Capitol Punishment

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 28 Aug 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Rain	28 Aug 2002
Hello All, I was wondering what your opinions are about this. Maybe I posted it in the wrong section, but I feel it has alot to do with spirituality. Are you for, or against?

the hermit	28 Aug 2002
For some this is a spiritual issue. For others it's political. For many it is both. And for almost all, it's a hot button topic. Plus, there really isn't (for me) an easy answer. It's becoming obvious that at least here in america there are too many innocent people in prison... as DNA evidence exonerate inmates quite regularly these days, not to mention the cases of hidden misconduct by both defense and prosecution teams that have come to light and caused so many verdicts to be overturned. Some of these cases have been death penalty cases, including at least one recently brought to light in which the execution took place some years in the past. It is a "final answer" as the person executed will never commit any crime again. But again evidence shows that we seem to have executed the innocent along with the guilty. This concern alone, while trying to avoid examining the spiritual side of the argument (which is difficult for me) is I think a telling one. Can we continue to risk the danger of taking an innocent life in the pursuit of punishing the guilty? Yet society demands that the guilty be punished. One final argument has been, in the past, that of a purely financial viewpoint which has decried the cost of housing someone for life. Yet that argument would seem spurious now (based on a variety of studies) as the cost of housing the convicted murderer in special isolation units, plus the legal costs brought about by the mandatory appeals process are now claimed to outreach other prison options by 2 fold or more. And that brings me back to my own concerns... should we be worrying about costs when it comes to the life of a human being? No court system can guarantee that the "right" or “fair” verdict is always rendered. Yet we need to protect society from the real predators. Do we need to continue with the executions of other human beings? Is it worth the risk of executing the innocent? Is life in prison without the possibility of parole sufficient punishment? Just this week, a man who was convicted of rape was released after 17 years in prison. DNA evidence exonerated him. How many other innocents are in prison? How many innocents have been executed?

Maan	28 Aug 2002
My opinion is simple! How can whe kill anyone.....if you kill a murderer your playing the "game" the same way he was. There is a problem and the solution is a killing...IMHO killing is never a solution. And like hermit pointed out..this is a punichment yiou cant take back!!!!! In the netherlands whe don't have have the death punishment and i'm really glad with that! Maybe i have put this not correct and i hope i did not offend anyone this is just my opinion! Love and light Maan

Sullanciri2002	29 Aug 2002
be vague or nice about, sorry. We might be going the same bad road as the criminals we punish, but in certain cases the society has to be protected from the chance that dangerous types will ever get free, and start killing, again. Take the case of Holly and Jessica, or the case of little Jaime Bulger a few years back ... the lawyers for these criminals always seem to find a loophole that puts their "clients" back on the streets to have another go. People who commit crimes likes those, are IMO beyond redemption. Just look at my "slogan" below to see what my advise is. I've got two daughters, the eldest is the same age as Holly and Jessica ... if anything happened to them and the crime was commited by someone who'd been released after doing something similar years before - I'd be off on a killing spree, and would take a few lawyers and judges as targets as well. Sorry, no ambiguďty or dilemma here for me. Take this question up with Holly & Jessica's parents, okay ?

jema	29 Aug 2002
i think this is an issue where discussion will never really lead to anyone changing their minds. it is too deeply ingrained in our souls. usually these discussions result only in a lot of really bad energy and feelings of invalidation. so i won't even try to bring up the reasons why i think and feel like i do. i believe in the end nothing good will come out of it and we are far better off discussing issues where we can take things in and grow from instead. i think all i could ever have wanted to say was just written here by the hermit. and i leave it at that.

Sullanciri2002	29 Aug 2002
that it might be best to leave this topic off of these boards - I'm really sorry, but with me ... this is a sore point. So, to each his or her own opinions and reasons - probably according to his own situation.

