Death penalty, is the executioner sinning?

[FredBoots]

Although there are lots of arguments against the death penalty (e.g., chance of executing an innocent person, not really a deterrent), one that is overlooked is the consequences on the executioner, i.e., the guy that pulls the switch. Isn’t he guilty of murder, or at the very least, committing a sin? His only real excuse is “I was doing my job”. (I guess soldiers and police officers use the same excuse, but they are usually only kill in self-defense.) I would think that condemning an executioner’s soul would be enough of an excuse not to have the death penalty.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Although there are lots of arguments against the death penalty (e.g., chance of executing an innocent person, not really a deterrent), one that is overlooked is the consequences on the executioner, i.e., the guy that pulls the switch. Isn’t he guilty of murder, or at the very least, committing a sin? His only real excuse is “I was doing my job”. (I guess soldiers and police officers use the same excuse, but they are usually only kill in self-defense.) I would think that condemning an executioner’s soul would be enough of an excuse not to have the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe in a soul (which I don't) then I suppose you believe in the Bible. Isn't the Bible full of scripture that defends executions, vengence and revenge. Doesn't it preach and eye for an eye, etc. How can 'justly' killing someone be a sin?

[dustybottoms]

Plausible deniability. If I'm wrong, somebody please correct me. But if I understand correctly, it's never any one person who activates the flow of the chemicals, or electricity as it were.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
Plausible deniability. If I'm wrong, somebody please correct me. But if I understand correctly, it's never any one person who activates the flow of the chemicals, or electricity as it were.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that is correct. Also, what was said above regarding the Bible and "death penalties." There seems to be a lot of it in there.

[Sharkey]

The death certificate does read “homicide”, and it was voluntary and unnecessary, so it sure looks a lot like murder.

[Lestat]

A soldier kills on orders and not always because of self defense.

Religious people can bend their logic to justify all kinds of things. It should come as no surprise that killing other human beings is just another one of them.

[Sharkey]

Let he who is without sin throw the switch.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
People can bend their logic to justify all kinds of things. It should come as no surprise that killing other human beings is just another one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

I'm an atheist, and I'm opposed to the death penalty both morally and on practical grounds, but I don't think the executioner is necessarily doing anything wrong. If he refuses to carry out an execution it's not going to save a life. On the other hand, if he can perform the task effeciently and humanely, than some good can come of his going through with it. Moreover, he shoulders the burden of this unpleasant task, which is unselfish of him.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that condemning an executioner’s soul would be enough of an excuse not to have the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he never asks for forgiveness, he condemns himself. No one made him become an executioner.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
...I'm opposed to the death penalty both morally and on practical grounds, but I don't think the executioner is necessarily doing anything wrong....

[/ QUOTE ]

How can someone who commits an immorally act not be acting wrongly?

[Lestat]

While atheists can perform dispicable acts, they can't sin. So the OP had a religious theme, which is why I said religious people.

To my knowledge, Christians are supposed to forgive. Thou shall not kill is a direct commandment from God. The meek shall inherit the earth. Etc. etc. Given this, it requires a pretty large leap of logic to justify war and executions while remaining in the Lord's good graces. Yet, it happens all the time. This was my point.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...I'm opposed to the death penalty both morally and on practical grounds, but I don't think the executioner is necessarily doing anything wrong....

[/ QUOTE ]

How can someone who commits an immorally act not be acting wrongly?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that the executioner is the one who has committed the immoral act. The immorality belongs to those who sentenced the victim to death, and those who allowed for that possibility in the law. Those groups of people (jurors and legislators) can stop an execution from happening through their choices, while the executioner cannot.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge, Christians are supposed to forgive. Thou shall not kill is a direct commandment from God. The meek shall inherit the earth. Etc. etc. Given this, it requires a pretty large leap of logic to justify war and executions while remaining in the Lord's good graces. Yet, it happens all the time. This was my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better translation of the commandment would be "Thou shalt not murder." Regardless, the Bible explicitly condones the death penalty in many places, so no contortions of logic or leaps of faith are necessary.

