Death row fascinates me and I know that is creepy but they sit there day in day out waiting to be killed for years and then they are told exactly what day,time and how they will be killed. Now every single story I could find about these condemned individuals says that in the end they claimed Jesus Christ as their savior. I was wondering , with all the beliefs and religions there are why is it that in the end Jesus is always the one called on? I would say as a christian well maybe it is because its the way to salvation but I do realize other beliefs exsist besides my own.

If you knew the exact time day and circumstance of your death would your beliefs start to change as the day arrives as it seems to on death row?





Always a pleasure

My beliefs wouldn't change if I were on death row. My belief system is perfect for me, and there is nothing I would want to change about it.

Lol yes I have a bit of a morbid fascination with it too. Perhaps Christianity appeals as it offers salvation no matter what you have done, also I am sure it is quite prevalent in the country these people are in, so it is natural they would be exposed to it.

Humans put in extreme situations find a way to cope. Yeah I am sure I would be dramatically changed by being in that situation and who knows what my beliefs would be like?

Its no wonder why this is the case. Jesus is both our brother and our Master. He embodies both forgiveness and at-onement with God. He represents the crucifixion of Self. He said to the thief on the cross, "Surely, you will be with me this day in paradise." I believe it! People call on Him, because He and He alone has the power to forgive. If I'm able, you best believe I'll be praying when it is my time; and while I'm more of a gnostic or a new ager, I absolutely want to have the Last Rites performed. I believe my soul will hear it as it departs from this body of flesh, which is also why we really need to pray for the dead and dying....

i was suicidal for 3 years straight (if i was awake i wanted to die).
it was kind of like being stalked by your own brain.
and i was never tempted to convert to any belief system about god.

but i do notice that fear seems play alot into alot of conversions.
"no athiests in foxholes etc."
why is it that fear not love always comes up when people want me to convert?????

1. Christianity is the biggest religion and people are expected to be Christian, so it's no surprise that most of those on death row are, or have conformed to, Christianity.

2. Just like in the military, people are expected to follow certain beliefs, indoctrination, if you will.Why would death row be any different? Maybe the overseers give people Bibles and whatnot to try to get them to see the error of their ways. It's what they did in Asylums and Penitenteries, so, again, why would death row be any different?

3. Most of them probably want the feeling of security that they will be rewarded and given eternal paradise when they die for just believing that one man died for their sins. Live a life full of crime=hell, UNLESS you accept Jesus as your savior, which means you go to heaven. Jesus rewarded a criminal who was being crucified next to him and gave him eternal life, so why not those on death row?

That is a good question, All the stories I have read about the men and women on death row who professed Jesus Christ as their savior in the end has said they done so out of love and that God forgave them. So that leaves the question is it fear or love and forgiveness.


Always a pleasure

Love, for the friends and family they will leave behind and for those who have to watch the execution.

I was wondering do we really need to look towards something if we were to die?

Not to sound biased but Christianity is such a big thing here for my family I have often wondered what we would be like if religion did not exist.

They just get afraid they'll go to Hell I suppose.
Or they think that people will think "Oh, he must regret what he's done, and now he wants the Lord to save him, poor him".

Because Christianity is the only religion with an escape clause (as far as I know, anyway). You can do bad things your whole life and then say "I'm sorry" and "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" and according to your newfound beliefs, you're safe - off to the Pearly Gates you go.

You'll never see a death row inmate convert to a religion that believes in karma, that's for sure.

Everyone has the option of seeking God, no one is exempt in my opinion. The people on death row are there because they did horrible things but God is a forgiving God.


Always a a pleasure

I don't know that it happens as much as you say it does. All those who are lapsed catholics and non-practising protestants likely don't convert, but re-embrace their faith because there's not much else to do on Death Row and they think it's a good insurance plan.

I think the majority of black men on death row actually lean towards Islam, but I haven't read anything that proves it.

plenty on death row have also found Islam. or buddha. you have to remember 80% of this country is christian. was raised such so it's not such a big deal to see that they return to something for comfort knowing they will be put to death.

I agree with you.

here is an interesting article on prison , black men and the Islamic faith.

http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/08/24..._righteous_life

I knew a lot of black men in prison hoping to turn their lives around go for Islam over Christianity. I don't think it has anything to do with the validity of religion either, they just go for a group with a socially positive philosophy instead of returning to their gangs. If there were more explicitly non-religious people in prison we might see secular humanist organisations helping convicts get back on their feet too.

Escape clause? What a shallow view of the subject.



Luke
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

A man can say anything he wants using words. But do not men lie? Are men capable of insincerity? Do you recognize that hypocrites exist in the world?

A man who truly repents changes his mind AND his actions. What kind of fruit does the person grow?

I'm going to have to take the skeptical outlook and say they are trying to market a new image. In America (Australia has no capital punishment), with such a large Christian population, condemned inmates are going to be visited regularly by prison chaplains. When/if the inmate confesses their crimes and turns to God, they suddenly have the chance of an appeal against their penalty - "Your Honour, this man who stands before us today, transformed by the Love of Jesus, is not the same man who committed those horrible acts in the past. We would ask the Court to take this into consideration in reviewing this obviously repentant person's case. Thank you, we rest our case". For ease of memory, I'll call this "Conversion for convenience".

Similar things happen in non-Christian countries. In Indonesia, Chapelle Corby (convicted drug smuggler - I don't know if she's that well known outside of Australia) used her conversion to Islam to try and sway the judges to not give her 20 years. Now, she may really have become Muslim, I don't know. But it could just as easily have been a media ploy to try and sway Indonesian opinion.

