another layer to the complexity of this issue, but Mr. Bottum, wise and God-fearing man that he is, goes too far in his lamentation. Consider how Eli's inability to judge (1 Samuel) led to the loss of God's favor.
Godspeed,
6.18.2010 | 4:55pm
andrew says:
on review of mr. stuart koehl's comment above, at least three reasons are given in support of capital punishment:
1. to make a communal proclamation
2. to affirm a moral understanding
3. to defend moral certainty in an age of relativism
it concerns me greatly that anyone should think these three ends -- laudable otherwise -- as good enough reasons to support capital punishment. for i agree with mr. bottum: "There is, in fact, only a single reason that Ronnie Lee Gardner died last night—a single explanation that makes any sense at all. And it is that he deserved it."
sometimes retributive justice demands death. in contrast, the fact that such deaths "make statements" is of relative unimportance. for a fuller treatment, i recommend the following article:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/capital-punishment-the-case-for-justice-32
1. to make a communal proclamation
2. to affirm a moral understanding
3. to defend moral certainty in an age of relativism
it concerns me greatly that anyone should think these three ends -- laudable otherwise -- as good enough reasons to support capital punishment. for i agree with mr. bottum: "There is, in fact, only a single reason that Ronnie Lee Gardner died last night—a single explanation that makes any sense at all. And it is that he deserved it."
sometimes retributive justice demands death. in contrast, the fact that such deaths "make statements" is of relative unimportance. for a fuller treatment, i recommend the following article:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/capital-punishment-the-case-for-justice-32
6.18.2010 | 5:04pm
DavidW says:
Dr. Bottum,
Kindly allow me to suggest that your zealous indignation oversteps the boundaries of civil discourse so cherished and cultivated by RJN. Calling those with whom you disagree "fools" and their arguments "risible" strikes me as an arrant betrayal of FT's founding principles.
I have followed your essays on the death penalty for several years now and find your central argument to be tautological: the blood-soaked ground cries out to heaven for justice. Utah is the executor of justice. Therefore (in Gardner's case) Utah was (or must lay claim to have been) the executor of heaven's justice.
Is it possible, however, for the blood-soaked ground to call out to man as well as heaven for justice? Might there exist different species of justice for the same crime? Is it possible for man's justice (if you would concede such a thing), no matter how fraught with potential abuse, to be distinct from "blood-thirsty" revenge?
If not--if there is no distinction between man's justice and heaven's or no such thing as man's to begin with)--what form of justice was it to keep Gardner locked up for nearly 3 decades? Heaven's? But that form of heavenly justice from the state is ok?
Your other key assumption is that because of the absolute character of death, death is necessarily under heaven's purview, not man's. Thus the state presumes, without moral or philosophical foundation, to do heaven's work in capital punishment cases. If there is such a thing as human justice, however (and you seem to suggest as much by condoning incarceration), might its severest form also be absolute? If not, why not?
Kindly allow me to suggest that your zealous indignation oversteps the boundaries of civil discourse so cherished and cultivated by RJN. Calling those with whom you disagree "fools" and their arguments "risible" strikes me as an arrant betrayal of FT's founding principles.
I have followed your essays on the death penalty for several years now and find your central argument to be tautological: the blood-soaked ground cries out to heaven for justice. Utah is the executor of justice. Therefore (in Gardner's case) Utah was (or must lay claim to have been) the executor of heaven's justice.
Is it possible, however, for the blood-soaked ground to call out to man as well as heaven for justice? Might there exist different species of justice for the same crime? Is it possible for man's justice (if you would concede such a thing), no matter how fraught with potential abuse, to be distinct from "blood-thirsty" revenge?
If not--if there is no distinction between man's justice and heaven's or no such thing as man's to begin with)--what form of justice was it to keep Gardner locked up for nearly 3 decades? Heaven's? But that form of heavenly justice from the state is ok?
Your other key assumption is that because of the absolute character of death, death is necessarily under heaven's purview, not man's. Thus the state presumes, without moral or philosophical foundation, to do heaven's work in capital punishment cases. If there is such a thing as human justice, however (and you seem to suggest as much by condoning incarceration), might its severest form also be absolute? If not, why not?
6.18.2010 | 5:24pm
Jon Rowe says:
"The Scriptures are exceedingly clear that the death penalty is a perfectly acceptable form of punishment."
As a non-Christian I don't have a problem with the death penalty, in principle. Though as a libertarian I fear govt. incompetence in executing the wrongly convicted.
However, I disagree that the scriptures are "exceedingly clear" that the DP is acceptable. The Old Testament is. But the NT is not. The only place Jesus deals with the DP, He forbids it. It might help to ponder His rationale for doing so and ask whether state actors or the state itself has the just power to, accordingly, execute people.
As a non-Christian I don't have a problem with the death penalty, in principle. Though as a libertarian I fear govt. incompetence in executing the wrongly convicted.
However, I disagree that the scriptures are "exceedingly clear" that the DP is acceptable. The Old Testament is. But the NT is not. The only place Jesus deals with the DP, He forbids it. It might help to ponder His rationale for doing so and ask whether state actors or the state itself has the just power to, accordingly, execute people.
6.18.2010 | 5:40pm
Craig Payne says:
"Here is a very good example of yet another place where the Roman Church has gone wrong."
Dear Rev. McCain: I do not think Mr. Bottum's position is the official position of the Catholic Church on this issue, nor is Mr. Bottum claiming that it is.
Dear Rev. McCain: I do not think Mr. Bottum's position is the official position of the Catholic Church on this issue, nor is Mr. Bottum claiming that it is.
6.18.2010 | 5:49pm
Don Roberto says:
Mr. Rowe: People often ask, rhetorically, “What would Jesus do?” That may seem like a clean way to consider a question like this. But it ignores the details, the reality of our world. And Jesus specifically said He did not come to undo the Old Law, not a word of it. I do not think He would have us shirk our responsibilities to our children, et al. We can’t often, with a word of command, drive the demons out, as He could. (The Magisterium teaches that the death penalty is wrong so long as we can defend the innocent without it. I agree, of course. What I disagree with is the notion that we can always, or even often, do this in any rationally defensible way. Just as I could not possibly justify getting on a plane right now and flying to Paris for three weeks of high living.) And so we are called to do our best with the tools at our disposal. Instead, sadly, the “declining West,” America included, essentially sweeps the issue under the carpet.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
6.18.2010 | 6:02pm
bill bannon says:
Jon Rowe,
Please. Christ in effect in John's gospel ended the Jewish only death penalties for personal sins not for crimes like murder when He in effect stopped by shame the stoning of the adulteress. That is unrelated to Genesis 9:5-6 which commands both gentiles and Jews to execute murderers (the death penalties for personal sins were only for the Jews and are found separately in Deuteronomy and Leviticus).
He did that mercy toward the adulteress because He had now brought grace (Jn 1:17) and prior to grace and the relative submission of the demons, men needed great threats to avoid common personal sins. As one of the Trinity, Christ subsequently (in our time context) endorsed the death penalty for crimes once again in Romans 13:3-4 which postdates the adulteress incident which regards personal sins not crimes.
Please. Christ in effect in John's gospel ended the Jewish only death penalties for personal sins not for crimes like murder when He in effect stopped by shame the stoning of the adulteress. That is unrelated to Genesis 9:5-6 which commands both gentiles and Jews to execute murderers (the death penalties for personal sins were only for the Jews and are found separately in Deuteronomy and Leviticus).
He did that mercy toward the adulteress because He had now brought grace (Jn 1:17) and prior to grace and the relative submission of the demons, men needed great threats to avoid common personal sins. As one of the Trinity, Christ subsequently (in our time context) endorsed the death penalty for crimes once again in Romans 13:3-4 which postdates the adulteress incident which regards personal sins not crimes.
6.18.2010 | 6:06pm
Maria says:
As Christians and Catholics, we need to try to prevent any person from becoming a murderer !
The merciful attitude our Lord requires in N.T may be the exact remedy for same !
True, those persons need heroic interventions, including extremen exorcisms !
And the pay backs for such heroic measures may have been great , for The Church and for all !
We might even have been give power, to exorcise, Osama or his name cousin at home , by now :)
in O.T , with the possible prevalence of lots of demonic powers of hatred and vengeance , idolatry etc : , man may have been incapable of repenting deeply and thus such harsh means may have been necessary , to keep persons from giving the devil even more of a foothold !
In N.T times, we have been given lots more power of The Holy Spirit !
What happens to the heart and soul of those executioners !
Are they unwittingly inviting in dark powers and bondages into their own lives and family lines, to perpetuate the process !
How about all the parents who have chosen to have their own children and all who would have come from those children , murdered in the womb !
Could the instances of repentnace from those death row inmates have brought down graces, instead of making more persons murderers , like those executioners !
If we had such a compassonate , merciful approach, would it have brought down many fruits already - such as hearts and minds turing against the murder in wombs and all the good it would have brought forth , such as even cheap energy, plenty of resources, no oil spill , less crimes, no abortion related hidden health care costs from depression, overeating, addictions, cancers, breakups in relationships !
What are the REAL costs of our actions !
The merciful attitude our Lord requires in N.T may be the exact remedy for same !
True, those persons need heroic interventions, including extremen exorcisms !
And the pay backs for such heroic measures may have been great , for The Church and for all !
We might even have been give power, to exorcise, Osama or his name cousin at home , by now :)
in O.T , with the possible prevalence of lots of demonic powers of hatred and vengeance , idolatry etc : , man may have been incapable of repenting deeply and thus such harsh means may have been necessary , to keep persons from giving the devil even more of a foothold !
In N.T times, we have been given lots more power of The Holy Spirit !
What happens to the heart and soul of those executioners !
Are they unwittingly inviting in dark powers and bondages into their own lives and family lines, to perpetuate the process !
How about all the parents who have chosen to have their own children and all who would have come from those children , murdered in the womb !
Could the instances of repentnace from those death row inmates have brought down graces, instead of making more persons murderers , like those executioners !
If we had such a compassonate , merciful approach, would it have brought down many fruits already - such as hearts and minds turing against the murder in wombs and all the good it would have brought forth , such as even cheap energy, plenty of resources, no oil spill , less crimes, no abortion related hidden health care costs from depression, overeating, addictions, cancers, breakups in relationships !
What are the REAL costs of our actions !
6.18.2010 | 6:19pm
bill bannon says:
Maria,
Have you even read Romans 13:3-4? You love the Holy Spirit but you seem not to get around to actually reading what He said on this matter. Strange. Have you read also according to the Holy Spirit in the gospel this time where the death penalty had a 50% repentance rate vis a vis the two men on either side of Christ on their own crosses....and for all we know, the silent thief may have also repented.
In short if you love God as much as you are implying, then it is odd that you don't actually cite what He....not you....has said on this topic.
Have you even read Romans 13:3-4? You love the Holy Spirit but you seem not to get around to actually reading what He said on this matter. Strange. Have you read also according to the Holy Spirit in the gospel this time where the death penalty had a 50% repentance rate vis a vis the two men on either side of Christ on their own crosses....and for all we know, the silent thief may have also repented.
In short if you love God as much as you are implying, then it is odd that you don't actually cite what He....not you....has said on this topic.
6.18.2010 | 6:30pm
David Gray says:
I'm sorry to see First Things so openly embrace rebellion against both the clear teaching of scripture and the historic witness of the church catholic.
6.18.2010 | 6:47pm
Jon Rowe says:
"And Jesus specifically said He did not come to undo the Old Law, not a word of it."
We aren't talking about the content of the law but the Old Testament punishments. No one is suggesting that Jesus' actions meant adultery is no longer a sin. Do keep in mind that the OT punishment for adultery was execution by stoning to death. Your citing of that quote suggests you would support execution for adultery, because after all Jesus did not come to undo one word of the law.
We aren't talking about the content of the law but the Old Testament punishments. No one is suggesting that Jesus' actions meant adultery is no longer a sin. Do keep in mind that the OT punishment for adultery was execution by stoning to death. Your citing of that quote suggests you would support execution for adultery, because after all Jesus did not come to undo one word of the law.
6.18.2010 | 6:51pm
Jon Rowe says:
Please. Christ in effect in John's gospel ended the Jewish only death penalties for personal sins not for crimes like murder when He in effect stopped by shame the stoning of the adulteress.
The Bible does not say this.
As one of the Trinity, Christ subsequently (in our time context) endorsed the death penalty for crimes once again in Romans 13:3-4 which postdates the adulteress incident which regards personal sins not crimes.
Romans 13 doesn't take a position on the death penalty.
The Bible does not say this.
As one of the Trinity, Christ subsequently (in our time context) endorsed the death penalty for crimes once again in Romans 13:3-4 which postdates the adulteress incident which regards personal sins not crimes.
Romans 13 doesn't take a position on the death penalty.
6.18.2010 | 7:04pm
Jon Rowe says:
I stand corrected on Japan and the DP.
It is still my understanding in most circumstances the punishments there tend to be more lenient than in America.
Japan in many ways is an extremely civilized country. But they are hardly a narrative for conservative Christianity or secular liberalism.
They shame people who get out of line; have very low out of wedlock births; much less crime and poverty and very high education/literacy rates. Their business models are more collectivist. They are also very sexist, racist, ethnocentric, have more and grosser pornography, higher abortion rates and married men there more commonly solicit prostitutes and have extra-marital affairs.
They are who they are and are a very nice place to visit and with whom to do business. They are not who we are.
It is still my understanding in most circumstances the punishments there tend to be more lenient than in America.
Japan in many ways is an extremely civilized country. But they are hardly a narrative for conservative Christianity or secular liberalism.
They shame people who get out of line; have very low out of wedlock births; much less crime and poverty and very high education/literacy rates. Their business models are more collectivist. They are also very sexist, racist, ethnocentric, have more and grosser pornography, higher abortion rates and married men there more commonly solicit prostitutes and have extra-marital affairs.
They are who they are and are a very nice place to visit and with whom to do business. They are not who we are.