Kiama	29 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Sullanciri2002 that it might be best to leave this topic off of these boards - I'm really sorry, but with me ... this is a sore point. So, to each his or her own opinions and reasons - probably according to his own situation. Its okay Sullanciri... It is your opinon, and it doesn't matter if you're touchy about it: We all value variety in the discussions here! Your response to this issue was very welcome! Here is another thread I posted a while back on this same subject, which illicited a very good discusion... http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?threadid=4026&highlight=Death+Penalty It is very interesting indeed to see hat everybody has to say about it... Enjoy! Kiama

mara	29 Aug 2002
is what goes around comes around................in whatever situation, whether being punished or being the one punishing. Living in the society that we do we all know the consequences for some of the crimes that people commit and if being executed is one of them then that is something that the person commiting the crime really has to take into consideration. I am not saying that I personally am for capital punishment, but everybody who commits a crime (in the eyes of society/economy) then they know that if they get caught they have to face the consequences (whatever they may be). This is just a rule about the way we live in society. If these rules wouldn't be here then we would all still be living as neanderthals. This is a discussion that goes very, very deep with some people, and it could go on forever. The way that I personally see it is that we live in this world, here in society and there are some rules and regulations that go with that. If we don't like that then we can easily go and live somewhere where we don' t have any connection with society. The main thing that we have to keep in mind is that whatever we 'put out' will come back in threefold. This being a universal law of cause and effect. So if anyone commits a crime and get caught then he/she has to take the responsibility onto him/herself (seeing that they are the ones who commited the crime) and face the consequences.......whatever they are. This is just my opinion in general, taking into consideration the way that society is in this day and age. If I don't do that then I would be living in a total different reality and not in the one where I am at this present moment.........29 august 2002 here on earth in the 3rd dimention. Touching down in the here and now is a very important thing to do.........it teaches you so much.......especially the things that we don't really want to see. Mara

Umbrae	29 Aug 2002
Out here we have lemon laws. If you get something that is manufactured faulty, the manufacturer must fix or replace. Some people are lemons. They should be returned to the manufacturer. In the wild, without the misguided intervention of man, defective units are called food. They are culled from the herd.

lunalafey	29 Aug 2002
I was a bit afraid to post, after my medical experiments on inmates thing got me into trouble. But there was more to the picture, and some was overlooked when responded to, and so it got misunderstood. This topic hits way to close to home. But even before the "hit" I have always felt this way about capitol punishment. If one kills another human for NO GOOD reason, should that person be allowed to live? {eye for an eye?} In my book? NO!!!... BUT....if there is doubt, then yes....confusing? yes! When a killing/murder is WITHOUT A DOUBT, say, a confession, or several witnesses, etc.....WHY? why should that person be allowed to live? If this is the punishment for taking a life, maybe there would be less killings{ty, mara}. I can understand the view of 'lowering to that level' but look at the big picture, kinda like how Umbrae put it.{Sullanciri2002, I totally understand where you are coming from!! As I say, this one is close to home, no children involved} and Neanderthals, HA. I'd bet that if someone from another clan came and killed those from another camp, that the violated camp would seek revenge and justice by killing the murderer....that is the rule of survival. If we are to really LOVE (and survive) then we must love life and humanity as a whole, this means preserve life and those that ARE humane!!! not the inhumane.

Diana	29 Aug 2002
Ethically, I have no problems with capital punishment. But as Hermit pointed out, there are so many innocents who are being jailed, who are on death row, and who get executed. This breaks my heart. If we are 100% sure, and if the crimes are hideous, then I would myself be a very willing executioner in some cases.

wavebreaker	29 Aug 2002
I've already expressed my opinion on this subject in the previous thread that Kiama linked to, and, in this thread, Hermit has expressed exactly what I think, so no need to repeat it. All I want to add is that I believe that violence breeds violence.

the hermit	29 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by lunalafey If one kills another human for NO GOOD reason, should that person be allowed to live? {eye for an eye?} In my book? NO!!!... BUT....if there is doubt, then yes....confusing? yes! When a killing/murder is WITHOUT A DOUBT, say, a confession, or several witnesses, etc.....WHY? why should that person be allowed to live? I agree with your logic luna... without a doubt... but see, there's the rub the gentleman who was convicted of rape and spent 17 years in prison? he confessed and witnesses testified he was the one. problem? he was in mental hospital under medication at time of confession. of course jury never heard that part. lawyer's fault? maybe, if he knew too, but apparently public defender didn't. prosecutor's fault? probably... but don't forget lot's of these guys (or their boss) are elected and under pressure for convictions. and DNA evidence proved witnesses wrong. Also what about executions that took place after witnesses, trial, conviction, appeals and still turns out wrong person. It has happened and recently according to various news reports surrounding person mentioned above and past reports. so... without a doubt turns out to be not so un-doubtful at times. I do agree that there are some who we really don't want running around amongst us. Some of them are so dangerous that perhaps execution might be the answer. As I said originally it would be a final solution. But the supreme court will not allow unequal application of the law. It will not allow application to "just the really, really bad guys we're really, really sure about". So, again I answer the original question with one of my own... dare we risk executing the wrong person... even once?