I'm not saying some have found true repentance and turned from their old ways, really Repenting. Unlike what someone said here, that does not make it an "escape clause" to do whatever you want and then say "sorry" right at the end - eg:



That is not necessarily repentance. Repentance involves being sorrowful (saying "sorry") BUT it also requires the conscious effort to turn your life around 180 degrees - to stop doing what you were doing before, and start living a new way. If you do not intend to change your behaviour, then you can't be sorry, can you? If you do bad stuff your whole life, then confess right and the end, say sorry and accepted Jesus as Lord, the question begs - are you really going to change your behaviour? You may. Only God will know.

Just a few thoughts to consider,

1. Regardless of which religion would be the dominant one most likely they would turn to it. This to me is not about the validity of Christianity but the validity of belief in any belief set.

2. Indoctrination in the military for Christianity if any is done on the social level and is not something being pushed by the official training. Most in boot camp I wonder only think about beer and once in AIT and have rights to leave base they go drink. Not until war and lives are at stake do I believe most of them turn to faith.

3. I take a different view but agree that living a life of crime = HELL. Not in the afterlife but pure hell and misery in this life. Most of death row conversions are not about fear of the afterlife IMHO but wanting a change, to feel love, in this life.




Love and forgiveness. People who are feeling at their worse want to feel better now not in the afterlife.



Some state religion is just a product of the brain and evolution. Some say this to disprove faith but it goes hand in hand just as the development of language does. Even if it is just evolution it is something that makes us human. It is so ingrained within humanity religion is called a cultural universal. Religion will always exist. And if you try and force it away people cling stronger but if you give them diversion instead then they lose religion. The entertainment industry has done more for shifting religion but in essence they are just creating a new religion. The cult of celebrity be it sports or political news or just good ole Hollywood A-Listers.



I truly think it is about validation in the here and know and healing in the present rather than a cheap one way ticket to heaven.



Most blacks turn to Islam because while in prison the mindset is that the 'man' the white man has locked them down, kept them down their whole life, and so now they refuse to take part in the 'man's religion'. Islam though is not much different than Christianity in the end for we are all people of the Book.

Jesus may be called upon, but I think it's too little too late.

If we dont know him, then he doesnt know us....

Perhaps they should be thanking Him for all the missed opportunities the Lord bestowed upon them... to encourage them to take the right path in life, and offering appologies for not doing so in the end...

I may be wrong.... but just how much is our Lord to forgive, that in the last weeks of someone looking to repent, that they are forgiven? Its more of a feeble attempt to put their own mind at rest than a honest attempt to know the Lord.....

Otherwise they would have been there all along....

I know our Lord is everending Love, but come on...to me its taking advantage... they will not be heard, because the Lord doesnt know them.

Have you said your "Thank You's" today???

Actually, while the lawyer can say that, conversion no matter how genuine, has ever swayed a judge in appeals court. It's "fluff" in the US court system.

Personally, I'm dead set against (no pun intended) the death penalty in general. The fact that we put inmates to death is barbaric--they're in prison, they're not going to hurt anyone else, they're not getting out, and frankly, I think we should make them live with what they did... death is too good for them. The USA is one of the few countries in the world that still puts murderers to death. Other countries have the death penalty, but they only use it very rarely, and it's usually in cases where the crime was one of treason.

The USA needs to catch up with the rest of the modern world in regards to this practice. It's been proven time and time again that the death penalty isn't even a deterrent to crime, it really isn't.

If they do not have the Spirit they are none of His then. And if they are none of His then the law written on their heart and their conscience will accuse or excuse them. Chances are the conscience is not good but I truly hope they have become better souls. I would hate to see anyone go to hell no matter what they did. There are many who claim Christianity but do not have the Spirit. They will be judge by their conscience just as non-believers. It takes more to be a Christian than to say forgive me...it takes real belief. Do they really believe or are just fooling themselves is the question?

China has it and puts to death CEO's of companies who steal from their own company and cheat people out of money ruining tons of lives. No country club jails for white collar crime of that type in China. But I agree the death penalty needs to be abolished for the simple fact that it is murder but also because there have been quite a few cases where people might have actually been innocent.

Clovis, what do you think about this? I'm not saying I agree with the death penalty myself, but there is a strong Biblical arguement for it as well, and as such it makes for an interesting topic of conversation. The article from below is lifted from www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/capitalpunishment.htm. I'd be interested to know what you, and other Christians who oppose the death penalty think about these arguements:

The morality of capital punishment has been debated for years. In Europe the practice has already gone out of vogue. American opinion is headed in the same direction. In light of the highly publicized death sentence conferred on Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife and unborn child, it is likely that we will experience a renewed public debate on the morality of capital punishment.

As Christians we ought to ask What does the Bible say concerning this subject? What extra-biblical arguments are made on behalf of, or against capital punishment? What types of responses are offered to those arguments?

Ironically Christians are just as confused on this issue as is the general public. The Biblical position is clear in both the Old and New Testaments that God is favor of capital punishment. That position is supported by several extra-biblical arguments as well.

The remainder of this article, then, will explicate the Biblical teaching, offer extra-biblical arguments in favor of capital punishment, followed by answering pertinent objections raised by detractors.