6.18.2010 | 7:07pm
AvantiBev says:
When my fellow Catholics tell me Jesus forbade the use of the death penalty, I have to wonder why He ends up telling Pontius Pilate that he would have no authority over Him were it not given him (Pilate) by Heaven. I also wonder why Jesus not only subjected Himself to the Law but also did not say to the repentent thief "This day you will be beamed down from your cross and go your merry way."
6.18.2010 | 10:35pm
bill bannon says:
Jon
You just lost my ear and my work premanently. Games are a terrible thing.
You just lost my ear and my work premanently. Games are a terrible thing.
6.18.2010 | 11:56pm
Bill Russell says:
Mr. Bottum's argument is surprisingly emotional and discordant with Christian tradition. He asks where is the authority of the state to execute. Its authority rests precisely in its authentic quality as the recognized government established to secure "tranquillitas ordinis" according to natural law. This is divinely confirmed, whether the government be monarchical or by democratic contract. "You would have no authority over me were it not given you from above" applies to any legitimate government (and Christ was speaking to a governor whose emperor still was accountable to his senate.) John Paul II parted from the "hermeneutic of continuity" by inventing an abrogation of natural law, and insinuating into the Catechism a prudential opinion which has no place in such a teaching document His mistake here has done immeasurable damage to the Right to Life Movement by giving credibility to the subjective "Seamless Garment" propaganda and is perhaps the most vivid proof of his, I regret to say, very frail personalist phenomenology.
6.19.2010 | 12:58am
flataffect says:
I find this rant offensive. The only blood-hungry fool here was Ronnie Lee Gardner. He gave no mercy, nor did he deserve any.
If Jesus were opposed to capital punishment, what did he mean when he said, "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."?
If Jesus were opposed to capital punishment, what did he mean when he said, "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."?
6.19.2010 | 4:37am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Mr. Bottum: Thanks for your well thought comments on this issue. I live in Utah, and have experienced all of the drama that this execution produced. I've been somewhat ambivalent, about the death penalty, in general, because of my feeling that some murderers simply deserve it.(frankly, I think Mr.Taylor, the last murderer to get the firing squad, here in Utah, deserved it, in fact, got off easy), but feeling that someone "deserved" it, is not an argument. And you've provided plenty of reasons why the death penalty is inefficatious.
What Mr. Gardner did was horrible, no one denies that. But he was no longer an escape risk, as you point out. The better punishment is to give them life in prison.
What Mr. Gardner did was horrible, no one denies that. But he was no longer an escape risk, as you point out. The better punishment is to give them life in prison.
6.19.2010 | 7:04am
bill bannon says:
Bill Russell,
Amen. And the prudential judgement itself was bizarre: life sentences are not working or protecting in many Catholic countries in South America, ten of which lead the world in murder rates (as being in the top 20 according to wiki's list).
Amen. And the prudential judgement itself was bizarre: life sentences are not working or protecting in many Catholic countries in South America, ten of which lead the world in murder rates (as being in the top 20 according to wiki's list).
6.19.2010 | 8:01am
Jon Rowe says:
Something seems extremely wrong with the comments on this thread. It's true that the state, according to the Bible, is divinely ordained. And the traditional understanding is that while the state could do wrong, no wrong that it did could cause it to lose its divinely ordained authority. Hence to resist the state's authority is to resist God ala Romans 13. In the modern era where the right to rebellion under certain circumstances is taken as a given (which by the way arguably is NOT in accord with traditional Christianity) we have a hard time understanding this.
Reflect on "He ends up telling Pontius Pilate that he would have no authority over Him were it not given him (Pilate) by Heaven." What Pilate did was the gravest of evils, but that still didn't cause the government to lose its divinely ordained status.
Also reflect on Mr. Bannon's frightening seeming endorsement of crucifixion, as a method of execution, for the two guilty parties next to Jesus.
Sure Romans 13 permits this, just as it permits crucifying Jesus; the point is Romans 13 permits all sorts of horrible things because government, though divinely ordained is still a man oriented fallen institution.
But are these really ideals on criminal punishments that Christians should in good conscience support?
Reflect on "He ends up telling Pontius Pilate that he would have no authority over Him were it not given him (Pilate) by Heaven." What Pilate did was the gravest of evils, but that still didn't cause the government to lose its divinely ordained status.
Also reflect on Mr. Bannon's frightening seeming endorsement of crucifixion, as a method of execution, for the two guilty parties next to Jesus.
Sure Romans 13 permits this, just as it permits crucifying Jesus; the point is Romans 13 permits all sorts of horrible things because government, though divinely ordained is still a man oriented fallen institution.
But are these really ideals on criminal punishments that Christians should in good conscience support?
6.19.2010 | 9:24am
Neil D. Cowling says:
Sorry to chime into this discussion so late but I was too busy hitting golf balls yesterday and didn’t get to see it until late last night. I had followed the earlier discussion on Mr. Bottum’s posting of a few days ago and something began bothering me then and continues to do so now. It is this!
Is Romans 13 supposed to be some theory of the state interrupting Paul’s argument in Romans 12 or is it not rather an integral part of Paul’s argument about how Christians are to act, and in fact witness to the gospel in a context of an Empire that is hostile to the gospel? After all Jesus is Lord and not this Caesar and if we are Christian we are to follow Jesus as Lord. If we follow Jesus as Lord we are told “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” and “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’says the Lord. On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
That is the immediate context of Romans 13 the argument of which is a continuation of the preceding chapter and the argument of which continues into the remainder of chapter 13, to wit,
“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ove does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
“And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”
I have to wonder if those men who wielded the rifles that brought this tragic end to the tragic life of Ronnie Lee Gardner had remembered that we are to clothe ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature, whether they could have pulled the trigger. I would further wonder that if they had thought about that what impact that would have had “On the Square.”
Is Romans 13 supposed to be some theory of the state interrupting Paul’s argument in Romans 12 or is it not rather an integral part of Paul’s argument about how Christians are to act, and in fact witness to the gospel in a context of an Empire that is hostile to the gospel? After all Jesus is Lord and not this Caesar and if we are Christian we are to follow Jesus as Lord. If we follow Jesus as Lord we are told “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” and “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’says the Lord. On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
That is the immediate context of Romans 13 the argument of which is a continuation of the preceding chapter and the argument of which continues into the remainder of chapter 13, to wit,
“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ove does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
“And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.”
I have to wonder if those men who wielded the rifles that brought this tragic end to the tragic life of Ronnie Lee Gardner had remembered that we are to clothe ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature, whether they could have pulled the trigger. I would further wonder that if they had thought about that what impact that would have had “On the Square.”
6.19.2010 | 9:38am
J. Bob says:
If you want to hear what Jesus says, try Matt. 15:4-5, Jerusalem Bible.
For God said: “do your duty to your father and mother” and: "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death”.
For God said: “do your duty to your father and mother” and: "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death”.
6.19.2010 | 10:30am
David says:
I believe that if you want the death penalty then you must be prepared to pull the trigger, inject the acid, or press the button. You must then be prepared to clean up the mess. And there is a big mess. You must also be prepared to console the dead man's familyIts easy to to support the death penalty from the comfort of one's home. Its easy to shoot one's mouth off and act all self-righteous, but few of these could stomach the whole business of taking a man's life.
6.19.2010 | 11:39am
RC says:
I once worked as a guard in a small Texas town that housed a horrific murderer. Please read the details of this murderer and tell me that justice was not served.
http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/245.asp
To look in to the eyes of this individual would make your blood run cold. Now 17 years later fatherhood has served to further magnify the horror of this man's crimes.
The moral and legal arguments both for and against the death penalty should not be responded to in any knee-jerk fashion. It is with an extremely heavy heart that would ever deliberate such a fate for any man. As for the opponents of the death penalty, how often must the system fail (repeat offenders or slick legal maneuvering) before you would deem that society can not be protected from such dangerous individuals.
My hope is that such condemned men would make use of the opportunity to draw themselves closer to God and repent of their actions in much the same manner as Saint Dismas (the good thief) did when he said, "And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes" (Luke 23).
http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/245.asp
To look in to the eyes of this individual would make your blood run cold. Now 17 years later fatherhood has served to further magnify the horror of this man's crimes.
The moral and legal arguments both for and against the death penalty should not be responded to in any knee-jerk fashion. It is with an extremely heavy heart that would ever deliberate such a fate for any man. As for the opponents of the death penalty, how often must the system fail (repeat offenders or slick legal maneuvering) before you would deem that society can not be protected from such dangerous individuals.
My hope is that such condemned men would make use of the opportunity to draw themselves closer to God and repent of their actions in much the same manner as Saint Dismas (the good thief) did when he said, "And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes" (Luke 23).
6.19.2010 | 11:54am
Vet says:
David
Actually I know I can kill an enemy. But that is immaterial. You want your office bathroom clean. Does that mean you should clean it? You want the sewer system in your town to protect your family. Does that mean you should do volunteer work in the sewer. Bad sidetrack.
Actually I know I can kill an enemy. But that is immaterial. You want your office bathroom clean. Does that mean you should clean it? You want the sewer system in your town to protect your family. Does that mean you should do volunteer work in the sewer. Bad sidetrack.
6.19.2010 | 12:15pm
bill bannon says:
Neil
Your endless context theory is getting overworked. It is used by many to nullify passages they don't like by extending the context ad infinitum. So nothing means what it seems to mean because one must always read the previous two epistles and the subsequent two epistles. Let's return from Oz.
Elijah was so special to God that he was taken up lest he should see death and he will return prior to that "great and terrible day" according to scripture. Yet Elijah slit the throats of 450 prophets of Baal in I Kings 18 in accordance with God's will (add that to the context of Romans 13:4)....just as the prophet Samuel "hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal"....precisely because Saul wouldn't do it (add that to your context of Romans 13:4). In Acts 12 God sends an angel to give Herod a disgusting death accompanied by worms and that is after the New Covenant begins. Judith cut off the head of Holofernes and thus saved her people and we have the last two Popes repeatedly saying that violence solves nothing and causes more violence every time Israel fights back against Hamas and Hezzbollah. Apparently it...violence...stopped Hitler from taking over Europe with no circular vengeance taking place after that by Germans....and violence stopped Japan from enslaving China and Japan became quite peaceful thereafter...the opposite of the new canard about revenge being inevitable by these last two Popes.
So if we stretch context to include the whole Bible, it contains implications about killing that frankly make you and the last two Popes hurl...period.
We are all under a death sentence and many of us will suffer one that is greater than administered by the state. I watched a faithful to Christ relative die awfully for weeks with end stage renal failure and her pain exceeded any modern form of death penalty you can imagine. And that might happen to both you and me.
Opposition to the death penalty may in some people not be about criminals at all but about their own death and about the eternity of hell. By denouncing the death penalty, they are really denouncing what is certainly going to happen to them vis a vis physical death and perhaps with more pain than an executed person has. That may not be your agenda. But I note that none of you opposers seem to interested in the prisoners who are being killed in prison by lifers...like Jeffrey Dahmer and Fr. Geoghan. If you are not enraged over such prison executions by prisoners, then the issue may not be convicts at all but it could be you and your deaths really that you are opposing.
Your endless context theory is getting overworked. It is used by many to nullify passages they don't like by extending the context ad infinitum. So nothing means what it seems to mean because one must always read the previous two epistles and the subsequent two epistles. Let's return from Oz.
Elijah was so special to God that he was taken up lest he should see death and he will return prior to that "great and terrible day" according to scripture. Yet Elijah slit the throats of 450 prophets of Baal in I Kings 18 in accordance with God's will (add that to the context of Romans 13:4)....just as the prophet Samuel "hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal"....precisely because Saul wouldn't do it (add that to your context of Romans 13:4). In Acts 12 God sends an angel to give Herod a disgusting death accompanied by worms and that is after the New Covenant begins. Judith cut off the head of Holofernes and thus saved her people and we have the last two Popes repeatedly saying that violence solves nothing and causes more violence every time Israel fights back against Hamas and Hezzbollah. Apparently it...violence...stopped Hitler from taking over Europe with no circular vengeance taking place after that by Germans....and violence stopped Japan from enslaving China and Japan became quite peaceful thereafter...the opposite of the new canard about revenge being inevitable by these last two Popes.
So if we stretch context to include the whole Bible, it contains implications about killing that frankly make you and the last two Popes hurl...period.
We are all under a death sentence and many of us will suffer one that is greater than administered by the state. I watched a faithful to Christ relative die awfully for weeks with end stage renal failure and her pain exceeded any modern form of death penalty you can imagine. And that might happen to both you and me.
Opposition to the death penalty may in some people not be about criminals at all but about their own death and about the eternity of hell. By denouncing the death penalty, they are really denouncing what is certainly going to happen to them vis a vis physical death and perhaps with more pain than an executed person has. That may not be your agenda. But I note that none of you opposers seem to interested in the prisoners who are being killed in prison by lifers...like Jeffrey Dahmer and Fr. Geoghan. If you are not enraged over such prison executions by prisoners, then the issue may not be convicts at all but it could be you and your deaths really that you are opposing.
6.19.2010 | 2:01pm
Rocky Johnson says:
You know, Mr. Bottum, we have Muslims embedded in the TSA, creeping shari'a and secular totalitarians taking over our country and taking our God-given freedom. Christianity in America may soon descend to the level of a quaint artifact of history.
I care--believe me, I care--but this is like fiddling while Rome burns. This is not a first thing, this is a third thing
I care--believe me, I care--but this is like fiddling while Rome burns. This is not a first thing, this is a third thing
6.19.2010 | 3:56pm
Neil D. Cowling says:
To Bill Bannon:
What endless context theory?? It certain is not my theory. I am talking about the exegesis of a passage, specifically the passage that folks keep referring to here–namely, Romans 13:1-7–as though one could understand it as Paul’s theory of the power of the state as if it had no context at all, as though it were a pronouncement dropped out of heaven. If one is to understand Paul’s argument in Romans 13:1-7 one must also be aware of the whole argument of Romans 12 and 13. That is hardly an “endless context theory.” It is rather what any scholar of Paul’s letters would tell you to do if you want to understand what Paul is trying to say.