Laurel	29 Aug 2002
This might sound harsh to some, but its the way I feel. I am not ethically opposed to capital punishment and believe that those on Death Row undergo a lot less "violence" than Lifers who spend 30+ years in prison. Prison life is dangerous. Its cruel, degrading, and vicious. It turns unstable idiots into hardened, colder sociopaths who learn smarter, better ways to commit crimes. We are doing no one any 'kindness' or 'mercy' letting them have a meaningless life as opposed to a meaningful death. Laurel

jade	29 Aug 2002
what is our own reasons for incarceration? is it that we want to create a space for the criminal to NOT re-offend? is it punishment we are seeking? is it rehabilitation? hopefully with these cases the people are never released from prison so rehabilitation, in that instance, isn't an issue. punishment.....that's a tough one. many offenders create a life for themselves in prison so are they really feeling punishment or just a rent free existance? they can't go buy stuff at the mall, but they do live a debt free existance.......so i have a difficulty seeing the punishment value. to me, it's a space where the offender can't reoffend. should they be put to death? i think that such a decision is more in the hands of the goddess than in mine. if they are meant to die rather than living in a solitary cell for the rest of their nights and days.....then i believe they will. i tend to shy away from people doing the work of karmic retribution. in light, jade

DarkElectric	29 Aug 2002
What surprises me most (and I digress a bit, forgive me) Is that someone got 17 years for rape confessed or not. Usually, these monsters only get 2 to 5 for a horrendous, life shattering crime. I think 20 years minimum, mandatory on a PROVEN (DNA) rape conviction should be the way to go. With more time added according to the brutality of the rapist. Women are valuable. We are not just alive to give men a sexual outlet. Rape is a hate crime. The increasing frequency of the murders and disappearances of teenage girls is a hideous reflection of the attitude of devaluation of women which is pervasive it our culture today. I'm still not exactly sure where I stand on the death penalty. I'm sure that if I had personal experience (ie: a member of my family or dear friend being murdered) it would clarify my views. I don't like the idea, but it is inarguable that violent criminals have to be prevented from wreaking havoc on innocent people. Unfortunately, amswers to this extremely complex question are not forthcoming.

Umbrae	29 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by DarkElectric I think 20 years minimum, mandatory on a PROVEN (DNA) rape conviction should be the way to go. With more time added according to the brutality of the rapist. Women are valuable. We are not just alive to give men a sexual outlet. Rape is a hate crime. The increasing frequency of the murders and disappearances of teenage girls is a hideous reflection of the attitude of devaluation of women which is pervasive it our culture today. Such people are defective units. Return them to the manufacturer.

Minderwiz	29 Aug 2002
When I saw the thread heading I thought someone wanted to punish US legislators but clearly the thread is more serious than that. I'm not particularly religious but if one believes in the Bible and God then the issue is settled. God said 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - he did not then go on to add supplementary clauses which allows the state, government, or any other public representative to kill. Thou Shalt Not Kill - period. There are no exemptions for Governors of Texas, or Presidents of Iraq or any other leader. For those who commit murder and where there are no mitigating circumstances then long prison sentences are necessary. Of course one might reject the sanctity of human life and argue that it is alright to kill or that some can be killed but others can't. I believe all human life is sacred and so I oppose legalised murder. If one argues the case on non moral grounds such as protecting the public or deterring others there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of the death penalty - one only has to look at the murder rates in states which have the death penalty and compare them to states that don't to realise that the death penalty is ineffective (other than satisfying a lust for vengeance). Minderwiz