Biblical Teaching

Old Testament

From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative. 9:6 Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God's image God has made mankind. (Genesis 9:5b-6, NET Bible)

YHWH spoke these words to Noah after the flood, in the context of the covenant He made with mankind (referred to as the Noahic Covenant) to never again destroy mankind by flood. It is noteworthy that this divine command preceded the Mosaic Law. While the Mosaic Covenant was a temporary covenant whose laws were superseded by the New Covenant, the Noahic Covenant appears to be eternal in nature, and thus concurrent with the New Covenant.

The reason for the command is theological in nature. Man is made in the image of God; therefore, a fatal attack against God's image-bearers is an attack against God Himself. It is for this reason God commanded that the individual who sheds another man's blood shall have his own blood shed as well.

When we come to the Mosaic Covenant we find an expansion of crimes for which capital punishment was applicable. The Law of Moses prescribed the penalty of death for 21 offenses, most of which were moral and religious in nature. While human government is no longer responsible for administering capital punishment for most moral and religious offences (as they were under Mosaic Law), they are still responsible for administering capital punishment in the case of the intentional murder of an innocent human being (Noahic Covenant).

You shall not kill. (Exodus 20:13; see also Deuteronomy 5:17)

The Hebrew word translated "kill" is ratsach. The root is used 38 times in the Old Testament, each time referring to the murder of an innocent human being (whether it be intentional or accidental). A more accurate translation of this Hebrew word is "murder." Nearly all modern translations translate it as such.

Ratsach is not the only Hebrew word for the taking of life. There are seven other Hebrew words, the most important of which is harag and muwth (the other five words are nakah, shachat [used of animals], tabach [used primarily of animals], zabach [used of sacrifice], and chalal.). Harag means to slay or kill. This is what Cain did to Abel (Genesis 4:8), and what God commanded the children of Israel to do to their enemies (Numbers 31:17) and to idolaters (Deuteronomy 13:9). Muwth means to kill, often prematurely; i.e. execution. This is the power God has over His creation (Deuteronomy 32:39), what God intended to do to Moses for not circumcising his son (Exodus 4:24), what God commanded Israel to do to those who sacrifice their children to Molech (Leviticus 20:4), and what David consented to be done to him had he been guilty of any wrongdoing against Saul (II Samuel 14:32). The prohibition in the Decalogue then, is against murder, not killing. It is a prohibition against the unjust taking of innocent human life, not the taking of any life whatsoever.

We would do well to make a clear distinction between killing and murder as well. Killing can be just, but murder is always unjust. That's why it is factually incorrect to say capital punishment is the killing of those who kill others. Capital punishment is the killing of those who murder others. It would be equally wrong to say capital punishment is the murdering of those who murder others. Taking the life of an individual who unjustly took the life of another human being is not murder, but killing. To use "killing" or "murder" of both parties interchangeably is to confuse the just taking of life with the unjust.

New Testament

Pilate therefore said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin." (John 19:10-11, NAS)

What is important to note about this passage is that Jesus did not challenge Pilate's gubernatorial right to sentence Him to death. He implicitly affirmed Pilate's right to administer capital punishment, and that the right came from God. He did not say, "You have no authority to do this," but rather "You only have this authority because it is given to you by God." Pilate thought he held the power of Jesus' life in his own hand, but Jesus countered that Pilate would not be able to crucify Him unless God allowed him to do so. Jesus challenged the source of Pilate's right, not the right itself.

There is no question that the state's execution of Jesus was unjust (because Jesus was innocent, and capital punishment is for the guilty), but that is no reflection on the just nature of capital punishment itself. While there may be unjust applications of a state's right to execute certain criminals for purposes of justice, it does not taint the just nature of capital punishment itself.

Turning our attention to Paul, he wrote the Romans saying:


Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God's appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God's servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4, NET Bible)

According to Paul the purpose of human government is to reward good and punish evil, an example of the latter coming in the form of "the sword" (a reference to the Roman form of capital punishment). The reason for such is God's desire for retribution of moral wrongdoing. While vengeance is the Lord's, He has delegated some of the execution of that vengeance to human government in the form of justice generally, and in the form of capital punishment specifically.

While often ignored in this discussion, Acts 25:9-11 sheds some valuable light on this issue as well:

Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, asked Paul, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and be tried before me there on these charges?" 25:10 Paul replied, "I am standing before Caesar's judgment seat, where I should be tried. I have done nothing wrong to the Jews, as you also know very well. 25:11 If then I am in the wrong and have done anything that deserves death, I am not trying to escape dying, but if not one of their charges against me is true, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!" 25:12 Then, after conferring with his council, Festus replied, "You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you will go!" (Acts 25:9-11)

Paul had been imprisoned for approximately two years when he stood trial before Festus. The Jews in attendance brought many accusations against him. Paul maintained his innocence from those charges, but did not object to being put to death if he had done anything that was deserving of death. Paul did not object to the possibility of capital punishment by arguing that it was unjust punishment, or in contradiction to God's design. To the contrary, he acknowledged there were crimes deserving of death, and was willing to submit to that penalty had he actually committed those crimes.

For those who accept Scripture as the authority for faith, then, the Biblical teaching and rationale should be sufficient to arrive at a position on this controversial issue.

Extra-Biblical Arguments

A Life for a Life

How can we make the case for capital punishment to an audience that rejects the Bible as an authority? Is there any good argument to be made in favor of capital punishment apart from Scripture? Yes, there is, and its force is best conveyed in the form of a question: Why should someone who purposely takes the life of an innocent human being be allowed to keep his own?1 Is that just? No it is not. As God said in Genesis 9:6, whoever takes the life of another man needs to have his own life taken from him.