Is Paul’s argument different from that which one would draw from the slaughter of Agag or the prophets of Baal? Absolutely! There is is a direct parallel here to the argument of the antitheses of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-47. I would not be at all surprised to discover someday that Paul had been told about the Sermon by the disciples when he came back to Jerusalem.
What endless context theory?? It certain is not my theory. I am talking about the exegesis of a passage, specifically the passage that folks keep referring to here–namely, Romans 13:1-7–as though one could understand it as Paul’s theory of the power of the state as if it had no context at all, as though it were a pronouncement dropped out of heaven. If one is to understand Paul’s argument in Romans 13:1-7 one must also be aware of the whole argument of Romans 12 and 13. That is hardly an “endless context theory.” It is rather what any scholar of Paul’s letters would tell you to do if you want to understand what Paul is trying to say.
Is Paul’s argument different from that which one would draw from the slaughter of Agag or the prophets of Baal? Absolutely! There is is a direct parallel here to the argument of the antitheses of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-47. I would not be at all surprised to discover someday that Paul had been told about the Sermon by the disciples when he came back to Jerusalem.
6.19.2010 | 4:55pm
bill bannon says:
Neil
Your whole long exegesis conflated interpersonal behaviour with state behaviour so that you could nullify a passage from God that you don't like which Christ warned the Scribes not to do. And you did it. You obviously cannot take revenge in private but Romans 13:4 is saying that the state can execute the wrath of God which you as a private Christian cannot. You spent all that time conflating the two areas when you could have been improving your swing. The Sermon on the Mount and like passages within Romans cannot be used to nullify Romans 13:4. Joseph Bottum knows that so his approach is to nullify modern governments from receiving authority from God.
Both of you may have to one day execute a home invader who attacks your wife and has her on the floor with a knife at her throat as you enter the house.
What are you going to do? Call 911? Your wife will be dead by the time they get there. But if you force a long screwdriver into his ear and into his brain and choke him til he dies while he is bleeding out, you will have done in effect what Judith did to save her own people from the Assyrians in the Book of Judith. Can you do it? Can you do the disgusting thing to save your wife? Turn the other cheek does not work there...Fr. R. Brown said it referred to ritualistic low level violence since the weak hand was used by the first slapper "if your opponent strikes you on the right cheek"....meaning he used his left hand What are you going to do? Decades of saccharine sermons from our pulpits have not prepared you and many others on the net to know what to do if your wife is attacked. I recommend short shotguns with magnum shells and practice...he'll be dead quicker and with less pain than you and I will if we die from disease late in life.
All you pacifists here. You may be called on to execute a criminal to protect your wife or mom or sister and the state delegates that authority to you in that context in all states when life is in danger. If he drops the weapon when you show a gun, your right to kill him ceases that second. If he does not drop the weapon instantly, you kill him. If you don't, there is nothing Biblical about you.
Your whole long exegesis conflated interpersonal behaviour with state behaviour so that you could nullify a passage from God that you don't like which Christ warned the Scribes not to do. And you did it. You obviously cannot take revenge in private but Romans 13:4 is saying that the state can execute the wrath of God which you as a private Christian cannot. You spent all that time conflating the two areas when you could have been improving your swing. The Sermon on the Mount and like passages within Romans cannot be used to nullify Romans 13:4. Joseph Bottum knows that so his approach is to nullify modern governments from receiving authority from God.
Both of you may have to one day execute a home invader who attacks your wife and has her on the floor with a knife at her throat as you enter the house.
What are you going to do? Call 911? Your wife will be dead by the time they get there. But if you force a long screwdriver into his ear and into his brain and choke him til he dies while he is bleeding out, you will have done in effect what Judith did to save her own people from the Assyrians in the Book of Judith. Can you do it? Can you do the disgusting thing to save your wife? Turn the other cheek does not work there...Fr. R. Brown said it referred to ritualistic low level violence since the weak hand was used by the first slapper "if your opponent strikes you on the right cheek"....meaning he used his left hand What are you going to do? Decades of saccharine sermons from our pulpits have not prepared you and many others on the net to know what to do if your wife is attacked. I recommend short shotguns with magnum shells and practice...he'll be dead quicker and with less pain than you and I will if we die from disease late in life.
All you pacifists here. You may be called on to execute a criminal to protect your wife or mom or sister and the state delegates that authority to you in that context in all states when life is in danger. If he drops the weapon when you show a gun, your right to kill him ceases that second. If he does not drop the weapon instantly, you kill him. If you don't, there is nothing Biblical about you.
6.19.2010 | 5:51pm
Steve Golay says:
The author used the phrase below. This is what needs further explanation. As it stands, and how it relates to the issue of the death penalty:
". . . a modern nation, founded on no deliberate godly principle . . ."
". . . a modern nation, founded on no deliberate godly principle . . ."
6.19.2010 | 5:53pm
Neil D. Cowling says:
And you, Mr. Bannon, are introducing a distinction into the passage that is not there, namely, the distinction between public and private behavior.
Further, you are introducing situations in which you assume that the Christian, acting in the moment has only one alternative: the execution of violence. That is not true. You have also assumed that I would have some sort of weapon at hand that I could use in the moment, a gun, a knife, a screwdriver that I could easily get hold of with my bad knee. I don't blame you for that for you are merely thinking the way you have been taught to think. You are right about one thing that we have not done enough hard thinking about what to do.
I do not know what I would do in any of the circumstances that you suggest might happen. Perhaps I could employ deception so that the perpetrator stays his hand. Perhaps I could use some non-lethal force to get the perpetrator away from my wife. Perhaps I could plead or persuade. Perhaps I could pray that God stay the hand. Did you ever think that if my wife is a similarly inclined pacifist that she would rather die than have me commit the sin of murder? Or that we would both rather die than disobey the commands of Jesus? There may be many alternatives that neither you nor I could think of in the moment.
You have also assumed that whatever I do or do not do in the moment must somehow “work” to achieve the only end you think is responsible as a Christian? What I believe that God requires is that whatever we do that we be faithful and faithfulness is not necessarily effectiveness in the way most of us have been trained to think.
Further, you are introducing situations in which you assume that the Christian, acting in the moment has only one alternative: the execution of violence. That is not true. You have also assumed that I would have some sort of weapon at hand that I could use in the moment, a gun, a knife, a screwdriver that I could easily get hold of with my bad knee. I don't blame you for that for you are merely thinking the way you have been taught to think. You are right about one thing that we have not done enough hard thinking about what to do.
I do not know what I would do in any of the circumstances that you suggest might happen. Perhaps I could employ deception so that the perpetrator stays his hand. Perhaps I could use some non-lethal force to get the perpetrator away from my wife. Perhaps I could plead or persuade. Perhaps I could pray that God stay the hand. Did you ever think that if my wife is a similarly inclined pacifist that she would rather die than have me commit the sin of murder? Or that we would both rather die than disobey the commands of Jesus? There may be many alternatives that neither you nor I could think of in the moment.
You have also assumed that whatever I do or do not do in the moment must somehow “work” to achieve the only end you think is responsible as a Christian? What I believe that God requires is that whatever we do that we be faithful and faithfulness is not necessarily effectiveness in the way most of us have been trained to think.
6.19.2010 | 6:17pm
Charles H. Davis says:
A most disappointing ("blood-hungry fools") column by Mr. Bottum, un-Christian even, and unworthy of the editor of First Things Journal -- a veritable "cancel my subscription" moment.
6.19.2010 | 6:21pm
bill bannon says:
You are totally incorrect in calling killing ...murder... when self defense is at hand. It means inter alia that Judith and many other Biblical heroes were murderers rather than Biblical heroes. You and millions of others hate the bible as a whole but love the soft parts so the recourse for you is to nullify severe passages with passages that seem opposite until looked at closer. But God is both soft and hard according to the chapter right prior to one you cited: Rom 11:22 "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." You didn't tell us of that duality as context and it was just a wee bit prior to your chapter 12.
6.19.2010 | 7:08pm
Tom says:
I too just want to register disappointment with the article. Over many years I have come to expect more of First Things. The angry and flippant comments demonstrate Mr. Bottom's commitment but do not add to a cogent argument about the injustice of a death penalty law.
"We have so devolved that we kill even while we cannot explain how we are allowed to take matters of life and death into our hands."
There is truth in that statement. Yet in this article, it is "we" who have devolved; but "they did it." Bad headline. Perhaps it would be better if First Things tried to present clearer explanations of our devolution and prescriptions for more perfect administration of justice.
"We have so devolved that we kill even while we cannot explain how we are allowed to take matters of life and death into our hands."
There is truth in that statement. Yet in this article, it is "we" who have devolved; but "they did it." Bad headline. Perhaps it would be better if First Things tried to present clearer explanations of our devolution and prescriptions for more perfect administration of justice.
6.19.2010 | 9:29pm
Neil D. Cowling says:
Bill Bannon said:
“You are totally incorrect in calling killing ...murder... when self defense is at hand.”
OK. I stand corrected. But when I last read the 6th Commandment it said, “You shall not kill.” though I suppose we might quibble about whether the Hebrew word in Exodus 20:13, or Deuteronomy 5:17 means “murder” or “kill.” Whichever it means, the word of Jesus from the Sermon still stands as authoritative:
“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not kill’; and ‘whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.”
Is that stern enough for you?
You have continually said throughout this discussion that “[I] and millions of others hate the bible as a whole but love the soft parts so the recourse for [us] is to nullify severe passages with passages that seem opposite until looked at closer.” That is a ridiculous charge on its face. Throughout this discussion you have taken one verse here and one verse there and suggest that they nullify entire paragraphs such as found in Romans 12 and 13, that they nullify the entirety of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, and even nullify his actions in the Garden of Gethsemane where he forbade his disciples to use the sword in self-defense. Is it not fair to make the same accusation against you and “millions of others [who] hate the bible as a whole” but rather stick to one verse here and one verse there which appear to smile on your own point of view? Jesus had a word for that and I think you know what it is!
“You are totally incorrect in calling killing ...murder... when self defense is at hand.”
OK. I stand corrected. But when I last read the 6th Commandment it said, “You shall not kill.” though I suppose we might quibble about whether the Hebrew word in Exodus 20:13, or Deuteronomy 5:17 means “murder” or “kill.” Whichever it means, the word of Jesus from the Sermon still stands as authoritative:
“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not kill’; and ‘whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.”
Is that stern enough for you?
You have continually said throughout this discussion that “[I] and millions of others hate the bible as a whole but love the soft parts so the recourse for [us] is to nullify severe passages with passages that seem opposite until looked at closer.” That is a ridiculous charge on its face. Throughout this discussion you have taken one verse here and one verse there and suggest that they nullify entire paragraphs such as found in Romans 12 and 13, that they nullify the entirety of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, and even nullify his actions in the Garden of Gethsemane where he forbade his disciples to use the sword in self-defense. Is it not fair to make the same accusation against you and “millions of others [who] hate the bible as a whole” but rather stick to one verse here and one verse there which appear to smile on your own point of view? Jesus had a word for that and I think you know what it is!
6.19.2010 | 10:17pm
Margaret says:
Thank you, David Mills, for an excellent article! It is wholly convincing and well argued. I watched the movie Invictus last night with great interest. Nelson Mandela ("Madiba") suggests we need to work to become better, more merciful people; if we don't, we can't expect others to grow and improve. We need to be better than murderers and not regress to their level. "An eye for an eye" isn't applicable to New Testament times.
6.19.2010 | 11:20pm
bill bannon says:
Neil,
5th commandment is murder...6th is adultery. But with that proviso....absurd. The Sermon on the Mount and your Romans passages are about private life and have no relation to the state punishing murderers etc. which is what Romans 13:3-4 is about. I don't use Romans 13:4 to nullify any soft passage because the soft passages are not about enabling home invaders in rape or rapine.
That coercive state and its police force is why generally you do not worry about a home invasion. Move to the west coast of the island of Jamaica or the back hills of Antigua and that will all change. Then home invasion if you have money will be something real. But that is why you are where you are. Police with guns are defending you along with your faith. In Jamaica, it would be 100% faith. Two or three times now Pope Benedict has spoke of how violence solves nothing wherein he is repeating what Pope John Paul said in a late Easter sermon in his career. Do you know what the Swiss Guard who guarded and guard both men have in their arsenal? Heckler and Koch submachine guns...the MP5A3 which normally costs over $13,000 each. Let's hope H&K donated them for publicity or at least gave a clergy discount. You and the Popes are pacifist but you all have heavy equipment and brave men who are not pacifist guarding you which apparently you take for granted. The next time Benedict opines to Israel how violence solves nothing, I want you to picture the MP5A3....ten of them floating in the air behind him in kind of a surrealist theater moment.
5th commandment is murder...6th is adultery. But with that proviso....absurd. The Sermon on the Mount and your Romans passages are about private life and have no relation to the state punishing murderers etc. which is what Romans 13:3-4 is about. I don't use Romans 13:4 to nullify any soft passage because the soft passages are not about enabling home invaders in rape or rapine.
That coercive state and its police force is why generally you do not worry about a home invasion. Move to the west coast of the island of Jamaica or the back hills of Antigua and that will all change. Then home invasion if you have money will be something real. But that is why you are where you are. Police with guns are defending you along with your faith. In Jamaica, it would be 100% faith. Two or three times now Pope Benedict has spoke of how violence solves nothing wherein he is repeating what Pope John Paul said in a late Easter sermon in his career. Do you know what the Swiss Guard who guarded and guard both men have in their arsenal? Heckler and Koch submachine guns...the MP5A3 which normally costs over $13,000 each. Let's hope H&K donated them for publicity or at least gave a clergy discount. You and the Popes are pacifist but you all have heavy equipment and brave men who are not pacifist guarding you which apparently you take for granted. The next time Benedict opines to Israel how violence solves nothing, I want you to picture the MP5A3....ten of them floating in the air behind him in kind of a surrealist theater moment.