Umbrae	29 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Minderwiz God said 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - he did not then go on to add supplementary clauses which allows the state, government, or any other public representative to kill. Thou Shalt Not Kill - period. Not correct. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all outline punishments for crimes (including murder and rape). Exodus 21:12 states: He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death. Edited for addition of content

the hermit	29 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Minderwiz [b] God said 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - he did not then go on to add supplementary clauses which allows the state, government, or any other public representative to kill. Thou Shalt Not Kill - period. There are no exemptions for Governors of Texas, or Presidents of Iraq or any other leader. My understanding from reading various Hebrew scholars (rather than Christian translators) is that it actually reads: "Thou shalt not murder". Killing was quite acceptable in the "old testament" as long as it was done according to the Hebrew God's rules. That included genocide, which was the method most often used to acquire God’s promised “land of milk and honey”. And as Umbrae points out... "Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all outline punishments for crimes (including murder and rape)". And most of the various punishments often did not include execution but instead restitution up to and including the murderer being forced to take financial care of the victim's family. Execution was more often reserved for crimes of against “God” such as blasphemy via the time honored art of “stoning” them to death, or crimes against family such as adultery, but in that case normally only the woman was executed... again generally via stoning.

Frequency	29 Aug 2002
It's one thing to shoot someone in the head. It's another thing entirely to electrocute them or create other elaborate devices of ritual murder. WTF is the point? To scare people? It doesn't work that way. It's just a pathetic attempt to justify a joy in life; watching your enemies die. They say it's humane and that it's the best way to do it, but that's just outright bullcrap. To think electrocuting or giving someone lethal injection is less fun or less costly than just shooting someone in the head is beyond me. Examine these statistics from 1997: Status of the death penalty, December 31, 1997 Executions during 1997 Texas 37 Virginia..............9 Missouri.............6 Arkansas...........4 Alabama............3 Arizona..............2 Illinois................2 South Carolina...2 Colorado............1 Florida................1 Indiana..............1 Kentucky............1 Louisiana...........1 Maryland............1 Nebraska...........1 Oklahoma..........1 Oregon..............1 Total................74 Number of prisoners under sentence of death California......................486 Texas............................438 Florida...........................370 Pennsylvania.................214 Ohio..............................177 North Carolina...............176 Alabama........................159 Illinois............................159 Oklahoma......................137 Arizona..........................120 Georgia.........................115 Tennessee......................98 Missouri...........................88 Nevada............................87 Louisiana.........................70 South Carolina.................68 Mississippi........................64 18 other jurisdictions.....309 Total............................3,335 At yearend 1997, 34 States and the Federal prison system held 3,335 prisoners under sentence of death, 3% more than at yearend 1996. Among persons for whom arrest information was available, the average age at time of arrest was 28; 2% of inmates were age 17 or younger Of the 5,796 people under sentence of death between 1977 and 1997, 7.5% were executed, 2.7% died by causes other than execution, and 32.2% received other dispositions Seventeen States executed 74 prisoners during 1997. The number executed was 29 greater than in 1996 and was the largest annual number since the 76 executed in 1955. The prisoners executed during 1997 had been under sentence of death an average of 11 years and 1 month, 8 months more than that for inmates executed in 1996. Persons under sentence of death, 1957-97 1953 131 1954 147 1955 125 1956 146 1957 151 1958 147 1959 164 1960 210 1961 257 1962 267 1963 297 1964 315 1965 331 1966 406 1967 435 1968 517 1969 575 1970 631 1971 642 1972 334 1973 134 1974 244 1975 488 1976 420 1977 423 1978 483 1979 595 1980 697 1981 863 1982 1073 1983 1216 1984 1421 1985 1589 1986 1800 1987 1964 1988 2111 1989 2232 1990 2346 1991 2466 1992 2575 1993 2716 1994 2890 1995 3064 1996 3242 1997 3335 ____________________________________________________ It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. The system is horrible. Either kill them on the spot when they are found guilty, or don't execute people at all. We can't have them wait 11yrs, whether you are pro-death penalty or not (I am pro) the death penalty is crap. It shouldn't be done for practical reasons alone, let alone moral, or political. The statistics speak for themselves I think. Abolish it.

jade	30 Aug 2002
wow, thanks for the stats. good work. jade

Mermaid	30 Aug 2002
I'm with Hermit here. If there was some way to be absolutely sure that we always had the right guy, (and we knew that we couldn't rehabilitate them), then I'd be quite willing to consider the death penalty. But that really is entirely theoretical, because nothing in this world is 100% certain. And with something like the death penalty, I don't feel that 'getting it right' 99% (or even 99.999%) of the time is good enough. If we execute the innocent, we're nothing but murderers ourselves.