Lex Talionis

A basic understanding of justice is that people ought to receive punishment for their crimes, and that the punishment ought to be proportional to the nature of the crime; i.e. the worse the crime, the worse the punishment (Edward Feser, "Catholicism, Conservatism, and Capital Punishment"; available from http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/20..._con.html#more; Internet; accessed 13 December 2005). This is the ancient principle of lex talionis. What we have to ask ourselves is whether the punishment of incarceration fits the crime of murder? No, it does not. Incarceration only robs an individual of his liberty, not his life. If the maximum punishment for murder is identical to the maximum punishment for serial thievery (a lesser crime) the principle of lex talionis is violated. Depriving someone of their property is a lesser evil than depriving someone of their life, so the latter should be punished more severely than the former. Opponents of capital punishment, however, treat each crime equally. In doing so they are denying that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. This flies in the face of our deepest intuitions about justice.

Extreme Circumstances

Let's suppose that Hitler did not commit suicide toward the end of World War II. Let's suppose he was captured by the Allied forces and put on trial for his many war crimes, not the least of which was the murder of 17,000,000 innocent people. Would it have been just for Hitler to be condemned to death by the Allied nations for those murders? I think it would be safe to say that only the most ardent of opponents to the death penalty would say no. Most people recognize that Hitler's execution would have been a just punishment for all the evil he wrought against innocents. For those who recognize the justice involved in executing Hitler for his many murders I pose the following question: What is the difference between Hitler and any other murderer? Once we agree that Hitler should have been executed for his many murders we have established the principle that it is just--at least under certain circumstances--to execute murderers. All that is left to debate is the number of murders one must commit before we are justified in depriving them of their own life. Is it two, ten, one hundred, one thousand, one million, etc.? Any number that one settles on must be defended. If 1000, what is it about that number that justifies administering capital punishment that is absent from those circumstances in which only one murder has been committed?

Social Self-Defense

Another argument on behalf of capital punishment is self-defense. J.P. Moreland said, "Capital punishment is to the whole society what self-defense is to the individual."2 Capital punishment is society's way of defending itself against evil-doers who wish to do them personal injury. Understood in this light the practice is entirely reasonable, and entirely just.

Let me bring this down to the personal level. What would you do if you and your family were attacked by an individual who intended to kill you? Every honest individual would admit that given the chance, they would take the life of the attacker before the attacker had a chance to take their own. Such an act is in self-defense, and as such is morally justified. Now, if we would kill a man/woman who was trying to harm ourselves or our family, why will we not kill a man who has already killed someone else's family?

We could also think of this from a slightly different perspective: if we would not permit a murderer to live under our roof because his/her presence threatens the safety of our family, why should society permit a murderer to live under the roof of our country in which all of societies' families are endangered? So long as the murderer is breathing, there is always the possibility that he/she will kill again.

The only way can ensure our own survival is to eliminate those who are bent on destroying us. Those who commit murder have exhibited the fact that they are bent on destroying society. They are infections to the social organism that is inclined toward freedom and the pursuit of happiness. In the interest of self-preservation we must act. No country-when attacked-lays down its arms in surrender unless they are willing to be overrun by the enemy. The fact of the matter is that "we have a war going on here between murderers and society," and opponents of capital punishment are arguing that "only one side is allowed to kill."3 If society is not allowed to defend itself by taking the life of those who deliberately take the lives of innocents, society will continue to be raped and pillared by evil men. Outlawing capital punishment would only result in our own peril.


Observation

Capital punishment has been the hallmark of just and free societies for millennia. Why is it, then, that the idea is progressively going out of vogue in Western civilization? While there are surely multiple factors, I believe one factor is a change in our understanding of man. Modern culture has been progressively changing its view of man from that of a free-moral agent to that of a machine, who breaks down due to social and environmental evils (no fault of his own). The real question of the day is, Is man a machine that needs to be fixed, or a free moral agent who needs to be punished? While it is beyond the scope of this article to prove this, I believe both Scripture and reason are clear that man is a free-moral agent who freely chooses his own moral course. What do we do, then, when man chooses immoral means and/or ends?

Some suggest we merely tell them they have done wrong and then point them in the right direction (reprogram their circuitry through therapy), but this solution confuses the two ways in which someone can be wrong. One can be wrong in a rational way, or one can be wrong in a moral way. If someone mistakenly claims the capital of Ohio is Toledo he has committed a rational error, and no punishment seems justified. We simply correct the error. However, when someone rapes an innocent woman he has committed a moral wrong, a wrong for which punishment does seem justified. As Greg Koukl aptly noted, "When there is a rational wrong, we correct the error. When there is a moral wrong, we correct (or punish) the person."4 "The goal of justice is penal, not remedial; moral, not therapeutic."5

Responding to Objections

Objection: Capital punishment is contrary to the pro-life ethic of Christianity.
Response: This argument, known as the "seamless garment," misunderstands the nature of the pro-life ethic. "Pro-life" does not mean we are against killing in general; "pro-life" means we are opposed to the murder of innocent and defenseless human life. To argue that consistency of the pro-life ethic demands that one oppose capital punishment as well as abortion confuses guilt with innocence. The unborn are innocent; murderers are guilty. To kill the unborn is the unjust taking of life; to kill the murderer is the just taking of life. "The right to life is not an absolute; it can be forfeited. This moral right is only prima facie; it stands only until challenged by some greater law, like justice or protecting the lives of the innocent."6


Objection: Jesus would forgive.
Response: This objection proves too much. It not only argues against meting out capital punishment, but all forms of punishment. So what do you do with evildoers; i.e. those who are a danger to society? Do you invite them into your neighborhood to murder you or your neighbors so they can receive forgiveness again and again and again?