6.19.2010 | 11:30pm
bill bannon says:
Margaret,
You are right excepting the author involved. An "eye for an eye" isn't applicable to New Testament times but Romans 13:4 is....which see...the Trinity authored it hoping you would read it... according to Dei Verbum in Vatican II.
You are right excepting the author involved. An "eye for an eye" isn't applicable to New Testament times but Romans 13:4 is....which see...the Trinity authored it hoping you would read it... according to Dei Verbum in Vatican II.
6.20.2010 | 5:31am
Gabriel says:
Neil D Cowling said: “But when I last read the 6th Commandment it said, “You shall not kill.” though I suppose we might quibble about whether the Hebrew word in Exodus 20:13, or Deuteronomy 5:17 means “murder” or “kill.””
To insist on the correct translation of the original Hebrew of the Ten Commandments is no mere “quibble”! – If God gave His Bible in Hebrew, and it is God’s Bible that you want to understand, then you had better understand some Hebrew – or at least, you had better find a good and reliable translation. To think of this as a mere “quibble” is to show astonishing disregard for God’s word! – After all, there is a pretty big difference between God’s commanding us not to *murder*, and His commanding us not to kill!
The King James in both reports of the Ten Commandments has “Thou shalt not kill.” Perhaps that was a good translation given the meaning of the word ‘kill’ in the 17th century, I don’t know; but it certainly does *not* seem to be a good one in modern English. The Hebrew is “Loh tirtzach” – and this seems to means “Do not murder”. If the much stronger and more general “Do not kill” had been intended, then I'd have thought it would have to have said something like “Loh taharogu” (or perhaps even “Loh tamitu”?).
Beyond linguistic points, it seems to be plainly obvious that the command would be against *murder* rather than *killing* - because the Hebrew Bible sanctions killing in many circumstances: in certain wars, and in capital punishment for certain sins, for example. It would make the Ten Commandments ridiculous, then, if they commanded us never to kill, i.e. under any circumstances – what? even under those circumstances under which we are *commanded* to kill??!
So it seems to me, anyway – but I am no Biblical scholar, or scholar of Biblical Hebrew, so I would be open to correction. Does anyone know, perhaps, why the King James would translate Ex 20:13, and Deut 5:17 as “Thou shalt not kill”? I would be very interested to know...
To insist on the correct translation of the original Hebrew of the Ten Commandments is no mere “quibble”! – If God gave His Bible in Hebrew, and it is God’s Bible that you want to understand, then you had better understand some Hebrew – or at least, you had better find a good and reliable translation. To think of this as a mere “quibble” is to show astonishing disregard for God’s word! – After all, there is a pretty big difference between God’s commanding us not to *murder*, and His commanding us not to kill!
The King James in both reports of the Ten Commandments has “Thou shalt not kill.” Perhaps that was a good translation given the meaning of the word ‘kill’ in the 17th century, I don’t know; but it certainly does *not* seem to be a good one in modern English. The Hebrew is “Loh tirtzach” – and this seems to means “Do not murder”. If the much stronger and more general “Do not kill” had been intended, then I'd have thought it would have to have said something like “Loh taharogu” (or perhaps even “Loh tamitu”?).
Beyond linguistic points, it seems to be plainly obvious that the command would be against *murder* rather than *killing* - because the Hebrew Bible sanctions killing in many circumstances: in certain wars, and in capital punishment for certain sins, for example. It would make the Ten Commandments ridiculous, then, if they commanded us never to kill, i.e. under any circumstances – what? even under those circumstances under which we are *commanded* to kill??!
So it seems to me, anyway – but I am no Biblical scholar, or scholar of Biblical Hebrew, so I would be open to correction. Does anyone know, perhaps, why the King James would translate Ex 20:13, and Deut 5:17 as “Thou shalt not kill”? I would be very interested to know...
6.20.2010 | 8:15am
Neil D. Cowling says:
I just rechecked my numbering in the Book of Common Worship of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in which I am a Minister of Word and Sacrament which agrees with my counting in the Book of Exodus. There it is the 6th. That I am a Presbyterian may also account for the fact that I am not overly impressed by the story of Judith in which she used her beauty and charm to bewitch Holofernes, get him drunk, and behead him with his own sword while he was asleep.
That aside, the absurdity arises in that you impose a modern distinction on the text that the apostle Paul does not know. To employ it and use it to construct a theory of the legitimacy of state behavior based on a single verse is what I call eisogesis and not exegesis.
That aside, the absurdity arises in that you impose a modern distinction on the text that the apostle Paul does not know. To employ it and use it to construct a theory of the legitimacy of state behavior based on a single verse is what I call eisogesis and not exegesis.
6.20.2010 | 8:29am
Timothy Murphy says:
About a year before I returned to the faith, Jody totally turned me around on human life. I was already inclined to his view on abortion, but not on capital punishment. After our discussion I was impressed with his consistency, I went home to read Humanae Vitae, and the ground was further prepared for my receipt of the Holy Spirit.
6.20.2010 | 10:15am
J. Bob says:
Margaret
The "eye for eye" law was to LIMIT the retribution at the time. It meant you could not injure the offender beyond your injury or kill the offender's family, or village .
So relative to that time it must have been very significant.
The "eye for eye" law was to LIMIT the retribution at the time. It meant you could not injure the offender beyond your injury or kill the offender's family, or village .
So relative to that time it must have been very significant.
6.20.2010 | 10:33am
Bill Russell says:
Mr. Bottum's opening line about "blood-thirsty fools" is a good example of how not to make a point. Blessed Pius IX's longest-serving executioner, Signor Bugatti, executed hundreds in Rome over his long career. His apprentice, Antonio Balducci, on 24 November 1868 beheaded two revolutionaries named Tognetti and Monti for some attempted bombings. The Pope responded to a final appeal for mercy saying, "I don't want to and I won't." Will Mr. Bottum call Blessed Pius IX a blood-thirsty fool? John Paul II, who beatified him, made almost a routine of appealing for stays of executions in the USA - and rarely elsewhere. One of those whose execution was stopped in response to such an appeal ended up raping, mutilating and killing a woman in Florida. - In the only other known instance of a positive response to a papal appeal, during John Paul's visit to Missouri, the pro-abortion governor obliged for political reasons and it worked: in the next election he defeated a pro-life candidate. Pope Benedict XVI inherited the embarrassing re-edited text of the Catechism on the subject and has been delicate in his commentary, but he seems to have stopped the practice of intervening in executions. Another blood-thirsty fool?
6.20.2010 | 11:41am
Jacob Ford says:
You guys need to start a premium comment section for people who know what they're talking about and another one for people like me who just have their interest piqued occasionally and rant a little bit.
Comment after comment seemingly verging on violent hatred for Mr. Bottum, and why? Because he's uncomfortable with executioners who can't explain themselves?
All these executioners' apologists commenting here seem to be prime examples of what Mr. Bottum is talking about.
As a side note this hits on one of the main problems with DIY Protestant/Evangelical/Born Again/Pentecostal theology.
What the Catholic Church says is debated over and over again by the wisest theologians and philosophers in the world...what local non Catholic churches say could have been decided by the biblical scholarship of three guys over a coffee meeting. Even the Orthodox can't approach the intellectual treasures of the Holy Roman Church.
Almost every evangelical/post Protestant has some firebrand scriptural reference that even I see right through. They constantly quote out of context and misunderstand the meaning of biblical stories as they call for the destruction or relegation of by far the most intellectually serious religious organization in the world, the One True Church.
I don't think they understand what kind of heathen post Catholic world would prevail if they succeeded at their naive goals. Like one commenter hinted they might find themselves in front of the firing squad if such righteous regimes took charge.
And please please PRETTY PLEASE stop repeating plain and simple lust for revenge as some kind of argument for the state descending to the level of the revenge (a.k.a. death) culture that pervades us.
You sound--in a bad way--like the old fashioned people so many "progressive" Americans are embarrassed of. Calling for death in 31 days, pesky philosophical arguments and DNA evidence be damned!
Consider that there may have been some justice to many of the initial murders that are committed. Sure the criminal can almost never defend having resorted to murder in reprisal for the real or perceived injustices the victim may have committed before becoming the victim; but Mr. Bottum is right to be scared if the State can't offer any better explanation than the people they execute.
My point is that the murderer was likely satisfying a partially justifiable lust for revenge. To emulate what the person your executing has done is a strange situation. Just as you cannot see the justifications for the life of the murderer to be spared so the murderer could not see the reasons why the victim should not have been killed, at the time of the murder at least.
Furthermore, as the same commenter pointed out, we all have Satan inside of us. No we don't all let him convince us to commit murder, but to assume that the murderer can't be back out of Satan's possession (repentant) and thus back in the realm of having a justifiable reason not to be murdered in revenge for his murder is to divorce ourselves completely from the core of what Christ died for on earth, mercy.
Mercy, the most useful definition of the difference between Christ and Satan.
Besides you don't even have to get in to all that if you take into account the undeniable fact that the government has murdered innocent men in its unquenchable thirst for revenge against the evildoers of the world.
Mr. Bottum hits the nail on the head. When the evildoers can't be tolerated to breathe but evil itself can be explained away we're lost.
When evil itself (revenge lust) gets more sympathy than broken down human beings, we're clearly demonstrating that we have no faith in the message of Jesus Christ, that mercy prevails over death [revenge] in the end.
Please, oh self righteous commentators, answer for me how many guilty deaths are worth an innocent life? (Is there some kind of conversion table you can show me?)
Comment after comment seemingly verging on violent hatred for Mr. Bottum, and why? Because he's uncomfortable with executioners who can't explain themselves?
All these executioners' apologists commenting here seem to be prime examples of what Mr. Bottum is talking about.
As a side note this hits on one of the main problems with DIY Protestant/Evangelical/Born Again/Pentecostal theology.
What the Catholic Church says is debated over and over again by the wisest theologians and philosophers in the world...what local non Catholic churches say could have been decided by the biblical scholarship of three guys over a coffee meeting. Even the Orthodox can't approach the intellectual treasures of the Holy Roman Church.
Almost every evangelical/post Protestant has some firebrand scriptural reference that even I see right through. They constantly quote out of context and misunderstand the meaning of biblical stories as they call for the destruction or relegation of by far the most intellectually serious religious organization in the world, the One True Church.
I don't think they understand what kind of heathen post Catholic world would prevail if they succeeded at their naive goals. Like one commenter hinted they might find themselves in front of the firing squad if such righteous regimes took charge.
And please please PRETTY PLEASE stop repeating plain and simple lust for revenge as some kind of argument for the state descending to the level of the revenge (a.k.a. death) culture that pervades us.
You sound--in a bad way--like the old fashioned people so many "progressive" Americans are embarrassed of. Calling for death in 31 days, pesky philosophical arguments and DNA evidence be damned!
Consider that there may have been some justice to many of the initial murders that are committed. Sure the criminal can almost never defend having resorted to murder in reprisal for the real or perceived injustices the victim may have committed before becoming the victim; but Mr. Bottum is right to be scared if the State can't offer any better explanation than the people they execute.
My point is that the murderer was likely satisfying a partially justifiable lust for revenge. To emulate what the person your executing has done is a strange situation. Just as you cannot see the justifications for the life of the murderer to be spared so the murderer could not see the reasons why the victim should not have been killed, at the time of the murder at least.
Furthermore, as the same commenter pointed out, we all have Satan inside of us. No we don't all let him convince us to commit murder, but to assume that the murderer can't be back out of Satan's possession (repentant) and thus back in the realm of having a justifiable reason not to be murdered in revenge for his murder is to divorce ourselves completely from the core of what Christ died for on earth, mercy.
Mercy, the most useful definition of the difference between Christ and Satan.
Besides you don't even have to get in to all that if you take into account the undeniable fact that the government has murdered innocent men in its unquenchable thirst for revenge against the evildoers of the world.
Mr. Bottum hits the nail on the head. When the evildoers can't be tolerated to breathe but evil itself can be explained away we're lost.
When evil itself (revenge lust) gets more sympathy than broken down human beings, we're clearly demonstrating that we have no faith in the message of Jesus Christ, that mercy prevails over death [revenge] in the end.
Please, oh self righteous commentators, answer for me how many guilty deaths are worth an innocent life? (Is there some kind of conversion table you can show me?)
6.20.2010 | 1:35pm
Mike Murray says:
Thank you, Jacob Ford, for bringing light and order to this conversation.
6.20.2010 | 2:23pm
bill bannon says:
Bill Russell
Excellently interesting. John Paul II would not meet with the victims of sex abuse.
Did he ever meet with the families of murder victims or contact them at all when he was trying to save the murderers of their family members? I've seen no reports that he did and his fans would have touted it by now; so I assume his treatment of such families was similar to his treatment of sex abuse victims...he was above meeting or contacting them while being busy posing as rescuer of Cain. Too bad he didn't rescue our altar boys from being French kissed by clergy involuntarily during all his corporal works of rescue.
Excellently interesting. John Paul II would not meet with the victims of sex abuse.
Did he ever meet with the families of murder victims or contact them at all when he was trying to save the murderers of their family members? I've seen no reports that he did and his fans would have touted it by now; so I assume his treatment of such families was similar to his treatment of sex abuse victims...he was above meeting or contacting them while being busy posing as rescuer of Cain. Too bad he didn't rescue our altar boys from being French kissed by clergy involuntarily during all his corporal works of rescue.
6.20.2010 | 2:31pm
bill bannon says:
Jacob Ford and Mike Murray,
Have either of you read Pope John Paul II's commentary on the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae....without hurriedly doing it now?
Have either of you read Pope John Paul II's commentary on the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae....without hurriedly doing it now?