Kiama	30 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Not correct. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all outline punishments for crimes (including murder and rape). Exodus 21:12 states: He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death. Edited for addition of content Christians who believe this will argue that that was the OLD testament, whih made laws to givern the people of Israel until th etime of Jesus, when a new law, a new Covenant, (Instead of the Rainbow, Jesus' death) would surpass the old. That new law was laid down by Jesus in the New Testament, where he said things such as: 'Turn the other cheek'. Jesus also prevented the stoning of a woman for adultery, asking the man who had not committed a sin to throw the first stone. Christias would aso say that 'The Lord giveth, and so the Lord taketh away...', and thus it is not for us to kill or pass the sentence. After all, God 'Knit me together in my mother's womb', rendering life a gift from God, rendering it sacred, and thus to kill would be to throw God's gift back in His face. Ugh, I spent too much time at Sunday School as a kid! ;) Kiama

Umbrae	30 Aug 2002
In the book of Matthew, ol' JC himself states that he did not come to repeal, or overturn the old laws... Christians, and pseudo-Christians love to misquote, and take quotes out of context, a book that few of them have read. Pity...

Frequency	30 Aug 2002
He's respecting the culture of the time, so no He didn't come to overturn old laws. That would be wrong imo. However, just because He didn't come to change the laws, it doesn't mean what He said could be ignored. Maybe -- just maybe -- people would have a better respect for the Holy Bible if more people would actualy take the time to study it. You can't expect to read the Holy Bible and be able to understand everything in one go. You have to read it dozens of times over.

lunalafey	30 Aug 2002
Murder; to kill a human being with premeditated malice. death sentence, premeditated? ok with malice? no. why? The surviving family members are not the ones doing the execution, that's where malice would come into play, though I'm sure they would like to in some cases. Those that ARE doing the execution are just following through with the courts decision. Violence; the quality of being vehemence, outrage, injury... would we really be breeding violence? go back to the bigger picture. If the punishment for killing someone was to be put to death.....then more that might consider killing would re-think thier actions. Basically one would put the nail in thier own coffin if the became a murderer. The fact is.....IT'S TO EASY TO GET AWAY WITH MURDERER!!!!...if you're a criminal...... I do not want to see innocent people get punished like this, but forensics is getting better, the problem now is the law enforcement the courts and the laywers.

Rain	30 Aug 2002
I posted about 3 days ago, and now all this contriversy is going on!!! This is exciting. My intentions were not to offend anyone. I just wanted to know people's opinions on the topic. But if you are offended by an opinion, sorry your offended Blessings, Rain

Minderwiz	30 Aug 2002
Sorry to disagree Kiama but if you accept the bible then the ten commandments are the word of God - written in stone and given 'in person' to Moses - Exodus 20 v13 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - no ifs and buts. Of course the Jews practised capital punishment and I do not disagree that they had laws which exacted the death penalty. And these are shown in the bible because that is also the book of Jewish history (or at least their records, myths, stories, legends and views of their prophets) However these are the laws of man - not God, even if they tried to ascribe them to God. To reject the commandment not to kill you must either claim that God was confused and didn't give a clear message and had to correct himself later on, or argue that the ten commandments were not really the word of God but the word of Moses and could conveniently be amended later on, or of course argue that God doesn't exist (or at least the God of the old testament). Personally, I don't go along with the old testament God, too much cruelty and sadism for my taste, therefore I wouldn't normally rest an argument on biblical texts. I did preface my remarks, as I do here with a big 'If'. However if you do believe that the ten commandments are the word of God then there are no ifs and buts - 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Minderwiz

Frequency	31 Aug 2002
The 10 commandments are written and it says "Thou shalt not kill" and then God turns around and tells them to stone women to death... I don't get it. *needs to study the Bible for about 10yrs of his life before he'd understand anything*

Umbrae	31 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Frequency "Thou shalt not kill As was stated prior, in the original, it does not state 'kill'. It states murder. Mistranslations and lack of study by most would be the issue here. Great book, widely read-seldom studied-rarely understood or correctly quoted.