While Jesus may forgive, Jesus does not demand that Caesar forgive as well. God may forgive the sins we have committed against Him, but this does not cancel out the consequences for sins we have committed against other men. There are temporal consequences for sins we commit in this world. Some of those consequences come from God, while others come from man. For example, even though God forgave David of his sins of murder and adultery, there was a temporal price to be paid: David's child died (II Samuel 12:1-15).


Objection: Putting someone to death won't bring back the victims.
Response: As Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason once noted, neither will life in prison. Nothing will bring them back from the dead. Does that mean, therefore, that no punishment should be given a murderer? If the basis on which we mete out justice is determined by its ability to undo the crime committed, then no justice could be meted out on a murderer because nothing can undo the death of the victim(s). This argument simply proves too much.



Objection: Innocent people have died because of this practice.
Response: Dennis Prager offered a pointed response to this objection:

If preventing the killing of innocents is what should determine capital punishment policy, one should support capital punishment. It is the absence of the death penalty that leads to more innocent people being killed. When there is no death penalty, convicted murderers kill other prisoners and guards; and, when these murderers escape, they kill innocent civilians. If those of us who are for the death penalty have blood on our hands when the state executes an innocent man, abolitionists…have the blood of innocents on their hands every time a convicted murderer murders again.7

The blade cuts both ways. Yes, some innocent people have been wrongly executed, but many more innocent people have been killed by murderers who were later released from prison. If we are truly interested in protecting the innocent we would be in favor of eliminating future murders by eliminating present murderers.

There is no question that our finitude may result in the death of some innocent individuals, but this fact is not sufficient grounds to do away with executing appropriate and just punishment for those who do deserve it. In the words of Dennis Prager, "We don't end a good policy because it's flawed…."8 If we did, we would not have any policies left. Besides, there are many safeguards in place in a just society such as ours to ensure that our judgment is well-informed and not hasty.

Lots of people die from good things. Innocent people die in car and plane crashes, but we don't do away with cars and planes because the good they bring outweighs the bad. We try to make cars and planes safer. Likewise, our lack of omniscience should not cause us to abandon the good and just practice of capital punishment. We simply try to make our justice system better. And we have. Modern forensics makes it highly unlikely that we are convicting very many innocent men (e.g. DNA evidence).


Objection: The fallibility of man guarantees that innocent people will be wrongly condemned. Some things I accept the possibility of error, taking life, I can't.
Response: This line of reasoning not only argues against capital punishment, but against all forms of punishment as well. All forms of justice are fallible, because human beings are fallible. Should we do away with our justice system because innocent people may be fined or incarcerated for crimes they did not commit due to man's fallible judgment? Do we have to be omniscient before we can execute justice?

If we should not execute the appropriate form of justice against a murderer simply because we are not omniscient-and could be mistaken in our judgment-then we should not execute any form of punishment for any supposed crime because there is always the chance that our judgment could be mistaken, and thus the judgment undeserved (and any form of punishment meted out on the innocent is unjust). Short of omniscience, then, how can we make any judgment?

God was surely aware of the fact that man is not omniscient, and may execute an innocent man on occasion. This imperfection of human knowledge and judgment, however, did not stop God from issuing the command. Unless one is willing to argue that God made a mistake in delegating this responsibility to finite men, there is no excuse to ignore the divine command.


Objection: Arguing against capital punishment on the basis of man's fallibility does not argue against all forms of punishment. Capital punishment is different from all other forms of punishment in its finality: it is an ultimate and totalizing judgment.
Response: No punishment can be undone, and any amount of punishment meted out on the innocent is unjust. The finality of the punishment is of little importance. If one is wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison, have they not received injustice? If they were acquitted after only 20 years, have they not received injustice for the 20 years they lost? It is just as wrong to punish an individual with 60 years of incarceration for a crime they did not commit as it is to condemn them to death for the same. Either way injustice has been wrought, and the consequences are grave.


Objection: Capital punishment does not deter crime.
Response: This objection is not empirically verifiable. As Dennis Prager noted, "We can never measure how many people do not do something."9 If this objection could be verified empirically-and it was found that capital punishment truly does not have much deterrent value in this country-maybe it is due to the fact that it is not administered enough, and in a speedy manner.

All of that aside, the principle purpose of capital punishment is not deterrence, but justice. It serves to take from the murderer what he deliberately took from the innocent; i.e. his life. No greater injustice could be wrought than to allow a murderer to keep his own life when he deliberately took the life of someone else.10


Objection: We cannot trust the government with the power of life and death. The only person I trust with that power is God Himself.
Response: It is not the government who condemns a man to death; juries condemn a man to death. Juries are made up of the accuser's peers and neighbors. And juries do not flippantly decide to kill someone. They have to sit through a trial and listen to evidence from both sides. If they are going to convict someone and sentence them to death, the evidence must point to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While this does not ensure that juries always get it right, our standards of judicial review make it difficult to get it wrong (especially in the age of DNA and forensics).

It will not help to say one favors capital punishment so long as God is in control of meting it out, because God did not design the program like that. His command was given to men for men to carry it out. The guilt of the accused is for us to determine. Once their guilt has been determined by men, their penalty is fixed by God and the demands of justice.