6.20.2010 | 3:21pm
bill bannon says:
Neil,
You write: " That I am a Presbyterian may also account for the fact that I am not overly impressed by the story of Judith in which she used her beauty and charm to bewitch Holofernes, get him drunk, and behead him with his own sword while he was asleep." But above you said that with a home invader you might also use subterfuge: "Perhaps I could employ deception so that the perpetrator stays his hand." If it is not lying for self defense, it is not lying for defending your whole people.
But then would you be alright because it is in your bible... with Elijah simply ordering the seizing of 450 prophets of Baal and slitting their throats which is in your Bible in I Kings 18:40; or two bears killing 42 children at the prophet's curse in 2 Kings 2:24 who had insulted Eliseus which is in your Bible: or a lion killing a guild prophet at another prophet's word which former prophet disobeyed the latter which is in your Bible in I Kings 20:36. And these are moments superior to Judith in what way....her subterfuge which way above you said you might use with a home invader? She only killed one person and stopped an army. Above is 493 deaths in three incidents in both our Bibles.
You write: " That I am a Presbyterian may also account for the fact that I am not overly impressed by the story of Judith in which she used her beauty and charm to bewitch Holofernes, get him drunk, and behead him with his own sword while he was asleep." But above you said that with a home invader you might also use subterfuge: "Perhaps I could employ deception so that the perpetrator stays his hand." If it is not lying for self defense, it is not lying for defending your whole people.
But then would you be alright because it is in your bible... with Elijah simply ordering the seizing of 450 prophets of Baal and slitting their throats which is in your Bible in I Kings 18:40; or two bears killing 42 children at the prophet's curse in 2 Kings 2:24 who had insulted Eliseus which is in your Bible: or a lion killing a guild prophet at another prophet's word which former prophet disobeyed the latter which is in your Bible in I Kings 20:36. And these are moments superior to Judith in what way....her subterfuge which way above you said you might use with a home invader? She only killed one person and stopped an army. Above is 493 deaths in three incidents in both our Bibles.
6.20.2010 | 4:40pm
Tony says:
Jacob Ford, have you ANY clue at all why Pope JPII, and the current Pope, and other recent popes, all agreed with St. Thomas Aquinas that the primary purpose of punishment is redress of the crime, to restore justice? Even a little? If you did, you could not possibly have written all that blather about "revenge" in the context of the state meeting out a stated penalty to a convicted criminal.
St. Thomas makes it clear: the crime and its redress consists precisely in this, that the criminal has embraced and acted out his own will in defiance of the law to which he is obliged to subject his will; and the redress is for the state to impose on the criminal proportionately to his defiant will that which his will would rebel against naturally left to its own devices. The will avoids pain and unpleasantness and constriction of freedom, so redress consists in imposing pain and unpleasantness and taking away freedom. True redress is proportionate, so a crime whose evil is permanent and heinous and grave requires a punishment of comparable character. Life in prison is unable to fully redress the evil of a murder wholly intended and planned with malice aforethought, so imposing life in prison leaves justice with inadequate redress. Where revenge imposes an evil out of desire for evil itself, punishment imposes an evil for the sake of justice, a common good.
The fact that 98% of people are unable to articulate the above clearly doesn't mean that they don't apprehend any difference between revenge and punishment, nor is Bottum correct in his complaint that society cannot explain its use of the death penalty. It can and does: the reason to impose death is for justice, justice fully and wholly redressed insofar as it lies in our hands. (And it DOES lie in our hands to use the death penalty, God said so in Genesis 9:6.) This is declared over and over by everyone who has an oar in supporting the death penalty, and the fact that Bottum does not like such an explanation does not invalidate it.
I would be more than pleased if the debate around the death penalty at least achieved this much: that it's opponents STOP referring to it as revenge and murder. Especially those who oppose the death penalty on the basis of the Catholic Church's recent documents on the subject: based on those documents, the state is not engaging in revenge when it imposes proportionate punishments according to the law; and the word "murder" is reserved for killing an innocent, which a convicted killer is certainly not. Even if using the death penalty is wrong, the wrong that it is IS NOT murder.
Bill Russell makes an excellent point: in the world of Vatican delicate shades of nuance, the omission of the current pope of any motion at all in the direction of appealing against death sentences is, possibly, a significant indicator that he thinks that stance needs to be re-thought. Maybe not (since a lack of action can be from many sources), but insofar as it indicates anything at all, it indicates reserve about the prior pope's exuberance on the issue. If nothing else, it suggests that Pope JPII's degree of antipathy for the punishment was a prudential political stance, and therefore capable of being reformed.
St. Thomas makes it clear: the crime and its redress consists precisely in this, that the criminal has embraced and acted out his own will in defiance of the law to which he is obliged to subject his will; and the redress is for the state to impose on the criminal proportionately to his defiant will that which his will would rebel against naturally left to its own devices. The will avoids pain and unpleasantness and constriction of freedom, so redress consists in imposing pain and unpleasantness and taking away freedom. True redress is proportionate, so a crime whose evil is permanent and heinous and grave requires a punishment of comparable character. Life in prison is unable to fully redress the evil of a murder wholly intended and planned with malice aforethought, so imposing life in prison leaves justice with inadequate redress. Where revenge imposes an evil out of desire for evil itself, punishment imposes an evil for the sake of justice, a common good.
The fact that 98% of people are unable to articulate the above clearly doesn't mean that they don't apprehend any difference between revenge and punishment, nor is Bottum correct in his complaint that society cannot explain its use of the death penalty. It can and does: the reason to impose death is for justice, justice fully and wholly redressed insofar as it lies in our hands. (And it DOES lie in our hands to use the death penalty, God said so in Genesis 9:6.) This is declared over and over by everyone who has an oar in supporting the death penalty, and the fact that Bottum does not like such an explanation does not invalidate it.
I would be more than pleased if the debate around the death penalty at least achieved this much: that it's opponents STOP referring to it as revenge and murder. Especially those who oppose the death penalty on the basis of the Catholic Church's recent documents on the subject: based on those documents, the state is not engaging in revenge when it imposes proportionate punishments according to the law; and the word "murder" is reserved for killing an innocent, which a convicted killer is certainly not. Even if using the death penalty is wrong, the wrong that it is IS NOT murder.
Bill Russell makes an excellent point: in the world of Vatican delicate shades of nuance, the omission of the current pope of any motion at all in the direction of appealing against death sentences is, possibly, a significant indicator that he thinks that stance needs to be re-thought. Maybe not (since a lack of action can be from many sources), but insofar as it indicates anything at all, it indicates reserve about the prior pope's exuberance on the issue. If nothing else, it suggests that Pope JPII's degree of antipathy for the punishment was a prudential political stance, and therefore capable of being reformed.
6.20.2010 | 5:45pm
Neil D. Cowling says:
Gabriel asked:
“Does anyone know, perhaps, why the King James would translate Ex 20:13, and Deut 5:17 as “Thou shalt not kill”? I would be very interested to know...”
First of all, let me apologize for using the word “quibble” in my earlier post as though I meant to trifle with the text. I did not. I meant to say, and should have said, “disagree.”
Fortunately I have in my library a recent commentary in the Interpretation series (The Ten Commandments, Westminster/John Knox Press, 2009) by Patrick D. Miller, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Theology at Princeton. He does not suggest a direct answer to your question, which I think is an important one in the present discussion. However, in his comments on the 6th* Commandment, he obviously prefers the translation “You shall not kill” which is the preferred translation of both the KJV and the RSV, though “murder” is the translation in such other versions as the NRSV and the NIV, the most popular modern translations used by “mainline” Protestants.
Miller, I think, prefers the translation “You shall not kill” for two reasons I would say, (1) concern for the protection of life which he suggests is the “trajectory” of the biblical witness. (2) The verb in question, rasah, is used in other places, mainly in Numbers 35 to describe both a person who might rasah unintentionally and a person who might rasah through premeditation.
“The provision for cities of refuge[‘s] fundamental purpose was to protect someone who had killed another unintentionally . . . inadvertently, or by error. . . . In contemporary parlance, the technical term is ‘manslaughter.’ The text goes on to spell out what is involved in such prohibited killing, but it does so by contrasting manslaughter with murder, the other form of ‘striking a person [naka]’ that is called rasah.” p. 224. (If that is a little confusing one can naka (assault?) without committing roseah (killing).
If I may then venture a guess as to why the translators of the KJV used the English word “kill” rather than “murder” it may be that they were sensitive to the broader nuances suggested by the verb rasah than the more recent translators who were interested more in specificity thus inviting the kinds of disagreements we see in the present discussion. In this case the ambiguity of the word "kill" may, ironically, be the more "precise" meaning of the text.
*6th because that is what is in the Hebrew which apparently was changed in the Septuagint thus accounting, I suppose for Mr. Bannon’s and my quibble over numbering.
“Does anyone know, perhaps, why the King James would translate Ex 20:13, and Deut 5:17 as “Thou shalt not kill”? I would be very interested to know...”
First of all, let me apologize for using the word “quibble” in my earlier post as though I meant to trifle with the text. I did not. I meant to say, and should have said, “disagree.”
Fortunately I have in my library a recent commentary in the Interpretation series (The Ten Commandments, Westminster/John Knox Press, 2009) by Patrick D. Miller, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Theology at Princeton. He does not suggest a direct answer to your question, which I think is an important one in the present discussion. However, in his comments on the 6th* Commandment, he obviously prefers the translation “You shall not kill” which is the preferred translation of both the KJV and the RSV, though “murder” is the translation in such other versions as the NRSV and the NIV, the most popular modern translations used by “mainline” Protestants.
Miller, I think, prefers the translation “You shall not kill” for two reasons I would say, (1) concern for the protection of life which he suggests is the “trajectory” of the biblical witness. (2) The verb in question, rasah, is used in other places, mainly in Numbers 35 to describe both a person who might rasah unintentionally and a person who might rasah through premeditation.
“The provision for cities of refuge[‘s] fundamental purpose was to protect someone who had killed another unintentionally . . . inadvertently, or by error. . . . In contemporary parlance, the technical term is ‘manslaughter.’ The text goes on to spell out what is involved in such prohibited killing, but it does so by contrasting manslaughter with murder, the other form of ‘striking a person [naka]’ that is called rasah.” p. 224. (If that is a little confusing one can naka (assault?) without committing roseah (killing).
If I may then venture a guess as to why the translators of the KJV used the English word “kill” rather than “murder” it may be that they were sensitive to the broader nuances suggested by the verb rasah than the more recent translators who were interested more in specificity thus inviting the kinds of disagreements we see in the present discussion. In this case the ambiguity of the word "kill" may, ironically, be the more "precise" meaning of the text.
*6th because that is what is in the Hebrew which apparently was changed in the Septuagint thus accounting, I suppose for Mr. Bannon’s and my quibble over numbering.
6.20.2010 | 7:56pm
Neil D. Cowling says:
Bill Bannon said:
“But then [several incidents of killing of whole bunches of folks] would be alright because it is in your bible...?
Hardly, I do not think that any of these actions are in keeping with the will of Christ, despite the fact that they appear in “my” bible. No, they are not superior to the story of Judith in that sense at all.
Does that make me a bible hater?
“But then [several incidents of killing of whole bunches of folks] would be alright because it is in your bible...?
Hardly, I do not think that any of these actions are in keeping with the will of Christ, despite the fact that they appear in “my” bible. No, they are not superior to the story of Judith in that sense at all.
Does that make me a bible hater?
6.20.2010 | 9:53pm
BenK says:
This whole post is embarrassment, from calling a brother a fool to ignoring most all the bible in a rush to liberal judgments. If there were any discipline left in the RC church, this would call for corrective training, at the least.
6.21.2010 | 3:00am
Steven Schloeder says:
I am disappointed that Mr Bottum made his argument on such bad grounds.
"and to age him from the murderous twenty-four-year-old into a less dangerous forty-nine-year old."
I have trouble thinking that Mr Bottum (or any of us) would be comfortable alone in the presence of a prison-hardened 49 year old.
"But where, exactly, does the State of Utah get the authority to answer the calls on heaven?" Is his argument here is that since the modern state does some bad things that violate the moral law (such as supporting abortion) that the state has no moral authority to do other things of a moral nature?
"political theory demands some account of why the prison system of Utah gets to enact and impose that justice." This is an objection? The state is entrusted with the duty of establishing the common good, of which justice is central. There are legitimate questions of jurisprudence as to how and by what mechanisms and with what understandings the State administrates justice, but his presupposition that political theory has not already answered that question seems petulant.
"Paul cannot be read here as demanding capital punishment for every crime....More to the point, there is nothing in Paul that demands death in every situation of punishment."
Another petulant and fallacious argument -- no one is arguing that scriptural passage is supportive of draconian laws.
I agree that questions of capital punishment in our modern American system of justice deserve renewed moral consideration. The arguments made by Mr Bottum do not (uncharacteristically for him) advance these questions.
"and to age him from the murderous twenty-four-year-old into a less dangerous forty-nine-year old."
I have trouble thinking that Mr Bottum (or any of us) would be comfortable alone in the presence of a prison-hardened 49 year old.
"But where, exactly, does the State of Utah get the authority to answer the calls on heaven?" Is his argument here is that since the modern state does some bad things that violate the moral law (such as supporting abortion) that the state has no moral authority to do other things of a moral nature?
"political theory demands some account of why the prison system of Utah gets to enact and impose that justice." This is an objection? The state is entrusted with the duty of establishing the common good, of which justice is central. There are legitimate questions of jurisprudence as to how and by what mechanisms and with what understandings the State administrates justice, but his presupposition that political theory has not already answered that question seems petulant.
"Paul cannot be read here as demanding capital punishment for every crime....More to the point, there is nothing in Paul that demands death in every situation of punishment."
Another petulant and fallacious argument -- no one is arguing that scriptural passage is supportive of draconian laws.
I agree that questions of capital punishment in our modern American system of justice deserve renewed moral consideration. The arguments made by Mr Bottum do not (uncharacteristically for him) advance these questions.