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To my knowledge, Christians are supposed to forgive. Thou shall not kill is a direct commandment from God. The meek shall inherit the earth. Etc. etc. Given this, it requires a pretty large leap of logic to justify war and executions while remaining in the Lord's good graces. Yet, it happens all the time. This was my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better translation of the commandment would be "Thou shalt not murder." Regardless, the Bible explicitly condones the death penalty in many places, so no contortions of logic or leaps of faith are necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what I'm hearing is that because the bible allows the death penalty, the executioner is free from the sin of “murder” when he “pushes the button”. (Based on Wiki, the definition of “murder” is killing someone except during combat, self-defense, and in accordance with a death-sentence order. I'm not sure what the Bible defines "murder" as.)

Say you’re told a person was sentenced to death by a court, and you’re asked to push a button that will kill him (e.g., the button releases a lethal injection). Do you do it? How much proof would you want before you pushed the button? What if later it was revealed that the guy was innocent: … would you feel guilty? … would you feel the need to ask God for forgiveness? If I were a Christian, I’d feel very nervous about pushing that button.

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People can bend their logic to justify all kinds of things. It should come as no surprise that killing other human beings is just another one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

I'm an atheist, and I'm opposed to the death penalty both morally and on practical grounds, but I don't think the executioner is necessarily doing anything wrong. If he refuses to carry out an execution it's not going to save a life. On the other hand, if he can perform the task effeciently and humanely, than some good can come of his going through with it. Moreover, he shoulders the burden of this unpleasant task, which is unselfish of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Killing someone because they would die anyway is not justification. If a hijacker has a gun to a hostage's head, can you shot the hostage? There may be other reasons the executioner isn't doing anything wrong, but this isn't one of them.

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although there are lots of arguments against the death penalty (e.g., chance of executing an innocent person, not really a deterrent), one that is overlooked is the consequences on the executioner, i.e., the guy that pulls the switch. Isn’t he guilty of murder, or at the very least, committing a sin? His only real excuse is “I was doing my job”. (I guess soldiers and police officers use the same excuse, but they are usually only kill in self-defense.) I would think that condemning an executioner’s soul would be enough of an excuse not to have the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe in a soul (which I don't) then I suppose you believe in the Bible. Isn't the Bible full of scripture that defends executions, vengence and revenge. Doesn't it preach and eye for an eye, etc. How can 'justly' killing someone be a sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eye for an eye wouldn't really apply, because the person sentenced to death didn't commit any crime against the executioner, right?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
A better translation of the commandment would be "Thou shalt not murder."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. You are right and I will stop right now trying to convince you otherwise. How do you debate a guy who re-tranlates the bible to however it fits his justifications?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> So what I'm hearing is that because the bible allows the death penalty, </font>

Wasn't it Jesus who said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?".

Maybe I'm just one ignorant mo-fo, but I understand this to mean WE should not judge. Certainly not to the point of execution. Ah. But there are stories of acceptable executions in the bible? I wonder where people get the idea that the bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions?

[dknightx]

i have a feeling most of you don't even know the definition of "Sin"

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Although there are lots of arguments against the death penalty (e.g., chance of executing an innocent person, not really a deterrent), one that is overlooked is the consequences on the executioner, i.e., the guy that pulls the switch. Isn’t he guilty of murder, or at the very least, committing a sin? His only real excuse is “I was doing my job”. (I guess soldiers and police officers use the same excuse, but they are usually only kill in self-defense.) I would think that condemning an executioner’s soul would be enough of an excuse not to have the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO it is a case of state-sanctioned murder, and for me this is one of those places where "legal" and "morally correct" diverge. I am not the one who is to judge the executioner, but I would not do the killing.

[Lestat]

I always thought it meant an act against God or religious principle. I suppose it could be any act considered immoral (religious or otherwise), but the word is indigenous to religion. If I'm wrong, care to enlighten me?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder where people get the idea that the bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions?


[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly from taking verses out of context like you do here. Look at the complete passage:

John 8:
3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
4they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
5"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"
6They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
7But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."


The scribes and pharisees were constantly trying to catch Jesus doing something wrong so they could accuse Him. They eventually had to bring false charges against Him which then resulted in the crucifixtion.

Jesus knew this and was always repsponding in a way that wasn't what they expected. He always turned the tables on them. That's what He did here.

If He wanted to get technical about it He could have refused to judge the woman because they had not complied with the letter of the Mosaic Law. That required that both parties be put to death. Since the woman was caught in adultery they should have brought the man as well.

Finally, as in other cases, Jesus is the One Who gave the Law. He has the right to forgive anyone at any time.

[Lestat]

But wasn't Jesus also trying to teach us something? The meaning I get (even in the context you provided), is that we are all sinners and do not have the right to judge a fellow sinner to the point of execution. That is for God and God alone.