Objection: If God has commissioned human government to execute capital punishment, was Nero's murder of Christians and Hitler's murder of Jews in the will of God?
Response: There is a clear difference between murder and capital punishment. Murder is unjust killing, while capital punishment is just killing. Not all killing done in the name of the government is good or justified. God never gave license to human government to kill whomever they want. They are only given license to execute those who have wrongly taken the lives of others. Nero and Hitler killed innocent men, knowing they were innocent. Their acts, therefore, were acts of murder, not justice. As such they were outside of the scope of God's command.


Objection: Capital punishment is not administered equally across economic lines. We have a justice system for the rich and a justice system for the poor. Those who are wealthy can afford lawyers to get them off the hook; those who are poor cannot. We cannot separate equality from justice. The process of justice is just as important as its equal administration.
Response: Can the command of God for justice be ignored because the institution (human government) He ordained to mete that justice out does so imperfectly or with partiality? How does it follow that since human government may not fulfill the duty of justice at times, that they are excused from executing justice at other times?

I am not at all convinced that we have two standards of justice in this country (one for the rich and one for the poor), but even if I were convinced, how does it follow that if the guilty-rich escape justice that we are unjust in delivering it to the next guy? If we excuse the poor from justice simply because the rich bought their way out of it we are guilty of double injustice: neither party got what they deserved.

In pitting equality against justice, equality has been elevated at the expense of justice. To argue that we should not mete out justice unless we are going to do so equally is unjust in itself, because under this policy nobody receives justice, and thus God's purpose for human government is never realized. How is that superior to God's purposes being realized imperfectly? This ethic, if followed, would only bring equal injustice at the expense of justice, and injustice on this level is far worse than justice applied inconsistently.

Greg Koukl illustrated this truth in the following scenario: "If one man is paid for a job (he gets what he deserves) and another isn't, how do you rectify the inequity? You don't take away what the first man deserves, withholding his pay because the second man didn't get paid. That would double the injustice."11 While 5% of those executed may have been wrongly condemned, do we right the wrong by failing to administer justice to the other 95%? This would only result in 100% injustice.


Objection: Was God unjust for not having Moses or David killed for their premeditated murders?
Response: What God chooses to do with His own image-bearers is His business. In the same way that it is within God's prerogative to take innocent human life (because as the creator of human life it is God's to do with it what he wills; whether it be to give or to take), likewise He can spare guilty human life if He so chooses to do so in mercy. While God may kill the innocent or show mercy to the guilty at His own discretion, that is His prerogative, not ours. We have been given one command and one command only: he who sheds man's blood shall have his own blood shed by man. Life is not the government's to decide what to do with it, and when to make exceptions. Apart from divine intervention, government has the divine-ordained responsibility to take the life of the individual who unjustly took the life of another human being.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1. Dennis Prager, "George Will and Capital Punishment"; available from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisp...20031104.shtml; Internet; accessed 21 January 2005.
2. J.P. Moreland, The Ethics of Life and Death, p. 115.
3. Dennis Prager, "George Will and Capital Punishment."
4. Greg Koukl, "Two Wrongs, Two Rights"; available from http://www.str.org/free/reflections/apolog...m/twowrong.htm; Internet; accessed 21 January 2005.
5. Greg Koukl, "The Bible and Capital Punishment"; available from http://www.str.org/free/studies/capipuni.htm; Internet, accessed 20 January 2005.
6. Ibid.
7. Prager, "George Will and Capital Punishment."
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Koukl, "The Bible and Capital Punishment."



Email IBS | Statement of Faith | Home | Browse by Author | Q & A

This is the way I have read the scripture:



I do not see this as an order to execute murderers. Simply it is live by the sword, die by the sword aka payback more along the lines of karma. Also the death penalty is utilized in more cases than murder cases. You can be given the death penalty for just blowing up a bridge according to Clinton's Crime Bil and there is a whole list of other things it can be handed out according to it.

'Thou shall not kill'. I agree it means murder but it is simply a law. There is 'Thou shall honor your mother and father' too so if someone breaks that one should we just dishonor them as an equal sentence? No I do not think so. So taking blood on our hands is not being commanded there. Of course there was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but that was dismantled by Jesus when He said it no longer applied but we are to turn the other cheek. I am all for self defense since the Bible does not say 'turn the other cheek and die' and I believe our own beliefs on that and the death penalty are up to our own consciences.



I agree with the article that Pilate did receive his authority because God allowed it and Jesus was not questioning the death penalty. I also agree with Paul that we should not be rebellious towards governments if they are not actively seeking to destroy us. This still does not mean I have to be pro death penalty. In a Republic like we are now I would vote against it if it ever came up in a referendum.



Paul wants to go to Rome in Acts 25 not because he was willing to submit to the death penalty but because in Acts 23 he is commanded to go.





I do not see the reasoning behind we should take the life of a murder or else someone guilty of a lesser severe crime might serve the same punishment. That is already happening all to often today with mandatory sentencing for certain crimes which are less than murder including drug crimes because of the failed War on Drugs in the 80s which served nothing but to create an industry of prison building where many of the people in power were also making money through contractor corporations that construct and then staff the prisons. Either way I do not see the need to have a balance sentencing as a reason to just go murder people using the death penalty.



I do not agree. Hitler was not the only one at fault. What about all the people? What about history who in times past the Germans ran up and down the Rhine slaughtering Jews then called it a day and said they took their part in the Crusades because they were too lazy to go to the Holy Land? What about putting Jews in ghettos, making them wear yellow stars, and the pogroms, all things that happened in the medieval ages. History repeats itself. Anne Frank says it best:



Supporting the death penalty to me is part of that 'urge and rage in people to destroy, to kill, to murder' that Annelise spoke about.