6.21.2010 | 7:59am
bill bannon says:
Neil,
It makes you and your flock by extention the victim of two hundred years of draining the Bible of severe themes in favor of the exclusive place of soft themes by every technique modern biblical scholarship could marshall. The goal of christian thinkers for that long has been to become acceptable to the Enlightenment and later fellow travelers like the Nobel prize jury, the NY Times, and the Euro union thinkers. Christianity begs for acceptance given its violent and imperialistic past. Add to that the excessively cultured education of many clergy and you have Plato's complaint that excessive culture will turn men to be too feminine. And the feminized man will image rather as Christ in his own mind... while the feminized man will never want any person to be whipped as Christ whipped the money changers in the temple. Christ whipped and Catholicism can't even manage to punish a soul for placing pervs near children knowingly. Catholicism and others have taken a slice of Christ and made that the whole Christ....Christianity as a Thomas Kinkaide village with everything one wants that is soft...dappled sunlight on paths simultaneous with sunset simultaneous with candles in the window. Christ as 100% niceness and sun.....no whipping anyone.
That begging is partly why the Orient...57% of the globe... has little inclination to convert. They recognize the severe within life. Catholicism has followed this trajectory also while remaining firm on several iconic issues like contraception, abortion and gay activity as proof that it has not changed in general....but it has changed on the place of the severe outside the sexual realm. Life sentences in country after country for certain individuals like gang leaders are actually causing murder after murder within prison or ordered from prison and Popes never appear at press conferences to face cross examination...so they can say the absurd on such matters and they face no contradiction from within either because the careers of all Cardinals etc. and Catholic writers depend on the latter never criticizing Popes in public.
It makes you and your flock by extention the victim of two hundred years of draining the Bible of severe themes in favor of the exclusive place of soft themes by every technique modern biblical scholarship could marshall. The goal of christian thinkers for that long has been to become acceptable to the Enlightenment and later fellow travelers like the Nobel prize jury, the NY Times, and the Euro union thinkers. Christianity begs for acceptance given its violent and imperialistic past. Add to that the excessively cultured education of many clergy and you have Plato's complaint that excessive culture will turn men to be too feminine. And the feminized man will image rather as Christ in his own mind... while the feminized man will never want any person to be whipped as Christ whipped the money changers in the temple. Christ whipped and Catholicism can't even manage to punish a soul for placing pervs near children knowingly. Catholicism and others have taken a slice of Christ and made that the whole Christ....Christianity as a Thomas Kinkaide village with everything one wants that is soft...dappled sunlight on paths simultaneous with sunset simultaneous with candles in the window. Christ as 100% niceness and sun.....no whipping anyone.
That begging is partly why the Orient...57% of the globe... has little inclination to convert. They recognize the severe within life. Catholicism has followed this trajectory also while remaining firm on several iconic issues like contraception, abortion and gay activity as proof that it has not changed in general....but it has changed on the place of the severe outside the sexual realm. Life sentences in country after country for certain individuals like gang leaders are actually causing murder after murder within prison or ordered from prison and Popes never appear at press conferences to face cross examination...so they can say the absurd on such matters and they face no contradiction from within either because the careers of all Cardinals etc. and Catholic writers depend on the latter never criticizing Popes in public.
6.21.2010 | 2:01pm
Mag says:
"They did it, the blood-hungry fools."
Hmmmm.
Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill ; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say , Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Hmmmm.
Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill ; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say , Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
6.21.2010 | 2:29pm
Bibbit says:
I've read all the posts here, and what interests me is that nobody points out Jesus' forgiving of his executioners. Is that not significant? I also wonder, had many of the posters I’ve read lived back in Paul's day (bill bannon comes to mind), would they have allowed Paul to live long enough to be converted, or would they have happily trotted him off to his death after the execution of Stephen? Me thinks had Mr. Bannon lived about 2,000 years ago and was allowed to met out his sense of justice for Paul, we would have no Pauline epistles.
6.21.2010 | 3:38pm
bill bannon says:
Bibbit,
Exactly. So you are saying that the Holy Spirit was dependent on Paul continuing to live and that God would then be unable to find anyone else to write what God intended in the New Testament. Absurd. And like many others, you are not facing Romans 13:4 but Joseph Bottum has faced it...knows it is from God....knows what it means but is solving the problem by subverting modern governments as not qualifying for the authority that Paul gave to Nero's Roman Empire.
Exactly. So you are saying that the Holy Spirit was dependent on Paul continuing to live and that God would then be unable to find anyone else to write what God intended in the New Testament. Absurd. And like many others, you are not facing Romans 13:4 but Joseph Bottum has faced it...knows it is from God....knows what it means but is solving the problem by subverting modern governments as not qualifying for the authority that Paul gave to Nero's Roman Empire.
6.21.2010 | 3:44pm
Mag says:
Bibbit, my understanding of His forgiveness from the cross is that He was forgiving us all, most pointedly the Jewish leaders who insisted on his death, but not especially the actual executioners, ie, the guy with the hammer.
I suppose it would have been significant if he did finger the guy with the hammer, as it would have indicated he did not recognize the judicial authority that condemned him and was holding the lackey responsible for not exercising civil disobedience. Or was your point something else?
I'm confused just how could Paul had been put to death for his involvement in the execution of Stephen. His holding of coats and even persecution was not a crime, whether by Jewish or Roman standards.
I suppose it would have been significant if he did finger the guy with the hammer, as it would have indicated he did not recognize the judicial authority that condemned him and was holding the lackey responsible for not exercising civil disobedience. Or was your point something else?
I'm confused just how could Paul had been put to death for his involvement in the execution of Stephen. His holding of coats and even persecution was not a crime, whether by Jewish or Roman standards.
6.21.2010 | 4:53pm
Neil D. Cowling says:
A day later so who cares Bill Bannon wrote a rant full of nonsense alleging to know all about me and my flock.
Rubbish!
Rubbish!
6.21.2010 | 6:10pm
Bibbit says:
Mag:
Many today would say that Paul was complicit in the killing of Steven, and thus deserving of the same fate as the actual killers. And I do believe Christ was forgiving his killers as well as all of us, but no doubt his killers and those involved. I've also no doubt because I believe Stephen was imitating Christ when he forgave his killers.
bill bannon:
You ain't worth it. You clearly believe yourself to be on par with the apostles themselves, and that all the rest of us are fools. Mr. Bottom has never said the death penalty is in and of itself wrong, which would be all that matters as regards your apparently favorite Bible verse. He said he believes it was wrong here (and many other places). You simply can't see that, and just as one can't get blood from a stone, I don't believe I or anybody else can get you to see this clear distinction.
Many today would say that Paul was complicit in the killing of Steven, and thus deserving of the same fate as the actual killers. And I do believe Christ was forgiving his killers as well as all of us, but no doubt his killers and those involved. I've also no doubt because I believe Stephen was imitating Christ when he forgave his killers.
bill bannon:
You ain't worth it. You clearly believe yourself to be on par with the apostles themselves, and that all the rest of us are fools. Mr. Bottom has never said the death penalty is in and of itself wrong, which would be all that matters as regards your apparently favorite Bible verse. He said he believes it was wrong here (and many other places). You simply can't see that, and just as one can't get blood from a stone, I don't believe I or anybody else can get you to see this clear distinction.
6.21.2010 | 8:54pm
bill bannon says:
Bibbit
I made that very distinction here right above you....reading wouldn't hurt:
"but Joseph Bottum has faced it...knows it is from God....knows what it means but is solving the problem by subverting modern governments as not qualifying for the authority that Paul gave to Nero's Roman Empire."
I made that very distinction here right above you....reading wouldn't hurt:
"but Joseph Bottum has faced it...knows it is from God....knows what it means but is solving the problem by subverting modern governments as not qualifying for the authority that Paul gave to Nero's Roman Empire."
6.21.2010 | 11:56pm
Bibbit says:
bill:
Mr.Bottom has not thrown away the concept of a valid death penalty. He clearly has stated otherwise, he's not saying the Spirit inspired verse from Roman's is wrong. He's also saying, though not outright, that ours is a different situation than Paul's Roman Empire. The Roman emperor considered himself divine, he was not a secular leader, nor was theirs a strictly secular government. The Romans considered the gods to be on their side. Pagan, yes, but secular, no. As I said above, our government these days clearly considers itself to be secular. There is a difference. It's not an Obama nuance, it's real. And I have no problem with somebody asking the question of whether or not our government has lost the right to put a man to death.
Mr.Bottom has not thrown away the concept of a valid death penalty. He clearly has stated otherwise, he's not saying the Spirit inspired verse from Roman's is wrong. He's also saying, though not outright, that ours is a different situation than Paul's Roman Empire. The Roman emperor considered himself divine, he was not a secular leader, nor was theirs a strictly secular government. The Romans considered the gods to be on their side. Pagan, yes, but secular, no. As I said above, our government these days clearly considers itself to be secular. There is a difference. It's not an Obama nuance, it's real. And I have no problem with somebody asking the question of whether or not our government has lost the right to put a man to death.
6.22.2010 | 8:10am
bill bannon says:
Paul and Romans had zero interest in what Rome thought of itself whether it thought itself divine or secular. Paul and Romans are connected to Genesis 9:5-6 in which God commanded both Gentiles and Jews to execute murderers...that is why Christ said to Pilate...."you would have no power over me at all were it not given you from above"...which power was given to Pilate from above in Genesis 9:5-6. What Rome thought of itself is of no interest to Paul or to God. All governments have the right to execute even if in other aspects of life, such governments are rotten. Hitler had the right to execute murderers from God; he did not have the right to execute Jews from the corruption of his own mind. North Korea has the right to give parking tickets whether or not it is corrupt in other areas.
6.22.2010 | 9:57am
bill bannon says:
Bibbit,
Here is Romans 13:1-2 on that issue:
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
Now can you resist in a just revolt? Yes since Aquinas said even killing a tyrant can be called for but one must observe just war principles which include the requirement that success is possible which means you have to have a large part of the citizenry who are likewise enraged. When Peter pulled his sword in Gethsemane, he had no chance of success and hence Christ reproved him because with so little support as to numbers of men, he was acting privately which is not allowed.
Here is Romans 13:1-2 on that issue:
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
Now can you resist in a just revolt? Yes since Aquinas said even killing a tyrant can be called for but one must observe just war principles which include the requirement that success is possible which means you have to have a large part of the citizenry who are likewise enraged. When Peter pulled his sword in Gethsemane, he had no chance of success and hence Christ reproved him because with so little support as to numbers of men, he was acting privately which is not allowed.
6.22.2010 | 10:38am
Jim N says:
I would still suggest that scriptural proof-texting will not resolve this issue. One cannot reject God's protection of the murderer Cain ("Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance" Genesis 3:15), and yet trumpet Romans 13:4 as if it is a divine mandate for State inflicted mass murder. Both verses are inspired, or if you are a non-believer then neither is. But you can't disregard one and claim the other is an authoritative mandate from the Holy Spirit. As to the discussion of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", if God meant to say thou shalt not "murder" then we should consult an attorney when reading scripture. Murder is a legal concept with different technical meanings in different jurisdictions. A state legislature could redefine "Murder" in any way it wanted. Whatever God meant to forbid when He told us "Thou shalt not kill" I think He meant to include strapping helpless harmless people to chairs and inflicting multiple gun shot wounds. I wouldn't have thought that I would have to quote scripture to make the point that as Christians we should forgive and we should not judge. Justice is a Christian virtue, but it is also a pagan virtue. Many pagan cultures believed in justice. However charity is a peculiarly Christian virtue. "A new commandment I give to you, That you love one another" John 13:34. I don't like murderers. I feel strongly and passionately that they should be punished harshly. But I also recognize that my passion and disgust is not a valid reason for killing them. ("You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD" Leviticus 19:18). I submit that most of the "rational" and detached arguments in favor of the death penalty discussed above are a subterfuge intended to mask the underlying desire to hurt and kill people we really hate. I can accept a valid argument for killing someone if it isn't based on hatred and passion. Self defense is an example. Also we can imagine a situation where we must choose between killing one person as opposed to killing several, for example where a driver intentionally steers his car into one person to avoid hitting several. There has been some talk about deterrence. Think about it. Do you really believe a potential murderer would consider the difference between life imprisonment without parole, on the one hand, and execution, on the other, and choose to go forward at the risk of the former but choose not to go forward at the risk of the latter. I don't think most murderers consider the consequences at all. Murderers are not rational cost-benefit analysis type people. That's why persuasive studies overwhelmingly confirm that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Do we even need studies to confirm that obvious point? There was some discussion as to whether or not Paul may have been subject to execution for his involvement in the death of Stephen. If that is a bad example then how about Moses? Moses was a murderer before he was chosen by God to deliver His law and to lead the chosen people out of Egypt. Fortunately for the chosen people they didn't have firing squads in Egypt.
6.22.2010 | 12:02pm
Ima Gunnassen says:
Just because something's not wrong doesn't make it right. But isn't it also true that not everything that isn't right also not wrong?
Can't we justly kill a murderer of one of our citizens without claiming divine endorsement? Can't we presume that endorsement on the basis of the fact that we have the power and no power is ours if we were not granted or allowed it, without getting into specifics.
Is there no room at all for human justice and worldly sanctity? Isn't the fact that it is flawed just evidence that our ways not his, and accept the fact that everything and everyone will be corrected and straightened out some day by one who actually knows true straightness, justice, and vengeance?
Can't we justly kill a murderer of one of our citizens without claiming divine endorsement? Can't we presume that endorsement on the basis of the fact that we have the power and no power is ours if we were not granted or allowed it, without getting into specifics.
Is there no room at all for human justice and worldly sanctity? Isn't the fact that it is flawed just evidence that our ways not his, and accept the fact that everything and everyone will be corrected and straightened out some day by one who actually knows true straightness, justice, and vengeance?