Minderwiz	31 Aug 2002
It is doubtful whether we know what the 'orginal' word was - it certainly wasn't 'murder' (or for that matter 'kill') which are English words, translated in the main from Latin, which in turn was translated from Greek, which in turn was translated from a variety of languages such as hebrew and aramaic. Further still the ten commandments were probably never written down at the time (whenever that was and even if there was such a singe 'time') - much is handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation till it is written down. Therefore the best we have is early copies of what was written down from myths and stories handed down. Murder in essence is to kill unlawfully and with deliberate intent. Three to four thousand years ago it is very likely that the concept of murder was bound up with the idea of breaking divine law and a distinction between divine (natural) and mundane (social) law is unlikely to have existed (a contrast which in Western political thought can be traced back to the Sophists of the fourth century BCE). The act of killing another was therefore likely to be treated as an offence against divine law (which also governed the relationship of person to person - social law) If God said 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' then killing another human almost by definition becomes 'murder '- so it is quite likely that 'murder' as a concept arises from the divine instruction not to kill - where else in such a society can the concept of murder arise - because for it to have another origin requires another source of moral authority besides God and such a source is absent in such a society. Thou Shalt Not Kill basically states that it is unlawful (divine law) to kill another person and from this arises the concept of murder. When the concept is eventually written down, the word written may well be best translated into English as 'Murder' but its origin is a divine instruction that it is unlawful to Kill. Minderwiz

Frequency	31 Aug 2002
... the Holy Bible is meaningless because it was mistranslated? Why not meaningless because it was never written well in the first place? Honestly, how are we supposed to know? Can you read the other versions yourself? Are they lost forever or can you still find them?

the hermit	31 Aug 2002
Ok, let me try one more time. Speaking ONLY from the perspective of and quoting Jewish scholars... The phrase “Thou shalt not kill” uses a word that is normally translated from Hebrew into English as “murder” NOT “kill” by said scholars mentioned above. The word “kill” IS used in the Hebrew scriptures both around the above phrase and elsewhere and is a totally different word in Hebrew, modern AND ancient, which carries a completely different meaning in the religious, social and political sense both now and then. “Killing” as opposed to “murder” were indeed two distinctively different concepts as they are now in Jewish as well as western culture. The Hebrew scriptures did make these distinctions and they are what are discussed, as well as many other concepts concerning the interpretation “God’s Law” in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Just as in our society now, their God allowed for the “righteous” taking of life. My reasoning from the beginning when I first mentioned the distinction was to simply point out that there was and is a difference between what we see in the Christian translations as opposed to what the Hebrew scholars believe is the “more correct” interpretation of the phrase. I would also like to point out that the common laws that both the U. S. and Great Britain base their judicial systems on are highly influenced by the Christian values that both nations embraced in the 16th through 18th centuries. And during that period both based the legal interpretation of murder on those values. I will be the first to admit that “definitions” aside, there are times when it is necessary and perhaps even mandatory that someone die in order that another life or lives be saved. But in the case of capital punishment (or even simply punishment) I no longer trust our (american) justice system to be fair and impartial enough to carry out such a tremendously important task. But I do NOT have a suitable solution either, which leaves us with a great dilemma. But at least for the most part we aren’t stoning adulterers or beheading those with opposing religious or political views. One more thing, I and others have NOT said the bible AS A WHOLE was mistranslated. I personally said that a word we’ve been discussing within this thread appears to have been given a meaning in some modern translations that seems to be beyond the original intent and thus changes how it might be interpreted. As for the rest, it is believed by almost all modern scholars ( and this humble poster) that what Christians call the old and new testaments have reached us with only insignificant errors in them. I have studied the bible as well as many other sacred texts from most major religious and philosophical movements for over 30 years. And with all of them it is not translation that is the major issue. The problem has been, is and will continue to be the same problem that occurs from time to time on this forum... that is, how these mundane discussions of ours, AS WELL AS the great works of the past, are INTERPRETED.

debins	31 Aug 2002
I was wondering whether we might have any anthropologists on board, scholars, members familiar with how cultures other than North American, Judeo/Christian/Muslim and European/European descent have handled this dilemma, with some relative success, that is.

the hermit	31 Aug 2002
Quote: Originally posted by debins I was wondering whether we might have any anthropologists on board, scholars, members familiar with how cultures other than North American, Judeo/Christian/Muslim and European/European descent have handled this dilemma, with some relative success, that is. exile was another popular solution... let somebody else worry about your problem.