The war I see going on is between those who are disenfranchised getting the death penalty more often than those who are not. I am all for self defense at the moment of the crime but anything afterwards is just revenge. I might personally change my mind if someone killed my family member or such but I think I would rather do it myself than have a mill house of murder ran by the state. Just being honest.



Orly? One thousand years ago all of Europe mostly was in the Dark Ages. Islamics had a very nice state system going. Not sure if they had the death penalty then but the hallmark in my eyes with them and us today is EDUCATION and FREEDOM from oppressive tyrants.



I am against it on a more ethical level than a religious one. It just seems savage and wrong. Since the Bible does not clearly say we should have it and one has to craft an argument to convince another that it does then in my eyes it is up to our own conscience to support it or not.

Overall I see it as a choice and the article somehow drives a stake through my emotions because the whole time reading it I just felt like someone is actually trying to convince me that murder is good. I know it was just an article but thats how I felt.

I used to consider myself a Leftist for Life. That is a liberal against both abortion and the death penalty. In many ways I still am even if liberals are usually for abortion. But my views overall fall on both sides of the spectrum but at one time they used to fall where the extreme left meet the extreme right. So glad my teenage revolutionary days are over and my support of both socialism and elements of national socialism were very strong then.

A tooth for a tooth and and eye for an eye..... Geneses 9:6

not necessarily related but I found this thought interesting

According to the below statement, this would be an argument for political assassination . Imagine a government that refuses to listen to its people and starts to run society into the ground, creating mass poverty, injustice, economic slavery and endangering them possibly with behaviors provoking possibly even world war.
Would this not be an argument for assassination .
but do you think a jury would let that person go once the assassination is done?
I wonder.....
technically it would defense of self, country and possibly the world.
but as usual these principles only apply in application to the poor, rarely the rich and never the powerful.
That's the problem that most people have with the death penalty, its executing the poor for what the rich and politicians
get away with all the time.
A CEO that causes layoffs destroys more lives than a single drive by.
A politician that,for a contribution, starts an unjust war or supports policy knowing that the consequences will destroy more people and
even society as a whole.
That's not even counting the ripple effects of their actions that destroy even more....
but they don't get blood on their hands, they use other people to do it.

we should always err on the side of caution (within reason).
there are states that if you are an atheist, by outdated but still active law,they can keep you from testifying in a court of law



I personally support it when it comes to particularly violent recidivists (repeat offenders) like serial killers, serial rapists etc.
These people have demonstrated repeatedly an unwillingness to stop.
but a one time offender?

note: serial rapists destroy people psychologicially, I find this more
horrible than killing someone just physically. not only is the "victims" life forever affected, but
this can created psychological problems in others that create more violence and the effect
spreads exponentially...

Perhaps, but that doesn't stop people trying. If you're falling off a cliff, you grasp at whatever might break your fall, even a small tuft of grass, despite knowing the grass would uproot under the weight

My view on the death penalty is complex. On a completely theoretical level, I agree with it. On a practical level though, I find I cannot in any way support the death penalty (indeed, I would also be dead-set against it). I think that there are things that are worthy of death, but I also believe that God is the only one who is able to carry out that judgement. As a human, I am also sinful and cannot take the life of one who has also committed sin, or else I would become a hypocrite. And that does not even consider the view of those criminals that have been wrongfully imprisoned. And yes, it is a very common occurrence that people are found not guilty later when new evidence presents itself. In one case in England, a person confessed to a crime, described it in detail, and as such was executed for that. unfortunately for him, his confession was coaxed out of him by someone who took advantage of him (he was of below average intelligence) and the real killer was caught a few years later (this was the watershed case that eventually led to the abolition of the death penalty in England, though I'm too tired right now to go looking for the name - it's in a few ofmy previous posts if anyone wants to search for it).

Unfortunately for us today, an apology can't bring the dead back. if we had a flawless system, I would consider supporting capital punishment. But since no such system exists (at least not on earth), I cannot support it. If you know what I mean.

I agree with you God is the only true judge and jury in the end. Some will say that a certain crime is so horrible that it does require the death penalty, but most if not all death row inmates are there for murder so they are all guilty of taking another human beings life and the victims were all equally important. Now when the murder involves children it becomes a bigger issue, but they all deserve punishment and in the end they will get whats coming to them. But,what makes one murder more requiring of the death penalty than another? Legally theres intent and circumstance but morally ther should be no difference if one takes a life they are a murderer. I like the point you made about us being all sinners therefore when we judge another we are hypocrites, but then again we are not murderers and rapist/child molesters either. In the appeals for clemency one wil claim to have found God and that they changed as a result and I am sure that that does not even carry any weight anymore as the ones who have falsly claimed such has set doubt on the ones who may have truely found God. In the end no one knows if their death bed confession was true but them when they meet God, but I for one hope they truly did as the idea of someone lying till the very end of their life is very sad.
How many on deah rows are innocent and are we really willing to let them out to find out if they will kill again? We have already set judgement on someone that is on death row and it really doesn't matter if they did it or not they are and will always be considered guilty and leave questions in ones mind of evryones saftey around them if they were to be released.
I think the death penalty has past its true purpose as it does not deter crime so what now is its purpose, revenge for the victims familys or political gain? The death row inmates would rather die than sit on death row their entire lives so they are giving them what they desire in most cases.


Always a a pleasure

I always wonder how many people would be for the death penalty if they ( myself included) had to actually alone shoot the person face on. or better yet decapitate them. How fast would the death penalty be removed ?