6.22.2010 | 12:02pm
Stephen M. Barr says:
Jim N says: "I submit that most of the "rational" and detached arguments in favor of the death penalty discussed above are a subterfuge intended to mask the underlying desire to hurt and kill people we really hate." You know what is secretly intended by others? You can read the secret thoughts of others? You are judging the souls of others?
I must protest the use of this ad hominem attack on First Things' website. I hope that people who comment on this site will try to respect its high standards.
I must protest the use of this ad hominem attack on First Things' website. I hope that people who comment on this site will try to respect its high standards.
6.22.2010 | 12:11pm
bill bannon says:
Jim N
Your errors come from going in and out between two realms: the private (where we should forgive ) and the governmental (wherein we should also forgive the person but not remove the punishment).
Where in the Cain incident does God draw an ongoing law about the death penalty? God draws no such law because no government existed. All were private individuals who Cain said he feared and who are still forbidden to kill murderers in modern times.
And in the Cain case, there was not even as later a question of an avenger of blood (Numbers 35) since Adam is not going to kill him; Cain feared random private individuals killing him and said that to God and God then forbade random strangers from killing Cain.... much like prison convicts attack a child rapist once he enters prison even though they have no relation to the victim; all of which God forbids in Cain's case and in the modern prison case. By not looking at the text and its nuances, you ended up where John Paul II did...using an irrelevant passage as relevant. Cain's immunity taught Jews that private killing of murderers by random individuals based on the person having murdered was wrong. An avenger of blood from the family was allowed later and the congregation was to stop him if he was avenging manslaugther instead of 1st degree murder (see nuances in Num.35).
Shortly after the Cain incident when the beginning of the nations starts, the very same God says this in Gen.9:5-6: " For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life.
If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made."
John Paul II repeatedly cited this passage and each time left out the death penalty part (from If to shed... in Evanglium Vitae). That was quite frankly very disturbing to see in a Pope. And he proceeded from that sleight of hand to another: never mentioning Romans 13:4 as he talked of the death penalty...which is known to be classical on the topic.
Your errors come from going in and out between two realms: the private (where we should forgive ) and the governmental (wherein we should also forgive the person but not remove the punishment).
Where in the Cain incident does God draw an ongoing law about the death penalty? God draws no such law because no government existed. All were private individuals who Cain said he feared and who are still forbidden to kill murderers in modern times.
And in the Cain case, there was not even as later a question of an avenger of blood (Numbers 35) since Adam is not going to kill him; Cain feared random private individuals killing him and said that to God and God then forbade random strangers from killing Cain.... much like prison convicts attack a child rapist once he enters prison even though they have no relation to the victim; all of which God forbids in Cain's case and in the modern prison case. By not looking at the text and its nuances, you ended up where John Paul II did...using an irrelevant passage as relevant. Cain's immunity taught Jews that private killing of murderers by random individuals based on the person having murdered was wrong. An avenger of blood from the family was allowed later and the congregation was to stop him if he was avenging manslaugther instead of 1st degree murder (see nuances in Num.35).
Shortly after the Cain incident when the beginning of the nations starts, the very same God says this in Gen.9:5-6: " For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life.
If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made."
John Paul II repeatedly cited this passage and each time left out the death penalty part (from If to shed... in Evanglium Vitae). That was quite frankly very disturbing to see in a Pope. And he proceeded from that sleight of hand to another: never mentioning Romans 13:4 as he talked of the death penalty...which is known to be classical on the topic.
6.22.2010 | 1:27pm
Jim N says:
Bill Bannon, let me get this straight. A private individual who takes the life of another person because he believes that person deserves to die is a murderer, whereas a state that takes the life of a person because it believes that person deserves to die can claim divine authority for its act? Doesn't that seem arbitrary to you? Don't you agree that private individuals usually do things better, with more precision, and with more efficacy than governments (Romans 13:4 notwithstanding). One of the flaws in your argument is that the text you rely on does not tell us when a state is properly exercising its authority. In the example you cited, obviously Hitler's government was acting in excess of its proper authority when it executed Jews, but (1) not all examples are that obvious, and (2) your proof text does not give any guidelines for determing when a government is acting in excess of its authority. You think killing Jews is in excess of proper authority. I agree. I think killing a helpless incarcerated (life without parole) criminal who is not a threat to society is in excess of proper authority. You disagree. How does Romans 13:4 help us resolve our dispute?
I have no problem defending John Paul II's reasoning and position on this matter, although I am far inadequate for the task. It's ironic that I have to defend the position of the pope and the editor of First Things.
Professor Barr I am dumbfounded, as a fan of yours, that you are reading my comments. I don't believe that I engaged in any ad hominem attacks. I certainly tried to keep a moderate and impersonal tone. I meant to speak in the abstract. My point was that I hate murderers and I would like to see them suffer the worst possible punishment. However such powerful passions can not serve as the basis for a criminal justice system. I was suggesting that some of the rational, detached, non-passionate reasons given in support of the death penalty are advocated by people who feel passionate, like I do, about punishing criminals. If the reasons are valid then they would support capital punishment on their own merits (not based on hatred or disgust for the criminal). I haven't seen any valid reasons. Deterence is the best candidate, but it is easily refuted by common sense and numerous studies. As JPII argues, capital punishment might be acceptable in a society where the state can not reliably separate the criminal from society. That isn't the case in Utah. I'm willing to consider other arguments based on reason.
I have no problem defending John Paul II's reasoning and position on this matter, although I am far inadequate for the task. It's ironic that I have to defend the position of the pope and the editor of First Things.
Professor Barr I am dumbfounded, as a fan of yours, that you are reading my comments. I don't believe that I engaged in any ad hominem attacks. I certainly tried to keep a moderate and impersonal tone. I meant to speak in the abstract. My point was that I hate murderers and I would like to see them suffer the worst possible punishment. However such powerful passions can not serve as the basis for a criminal justice system. I was suggesting that some of the rational, detached, non-passionate reasons given in support of the death penalty are advocated by people who feel passionate, like I do, about punishing criminals. If the reasons are valid then they would support capital punishment on their own merits (not based on hatred or disgust for the criminal). I haven't seen any valid reasons. Deterence is the best candidate, but it is easily refuted by common sense and numerous studies. As JPII argues, capital punishment might be acceptable in a society where the state can not reliably separate the criminal from society. That isn't the case in Utah. I'm willing to consider other arguments based on reason.
6.22.2010 | 3:17pm
bill bannon says:
Jim N
Deterrence studies have been done by some very good people in Universities and the NY Times even had the honesty to report on them three years ago or so and one convert on the topic toward the death penalty in their report was a Nobel laureate who was previously against. So the canard used by the USCCB that the death penalty does not deter...is simply a canard of convenience. Time of appeals in many countries renders the death penalty ineffective. In the Jewish law from God, it was to be done first by the witnesses and then the whole community which was fast therefore. Peter by word executes Ananias and Saphhira by God's power very fast and Acts 5 then says that the whole community took fear.
Japan is 4th safest in the world and has the death penalty; Catholicism has 9 countries who have no death penalty in the top 20 murder rate countries which means Pope John Paul II was not even researching his own countries when he said that modern penology protects. Does Mexico conjure up any problems for you? No death penalty and constant murders in the north. Pope John Paul said prisons were protecting. But then Weigel in his official biography of Pope John Paul said Pope John Paul did not read newspapers.
Romans 13:1-2 states under inspiration that all governments while they exist have their authority from God to execute (and you have just seen it above). You are simply willing your will and you will talk endlessly around any scripture that God inspires and presents to you through others. There is no way God could have framed the matter or worded the matter through his writers in such a way that you would not be able to circumvent it. There are millions upon millions of you in both Catholicism and Protestantism doing that. Women for example from both groups are likewise undoing wifely obedience which occurs not at all within Vatican II nor in the Catechism even though it is 6 times explicit in the New Testament. The Church from Her pulpits does not preach it either nor do the professionally strict nd "faithful" like Fr. Corapi on tv or anyone on the net. Catholicism is troughing and is totally unaware of it. Is it the true Church in the fullest sense? Yes...but Revelations shows the full Church in the 7 churches and criticizes several. My responsibility is over. Paul VI said that tradition and scripture were vital in the issue of contraception and then when it came to the death penalty and wifely obedience with John Paul II, scripture and tradition almost vanish or in the case of wifely obedience he used the only one of the 6 passages (ephesians) that he could strain his new concept out of and he leaves the other 5 uncited as to being important at all compared to his personal observations. FINIS. Bye bye. You will evade all explanations. There is no point.
Deterrence studies have been done by some very good people in Universities and the NY Times even had the honesty to report on them three years ago or so and one convert on the topic toward the death penalty in their report was a Nobel laureate who was previously against. So the canard used by the USCCB that the death penalty does not deter...is simply a canard of convenience. Time of appeals in many countries renders the death penalty ineffective. In the Jewish law from God, it was to be done first by the witnesses and then the whole community which was fast therefore. Peter by word executes Ananias and Saphhira by God's power very fast and Acts 5 then says that the whole community took fear.
Japan is 4th safest in the world and has the death penalty; Catholicism has 9 countries who have no death penalty in the top 20 murder rate countries which means Pope John Paul II was not even researching his own countries when he said that modern penology protects. Does Mexico conjure up any problems for you? No death penalty and constant murders in the north. Pope John Paul said prisons were protecting. But then Weigel in his official biography of Pope John Paul said Pope John Paul did not read newspapers.
Romans 13:1-2 states under inspiration that all governments while they exist have their authority from God to execute (and you have just seen it above). You are simply willing your will and you will talk endlessly around any scripture that God inspires and presents to you through others. There is no way God could have framed the matter or worded the matter through his writers in such a way that you would not be able to circumvent it. There are millions upon millions of you in both Catholicism and Protestantism doing that. Women for example from both groups are likewise undoing wifely obedience which occurs not at all within Vatican II nor in the Catechism even though it is 6 times explicit in the New Testament. The Church from Her pulpits does not preach it either nor do the professionally strict nd "faithful" like Fr. Corapi on tv or anyone on the net. Catholicism is troughing and is totally unaware of it. Is it the true Church in the fullest sense? Yes...but Revelations shows the full Church in the 7 churches and criticizes several. My responsibility is over. Paul VI said that tradition and scripture were vital in the issue of contraception and then when it came to the death penalty and wifely obedience with John Paul II, scripture and tradition almost vanish or in the case of wifely obedience he used the only one of the 6 passages (ephesians) that he could strain his new concept out of and he leaves the other 5 uncited as to being important at all compared to his personal observations. FINIS. Bye bye. You will evade all explanations. There is no point.
6.23.2010 | 9:42am
Dudley Sharp says:
Mr. Bottum continues his series of factual and rational errors in the death penalty discourse.
It was imprudent of him to call Utah "the blood-hungry fools." As with all US states, based upon the very rare implementation of executions, one wonders why he doesn't call all states "incarceration hungry fools". It was simply an immature beginning to a poor article.
Bottum's position is that if he finds something unnecessary then it is wrong. It is a poorly reached, unreasoned conclusion. He finds the death penalty unnecessary.
The death penalty is founded on the same principle as are all criminal sanctions - that we find them just and appropriate for the crime(s) committed. I find that the necessary foundation for criminal sanctions - just and proportional sanctions. The death penalty falls within that definition.
Bottum, immediately, contradicts himself, finding that had Gardner's execution been imposed sooner it "might have made a good example for legitimate imposition of the death penalty." "The ordinary course of social justice might well have required his death."
Required.
Bottum continues: "There is, in fact, only a single reason that Ronnie Lee Gardner died last night—a single explanation that makes any sense at all. And it is that he deserved it. The murder he committed twenty-five years ago still cries to the heavens for justice. And maybe it does."
"Certainly it does."
In a few paragraphs, Bottum goes from the death penalty is wrong and unnecessary to it is certainly just.
Bottum acts as if the universal and eternal aspects of justice don't exist. Because the sanction of execution was 25 years removed from the crime, he finds it unmerited. Justice delayed, contrary to the sophomoric slogan, is not justice denied, it is justice delayed.
Many criminals are not even caught until 25 years or longer after the crime. Some are not caught at all. Would God be in error if he justly punished them for their transgressions, 10 years, 25 years or 100 years after they occurred? Of course not.
NOTE: Gardner murdered 3 people and attempted to murder a fourth.
Gardner remained a threat until the moment he was executed.
Bottum writes: "Don't trust any strong conclusion on (deterrence): There is simply no determination that can be drawn from the data."
Sorry Mr. Bottum, both reason and history support deterrence.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
Yes, we can bicker about the 25 recent studies, since 2000, that find for death penalty deterrence. But, there is no bickering that legal sanctions do deter some.
From a strictly secular perspective, yes, Mr. Bottum, a democratic republic derives its power to executed and enforce other sanctions by law.
From a Christian foundation, biblical studies and theology find that all governments get their power from God. The references are not quite limitless, but close. A well known one, specific to the topic:
Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), "Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." John 19:10-11
One can agree with Bottum, that Romans 13 is not a specific reference to using the death penalty. It need not be. The references to the proper imposition of the death penalty, throughout the New Testament, are more than sufficient.
In addition, it is proper to interpret the Romans 13 passage as including all sanctions, inclusive of the death penalty. Furthermore, in enforcing the law, as described in Romans, we should note that the sword is not only a symbol of power and the ability to enforce it, but is also one implement of execution.
Bottum states that the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner was unauthorized, wrong, and foolish.
Bottum opinion has no facts to support it, being only the product of his poor reasoning, and absent any support, compelling or otherwise.
The facts are that the execution was authorized by scripture as well as secular law, was just under both and, therefore, not foolish.
"Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
It was imprudent of him to call Utah "the blood-hungry fools." As with all US states, based upon the very rare implementation of executions, one wonders why he doesn't call all states "incarceration hungry fools". It was simply an immature beginning to a poor article.
Bottum's position is that if he finds something unnecessary then it is wrong. It is a poorly reached, unreasoned conclusion. He finds the death penalty unnecessary.