Obviously, you take away something different from this story... Everything I ever read or heard about Jesus suggests he was a peaceful man and did not advocate war, or the killing of a fellow man. "Turn the other cheek", or is this another phrase I am taking out of context? I take this to mean that if someone starts a fight with you, you should refuse even at the expense of pride, money, or material wealth. But I suppose you can find a way to justify taking out your .44 and blowing his friggin head off?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But wasn't Jesus also trying to teach us something?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The only point I was making is that what Jesus says here doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Say you’re told a person was sentenced to death by a court, and you’re asked to push a button that will kill him (e.g., the button releases a lethal injection). Do you do it? How much proof would you want before you pushed the button? What if later it was revealed that the guy was innocent: … would you feel guilty? … would you feel the need to ask God for forgiveness? If I were a Christian, I’d feel very nervous about pushing that button.

[/ QUOTE ]
Due to concerns such as those, I would want no part in the process. Further, even if I were a Christian, I would oppose the death penalty. The Bible is somewhat inconsistent regarding the nature of appropriate punishment and retribution.

[ QUOTE ]
Killing someone because they would die anyway is not justification.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but it is an important consideration. Consequences matter.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A better translation of the commandment would be "Thou shalt not murder."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. You are right and I will stop right now trying to convince you otherwise. How do you debate a guy who re-tranlates the bible to however it fits his justifications?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even remotely fair. I was merely pointing out that using the English word "kill" in translating the commandment is imprecise, and I was correct. From here (http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/6command.htm):

[ QUOTE ]
The Hebrew word (ratsach) and the Greek Word (phoneno) which are used in the Sixth Commandment both clearly mean "murder." The Hebrew language has a general word for killing (the verb muwth, meaning "to cause to die") and the Greek language has a general word for killing (the verb apokteino), but these general terms for killing are not used in the Sixth Commandment. Instead very specific words are used which forbid MURDER. . .

Murder involves killing unlawfully with premeditated malice. It involves a deliberate, planned, pre-mediated attack against a fellow human being for the purpose of taking his life for reasons that are purely sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Denigrate the source if you must, but there's no point unless you believe that the quoted statements of fact are incorrect, and can provide some proof to that effect.

In any event, you ignored the more important point that I made. It does not require extraordinary rationalizations for Christians to support the death penalty, since their holy book explicity condones it, and even demands its use in many circumstances.

This doesn't mean that I think a Christian must support the the death penalty. As you say, the Bible is inconsistent. The tone and themes of the New Testament, for example, would suggest that capital punishment is inappropriate. Nonetheless, the Old Testament is quite clear on the matter, and it too carries some weight.

[Lestat]

The dictionary defines "murder" as an unlawful killing. Honest question as I do not know the answer: Are there a specific set of laws in the bible as to what constitutes murder and that of a lawful killing?

It still seems hypocritical to me. I agree the New Testament seems to promote a kinder, gentler Christian. The Christian way, if you will. While the Old Testament seems much harsher and portrays a more demanding, some might say, cruel god. The lesson learned as far as I'm concerned is that the bible is far too contradictary to use as any type of guide to set one's moral compass by.

[Bigdaddydvo]

The Catholic Church teaches that the State may do what is necessary to protect its citizens, to include imposing the Death Penalty. It caveats this by saying that though the times where the death penalty is needed are probably rare, the state absolutely retains the right to impose it.

If the Church maintains that a State has the right to impose the death penalty, it surely isn't assigning any guilt to the individual who actually pulls the switch.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Honest question as I do not know the answer: Are there a specific set of laws in the bible as to what constitutes murder and that of a lawful killing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not that I know of, but I haven't read it cover to cover. However, since it prescribes the death penalty for several offenses, it seems unbelievable that the commandment would include lawful execution as "murder."

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
However, since it prescribes the death penalty for several offenses, it seems unbelievable that the commandment would include lawful execution as "murder."

[/ QUOTE ]So Jesus' crucifixion wouldn't be counted?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, since it prescribes the death penalty for several offenses, it seems unbelievable that the commandment would include lawful execution as "murder."

[/ QUOTE ]So Jesus' crucifixion wouldn't be counted?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously a particular execution could be unjust. Going by the Old Testament, however, it would be a stretch the say that executions per se are immoral.