Minderwiz	01 Sep 2002
I don't want the argument over translations and words to get out of hand, especially as it seems the hermit and I agree that criminal justice systems are imperfect and make errors, sometimes literally fatal errors. I accept the hermit's points about hebrew and I must admit that to a significant extent I was playing a 'devil's advocate' role as I do not believe in the old testament version of God and have real doubts as to whether Exodus is an account of an actual historical event or myths and legends (which are true in a different sense. However I do not think it actually makes much odds whether the word is translated as murder or kill - simply because in the context of God giving laws to Moses the word 'kill' here must almost by definition equate to murder - killing which is against the law (God's Law). Similarly all legislation relating to murder uses the word kill within it - murder being the criminal offence. There may be exceptions, both within the law of society and the law of God to 'killing' as 'murder' these usually surround issues such as intention, self defence, or protecting the life of a third party - so long as no reasonable alternative is available. In the case of the death penalty there are reasonable alternatives - incarceration is one. Judicial killing therefore could well be argued to be an offence against divine if not civil law. Minderwiz

Kiama	01 Sep 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Minderwiz Sorry to disagree Kiama but if you accept the bible then the ten commandments are the word of God - written in stone and given 'in person' to Moses - Exodus 20 v13 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - no ifs and buts. Of course the Jews practised capital punishment and I do not disagree that they had laws which exacted the death penalty. And these are shown in the bible because that is also the book of Jewish history (or at least their records, myths, stories, legends and views of their prophets) However these are the laws of man - not God, even if they tried to ascribe them to God. To reject the commandment not to kill you must either claim that God was confused and didn't give a clear message and had to correct himself later on, or argue that the ten commandments were not really the word of God but the word of Moses and could conveniently be amended later on, or of course argue that God doesn't exist (or at least the God of the old testament). Personally, I don't go along with the old testament God, too much cruelty and sadism for my taste, therefore I wouldn't normally rest an argument on biblical texts. I did preface my remarks, as I do here with a big 'If'. However if you do believe that the ten commandments are the word of God then there are no ifs and buts - 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Minderwiz You're not disagreeing with me here, you're backing up my statement... I said that Christians would say (Well, quite a few Christains) that Capital Punishment is wrong. YOu just used a different quote. 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', can logically be said o pply to the Death Sentence, by saying that the death sentene iswrong too. After all, it's killing, isn't it? Nb- I'm not Christan, just arguing from that perspective. Kiama

Minderwiz	01 Sep 2002
Kiama, glad that we're not disagreeing!! I put forward the argument because I do have difficulty understanding why some people who profess to be Christian are so ardently in favour of the death penalty - I feel it goes against much of JC's teaching. Interestingly on the issue of murder - in the Judaeo-Christian tradition I suppose the first murder is by Cain (even if it is mythic). God did not exercise the death penalty but sent him into exile - though I suppose if he had executed Cain there would be no human race :( Minderwiz

Niall	02 Sep 2002
Personally, I have no problem with 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. The difficulty arises with our respective legal systems, and the often difficult situations where guilt is not absolute.

Minderwiz	02 Sep 2002
At the risk of upsetting the hermit by misquoting - I think it was Jesus who said something about turning the other cheek rather than pursuing an eye for an eye and went on to to say love your enemies, bless them that curse you and do good to them that hate you. OK much easier said than done but perhaps if we actually made an attempt to move in that direction by not executing murderers (even if they were definitely guilty and there were no mitigating cirucmstances) we might well develop spiritually. Incidentally Western Europe does no have the death penalty and for us this discussion is not only rather academic but for many people here it is shocking that the US not only retains it but uses it to such an extent. I don't think that makes us more spirtually developed but perhaps it does make us more receptive to the idea that in this case an eye for an eye demeans us and is no credit to a civilised country. I find it hard to understand why the US is so wedded to the concept because I have found the American people to be some of the nicest, most welcoming and wonderful people that I have met and I simply love the place. Minderwiz

Niall	02 Sep 2002
Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you might be all well and good for politically oriented dissenters of the roman occupation of palestine in 33AD, however, I have a problem with paying to keep serial murderers, rapists, pathological killers and the like, alive, well fed and entertained, while the poor, honest peoples of the world starve. Surely, the taking of a life may not be in the best interests of the collective spirit, but it is yet to be proven in this existence that it has detrimental effects in the here and now. To be plain, a murderer cannot re-offend when he/she is not alive to do so. Just my opinion, but then again, I'm entitled to it. :)

The Capitol Punishment thread was originally posted on 28 Aug 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.