The death penalty is founded on the same principle as are all criminal sanctions - that we find them just and appropriate for the crime(s) committed. I find that the necessary foundation for criminal sanctions - just and proportional sanctions. The death penalty falls within that definition.
Bottum, immediately, contradicts himself, finding that had Gardner's execution been imposed sooner it "might have made a good example for legitimate imposition of the death penalty." "The ordinary course of social justice might well have required his death."
Required.
Bottum continues: "There is, in fact, only a single reason that Ronnie Lee Gardner died last night—a single explanation that makes any sense at all. And it is that he deserved it. The murder he committed twenty-five years ago still cries to the heavens for justice. And maybe it does."
"Certainly it does."
In a few paragraphs, Bottum goes from the death penalty is wrong and unnecessary to it is certainly just.
Bottum acts as if the universal and eternal aspects of justice don't exist. Because the sanction of execution was 25 years removed from the crime, he finds it unmerited. Justice delayed, contrary to the sophomoric slogan, is not justice denied, it is justice delayed.
Many criminals are not even caught until 25 years or longer after the crime. Some are not caught at all. Would God be in error if he justly punished them for their transgressions, 10 years, 25 years or 100 years after they occurred? Of course not.
NOTE: Gardner murdered 3 people and attempted to murder a fourth.
Gardner remained a threat until the moment he was executed.
Bottum writes: "Don't trust any strong conclusion on (deterrence): There is simply no determination that can be drawn from the data."
Sorry Mr. Bottum, both reason and history support deterrence.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
Yes, we can bicker about the 25 recent studies, since 2000, that find for death penalty deterrence. But, there is no bickering that legal sanctions do deter some.
From a strictly secular perspective, yes, Mr. Bottum, a democratic republic derives its power to executed and enforce other sanctions by law.
From a Christian foundation, biblical studies and theology find that all governments get their power from God. The references are not quite limitless, but close. A well known one, specific to the topic:
Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), "Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." John 19:10-11
One can agree with Bottum, that Romans 13 is not a specific reference to using the death penalty. It need not be. The references to the proper imposition of the death penalty, throughout the New Testament, are more than sufficient.
In addition, it is proper to interpret the Romans 13 passage as including all sanctions, inclusive of the death penalty. Furthermore, in enforcing the law, as described in Romans, we should note that the sword is not only a symbol of power and the ability to enforce it, but is also one implement of execution.
Bottum states that the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner was unauthorized, wrong, and foolish.
Bottum opinion has no facts to support it, being only the product of his poor reasoning, and absent any support, compelling or otherwise.
The facts are that the execution was authorized by scripture as well as secular law, was just under both and, therefore, not foolish.
"Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
6.23.2010 | 10:12pm
John Cummins says:
Paul, your posts catch the eye and mind.
"...I find this argument condescending in the highest degree"
Seconded.
"[It] explicitly commits that fallacy of equivocation" which seems one of the increasingly frequent features of the First Things writers' new blogging addiction. Does it indicate more that blogging is bad for them or more that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks"? One big reason not to take their arguments too seriously is equivocation's paradox: in referring, inadvertenly!, to so much, it offers little substance, or structure, for fruitful discourse. (! is intentional.)
"What charity requires of us as Christians is, of course, an altogether separate matter."
Is it so separate that avowedly Christian writers are excused from its requirements by their perhaps quite un-Christian passion to be celebrated voices raised towards various political and social issues?
"I suppose that might have required a little less condescension on Mr. Bottum's part."
Resisting the impulse to condescension is one of charity's requirements.
"[T]hose who no doubt with sobriety and perhaps even hesitation and reluctance carried the execution out"
Thank you for being so sensitive and wise as to point this out. Mightn't they have embodied true charity, their consciences relatively untainted by the objectives of journalists, and pricked by unavoidable participation in real life?
"...I find this argument condescending in the highest degree"
Seconded.
"[It] explicitly commits that fallacy of equivocation" which seems one of the increasingly frequent features of the First Things writers' new blogging addiction. Does it indicate more that blogging is bad for them or more that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks"? One big reason not to take their arguments too seriously is equivocation's paradox: in referring, inadvertenly!, to so much, it offers little substance, or structure, for fruitful discourse. (! is intentional.)
"What charity requires of us as Christians is, of course, an altogether separate matter."
Is it so separate that avowedly Christian writers are excused from its requirements by their perhaps quite un-Christian passion to be celebrated voices raised towards various political and social issues?
"I suppose that might have required a little less condescension on Mr. Bottum's part."
Resisting the impulse to condescension is one of charity's requirements.
"[T]hose who no doubt with sobriety and perhaps even hesitation and reluctance carried the execution out"
Thank you for being so sensitive and wise as to point this out. Mightn't they have embodied true charity, their consciences relatively untainted by the objectives of journalists, and pricked by unavoidable participation in real life?
6.25.2010 | 3:43pm
Joanna Ionescu says:
Mr. Bottum,you are perfectly right to ask for an explanation. In principle, when a government prides itself for being "neutral" in matters religious, sacred texts or divine justice cannot be adduced as justification for the legitimacy of capital punishment. In fact, not even Christians of whatever denomination can legitimately adduce texts from the Old Testament in support of capital punishment for the simple reason that Christians are bound to the unique interpretation offered by Jesus Christ in whom divine revelation was definitively given and received. And it is well to remember that Christ's interpretation was not the only one on offer either in his own time or at the present. This interpretation is summed up in the Beatitudes and the double command to love God and neighbor where neighbor is redefined to include all human beings, even one's enemy. The OT is anything but perspicuous especially in regard to the justice of God. But the the life, death and resurrection of the God-Man forces any serious Christian to reconsider the very notion of justice and to accept in genuine humility that God's ways are not our ways and God's thoughts are not our thoughts. Sadly, the self-righteous who claim the high moral ground have been and will always be among us, obscuring and deforming the witness and testimony of authentic Christians; yet the question arises if the brood of easy-going and sentimental Christians for whom there is nothing more to say other than 'God loves you no matter what' and 'all you need is love' are not instrumental in pushing decent people to the other extreme.
That being said, what can authentic Christians contribute positively and reasonably to the public square of our pluralistic culture in this debate?
I suggest that even if some arguments in defense of killing murders are risible in our context, they must be engaged. As a rule of thumb, I try to keep Aquinas as a good example: where the argument is poorly expressed, one can try to present it in the best possible form, clearly and cogently and then refute it in likewise manner.
I agree with you that executing criminals in the name of justice is indefensible. If killing people is always and everywhere wrong (since we are not masters of life and death) except in self-defense and even then unintentionally, then clearly negative one plus negative one does not equal zero. Yet look at how loved the vigilantes are in the movie industries! Why is that?
Then of course we have the deterrence argument. Since empirical data cannot confirm its efficacy, we are left with the theoretical model. That is also indefensible because ultimately it amounts to bad pedagogy: we kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong. Besides, who wants to associate with individuals who do not kill you out of fear not to be executed in the eventuality they get caught?
Self-defense remains valid whether the 'self' is the individual or the community.
It is right to put criminals away in order to protect the society. And it is right to punish crimes if the punishment is essentially reformative and not vindictive.
Should the state have authority to kill criminals? The answer must be a qualified yes. As John Paul II affirmed, a man of deep faith whose life is an example and inspiration for most if not all people of good will, when no other means are available to protect the common good, the state can rightly execute individuals guilty of heinous crimes.
What about the utilitarians? Well, those are to be refuted in the strongest possible terms in theory and practice. You are quite right there too.
But if you are right in substance, why such lashing in the comments? I guess it is not only what we say, but how we say it too. Difficult as it may be, the sensitivities of so many must be considered - "Blood thirsty fools" might be very well conveyed with "misguided justice".
That being said, what can authentic Christians contribute positively and reasonably to the public square of our pluralistic culture in this debate?
I suggest that even if some arguments in defense of killing murders are risible in our context, they must be engaged. As a rule of thumb, I try to keep Aquinas as a good example: where the argument is poorly expressed, one can try to present it in the best possible form, clearly and cogently and then refute it in likewise manner.
I agree with you that executing criminals in the name of justice is indefensible. If killing people is always and everywhere wrong (since we are not masters of life and death) except in self-defense and even then unintentionally, then clearly negative one plus negative one does not equal zero. Yet look at how loved the vigilantes are in the movie industries! Why is that?
Then of course we have the deterrence argument. Since empirical data cannot confirm its efficacy, we are left with the theoretical model. That is also indefensible because ultimately it amounts to bad pedagogy: we kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong. Besides, who wants to associate with individuals who do not kill you out of fear not to be executed in the eventuality they get caught?
Self-defense remains valid whether the 'self' is the individual or the community.
It is right to put criminals away in order to protect the society. And it is right to punish crimes if the punishment is essentially reformative and not vindictive.
Should the state have authority to kill criminals? The answer must be a qualified yes. As John Paul II affirmed, a man of deep faith whose life is an example and inspiration for most if not all people of good will, when no other means are available to protect the common good, the state can rightly execute individuals guilty of heinous crimes.
What about the utilitarians? Well, those are to be refuted in the strongest possible terms in theory and practice. You are quite right there too.
But if you are right in substance, why such lashing in the comments? I guess it is not only what we say, but how we say it too. Difficult as it may be, the sensitivities of so many must be considered - "Blood thirsty fools" might be very well conveyed with "misguided justice".
7.1.2010 | 9:15am
Dudley Sharp says:
Joanna:
You and Bottum run into the same roadblock, which you do not cross, that is that justice is the foundation for the death penalty, biblically and secularly.
Just retribution is based up sanctions being both just and proportional for the crime committed, just deserts if you will - Justice.
As disastrous as the Catechism is on this topic, they, somehow, got something right.
The biblical foundation for the death penalty is found in Genesis 9:5-6 and is based, specifically, upon "shedding blood".
2260: "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." "This teaching remains necessary for all time."
God: 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.' Matthew 15:4
Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), "Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." John 19:10-11
Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (Jesus) replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23: 39-43
You and Bottum run into the same roadblock, which you do not cross, that is that justice is the foundation for the death penalty, biblically and secularly.
Just retribution is based up sanctions being both just and proportional for the crime committed, just deserts if you will - Justice.
As disastrous as the Catechism is on this topic, they, somehow, got something right.
The biblical foundation for the death penalty is found in Genesis 9:5-6 and is based, specifically, upon "shedding blood".
2260: "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." "This teaching remains necessary for all time."
God: 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.' Matthew 15:4
Jesus: "So Pilate said to (Jesus), "Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?" Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." John 19:10-11
Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (Jesus) replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23: 39-43
7.1.2010 | 9:26am
Dudley Sharp says:
Joanna says "we kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong."
This a standard, idiotic anti death penalty saying.
Long before sanction, we know that murder is wrong. The sanction doesn't teach us what is morally wrong. We strive that sanction will respresent what we find as the degree of transgression and what is the proportional sanction for it.
"Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution--very-distinct-moral-differences--new-mexico.aspx
In addition to justice, the death penalty is a greater protector of innocents, in three ways:
"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
With regard to deterrence:
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
This a standard, idiotic anti death penalty saying.
Long before sanction, we know that murder is wrong. The sanction doesn't teach us what is morally wrong. We strive that sanction will respresent what we find as the degree of transgression and what is the proportional sanction for it.
"Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution--very-distinct-moral-differences--new-mexico.aspx
In addition to justice, the death penalty is a greater protector of innocents, in three ways:
"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
With regard to deterrence:
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
10.18.2010 | 7:27pm
Alexa Kampa says:
But then would you be alright because it is in your bible... with Elijah simply ordering the seizing of 450 prophets of Baal and slitting their throats which is in your Bible in I Kings 18:40; or two bears killing 42 children at the prophet's curse in 2 Kings 2:24 who had insulted Eliseus which is in your Bible: or a lion killing a guild prophet at another prophet's word which former prophet disobeyed the latter which is in your Bible in I Kings 20:36. And these are moments superior to Judith in what way....her subterfuge which way above you said you might use with a home invader? She only killed one person and stopped an army. Above is 493 deaths in three incidents in both our Bibles. To insist on the correct translation of the original Hebrew of the Ten Commandments is no mere quibble! If God gave His Bible in Hebrew, and it is Gods Bible that you want to understand, then you had better understand some Hebrew or at least, you had better find a good and reliable translation. To think of this as a mere quibble is to show astonishing disregard for Gods word! After all, there is a pretty big difference between Gods commanding us not to *murder*, and His commanding us not to kill!
10.21.2010 | 5:45am
Horstmann Lorri says:
The moral and legal arguments both for and against the death penalty should not be responded to in any knee-jerk fashion. It is with an extremely heavy heart that would ever deliberate such a fate for any man. As for the opponents of the death penalty, how often must the system fail (repeat offenders or slick legal maneuvering) before you would deem that society can not be protected from such dangerous individuals. Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (Jesus) replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23: 39-43
2.21.2011 | 4:02pm
Gatlin says:
There is a song by JJ Heller "What Love Really Means" it goes like this
He’s waiting to die as he sits all alone
He’s a man in a cell who regrets what he’s done
He utters a cry from the depths of his soul
“Oh Lord, forgive me, I want to go home”
Then he heard a voice somewhere deep inside
And it said, “I know you’ve murdered
And I know you’ve lied
And I have watched you suffer all of your life
And now that you’ll listen, I’ll tell you that I...”
I will love you for you
Not for what you have done or what you will become
I will love you for you
He’s waiting to die as he sits all alone
He’s a man in a cell who regrets what he’s done
He utters a cry from the depths of his soul
“Oh Lord, forgive me, I want to go home”
Then he heard a voice somewhere deep inside
And it said, “I know you’ve murdered
And I know you’ve lied
And I have watched you suffer all of your life
And now that you’ll listen, I’ll tell you that I...”
I will love you for you
Not for what you have done or what you will become
I will love you for you