[BBB]

To those who believe the executioner(s) is/are not sinning:

Then is the vigilante who shoots a murderer (whom he knows is guilty) also not a sinner? How about the vigilante (who believes abortion = murder) who shoots an abortion doctor?

[Lestat]

Can you point to a type of execution the bible deems justified? Rape, incest, anything like that?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you point to a type of execution the bible deems justified? Rape, incest, anything like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

A more or less accurate list (http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_deathsentence.htm), with an anti-Christian slant. I don't know how comprehensive this list is.

Most questions such as these can be easily answered with a Google search, or with reference to one of the hundreds of searchable online Bibles. If you're looking for crazy rules in the Bible, skim through Leviticus and (especially) Deuteronomy.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
To those who believe the executioner(s) is/are not sinning:

Then is the vigilante who shoots a murderer (whom he knows is guilty) also not a sinner? How about the vigilante (who believes abortion = murder) who shoots an abortion doctor?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only speak for myself, but I would say that vigilantes are culpable (both morally and theologically) in a way that an executioner is not. The outcome of the vigilante's action is not pre-ordained, whereas the outcome of the executioner's action will occur no matter what he chooses.

Edit: Among other considerations, of course. To one degree or another, legitimacy matters, for several reason.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
whereas the outcome of the executioner's action will occur no matter what he chooses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except where no executionner stands up for the act. Look at the Morales case in California right now.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whereas the outcome of the executioner's action will occur no matter what he chooses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except where no executionner stands up for the act. Look at the Morales case in California right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Link to a brief story about the Morales case (http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=1647130). Another link (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13926817.htm).

That's an interesting case, but it's not a matter of no one's being willing to do the job. It's two specific doctors who are refusing to take part. They will be replaced or circumvented.

If a case arose in which there was a real possibility that no one would be willing to carry out the execution, I agree that that would change the situation greatly.

[MidGe]

Sometimes it takes a first one, a second, a third and so on, to make a change. I hope so.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes it takes a first one, a second, a third and so on, to make a change. I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Refusing to take part in an execution is certainly valid, and IMO it's laudable. That does not necessarily mean that agreeing to take part is immoral, however.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Refusing to take part in an execution is certainly valid, and IMO it's laudable. That does not necessarily mean that agreeing to take part is immoral, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept your right to an opinion. I think that, going on from most posts on this forum, morality is a very personal stance which can be justified in many different ways. In this instance we have a different opinion, I find capital punishment barbaric and I think all who participate/condone it are also somewhat barbarians. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CASINOCASINO]

Let god judge the criminals.

[Nielsio]

Morality applies to actions. And morality is universal. And aggressive force and even retaliated force is immoral. And sin doesn't exist. And the military and police aren't there to defend you. Open your eyes.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes it takes a first one, a second, a third and so on, to make a change. I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]

MoralesEexecution Postponed Indefinately- <a href="http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4536289" target="_blank">http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4536289 (http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4536289) </a>

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
To those who believe the executioner(s) is/are not sinning:

Then is the vigilante who shoots a murderer (whom he knows is guilty) also not a sinner? <font color="blue">NOT A SINNER </font>

How about the vigilante (who believes abortion = murder) who shoots an abortion doctor? <font color="blue"> YES, A SINNER </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Killing someone because they would die anyway is not justification.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but it is an important consideration. Consequences matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Your logic simply amounts to "everybody is doing it, so I can't be held accountable if I do it, too."

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn’t he guilty of murder, or at the very least, committing a sin?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on whether he is using drugs or masturbating when he pulls the switch. If not, I don't think he's sinning.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what was said above regarding the Bible and "death penalties." There seems to be a lot of it in there.

[/ QUOTE ]
No kidding. Pretty much every verse in Deuteronomy is about how people should be stoned to death for, well, for pretty much anything.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A better translation of the commandment would be "Thou shalt not murder."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. You are right and I will stop right now trying to convince you otherwise. How do you debate a guy who re-tranlates the bible to however it fits his justifications?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not pro-death penalty, but he IS right. Clearly, the Old Testament shows cases where capital punishment is authorized by God. So in a religious context (at least in OT context), the death penalty is not necessarily a violation of the Commandments. 'Thou shalt not kill' may have been in the context of 'Thou shalt not murder.' Neither of us were there to say otherwise (of course, both of us might agree that the probability of such pronouncement from a higher spirit is close enough to zero to be ignored for practical purposes).