I think having it done before closed doors , neatly and out of sight keeps us far removed .

While in some instances I'm for it .... I wonder how fast I'd be unwilling to have to do it ? and if your for it you should be willing to commit the act. like via a lottery. like jury duty if you support the death penalty. you have to look them in the eye , even speak a bit.

Spend enough time in a cell Alone and one will eventually repentfor how he has treated his brothers and sister while on this world.

One will also call on God for Help in these matters, a sincere call to God, always nets results.

He who seeks shal find.

These guys are lucky, It is the corporate bigwigs who never get caught and continue their travesty against mankind who will never sincerely repent , or be given the chance that many brothers in Jail recieve , turning their sins in to blessings and true works of contrition.

Love Omnaka

The victims loved ones might like to think they would like to be the ones pulling the electric switch or pushing the needle but when all is said and done they would realize they are not capable of it even though the person took their loved one from them. We would probably be surprised how many would be willing to do it though.
The jurors that sentence a man/woman to death has a huge responsibility and I would pray they realize such but as far as them being witness I think thats a little too far as I believe they have to be "okay" with the death penalty before being put on the jury to begin with.
To decide whether one dies or lives the rest of their natural life in prison is certainly a job I would not want, or hearing about the horrible details of their crime.



I disagree that putting ''anyone in a cell alone and they will eventually repent for their actions''. Some stay bitter and blame everyone else except themselves until the bitter end without even realizing why they are where they are. Everyone has the ability to repent and give their lives to God but just because one is forced into a cell does not mean they will. Sincerity and true repentance will not likely happen if it is forced anyway. Everyone is ''lucky'' in that they can repent one does not need jail or prison to be ''lucky enough to find God. Inmates have a lot of time on their hands to think about their sins but we all have time to do that and to try and live better lives through Christ.
As you say "" He who seeks shall find""


Always a pleasure

I've known several atheists and agnostics who decided on their deathbeds that, hey, maybe all those promises of Jesus Christ aren't just for laughs after all.

And they weren't even in prison cells. At least none that they hadn't constructed themselves.

LikeI said Not all do seek, and Many more are not even Guilty of the crimes leveled against them, and then there are those who comitted crimes because Of the way society has treated them, Govmts and corporations and You and I. Not all who are there are guilty, Hence not all seek repentance, Many more seek Forgiveness for those who have Put them there in the First place, Leading to God also.

Forgiving a Murderer before the act takes alot Of Courage, and is the biggest lesson I have ever learned.

I learned it in Jail for crimes I did not commit, It was a blessing though, Raah! Hard , Very Hard!

Love Omnaka

Good for those bros and sisters who Find God in Jail, They are blessed!

The guilty and the not Guilty, I bless them whith the love Of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the Power Of God. (LOVE)

LOve Omnaka

That Ommaka is a load of bull!!!! No one makes a person a murderer, rapist, child molester or even a thief. Criminals commit the crimes of THEIR own freewill their own choice! If all abused people committed murder etc. the population would be scarce. That argument that society made the criminals makes me so angry, there are plenty of people who have been mistreated and abused that are not criminals just as there are plenty of criminals that have been treated royally. In court cases today how many people try to use the defense well I was abused and thats why I am the way I am, it is simply a cop out and excuse period!
I am sure there are plenty of people who are in prison who are innocent and that is very sad and I am so sorry you were one who had to go through that but did you use that excuse to go out and commit crimes, because you were mistreated and unjustly imprisoned? No, well there you see YOU made a choice just as the criminals make choices to commit crimes you chose NOT to.
Forgiveness does take hard work, anything worth having is hard to acquire but in the end it is worth it.


Always a pleasure

Sandee, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you.
Society absolutely has a hand in creating criminals. It has a huge hand. Calling it a "cop-out" and using the argument that "not EVERYONE who is abused as a child becomes a murderer" just doesn't work, because no one person is the same as the next. People don't react to things in the same way. Invariably one's upbringing has some effect on them; it is difficult to predict just how it will effect them however.

Several theories in criminology revolve around society more than the individual.
There is also a school of thought in criminology called Positivism that generally has the argument that crime is caused primarily by internal and external factors that are quite outside the control of the individual.

There is a reason why kids who grow up in a ghetto are far more likely to commit a crime than, for instance, suburban kids. Are you going to tell me that there are (generally) more violent criminals in ghettos than in suburbs simply because all those people happened to choose to be violent?

People don't become serial killers because one day they woke up and said "I feel like shooting some people in the face, so I'm gonna go do that." I think we can all agree on that. Upbringing and social experiences have a huge effect on the individual, in many different ways. Some people are of course more prone to violence than others. But that definitely doesn't mean that they were guaranteed to commit crimes. I myself am relatively prone to violence, but I have yet to even be in an actual fight in my life (supposedly I am a fairly intimidating person, but that's beside the point). I had a relatively good upbringing, and while I do get quite angry rather often, I have learned to harness it and use it productively. This is something that a lot of people who experience the levels of anger that I do never figure out how to do. Omnaka is a very loving soul, as all of us on this forum know. Using him as an example of someone who was mistreated by the system and never caused violence is a moot point.

It basically comes down to the ages-old "nature vs nurture" debate. There are arguments for both sides. But the amount of evidence for the "Nurture" side in this case is quite large.

Actually, I have seen cases of this before. Mentally unstable people can have sudden urges to hurt and/or kill someone else for no reason. I read about someone who wanted to murder. They didn't care about going to prison or any other consequence. While I agree that this is a very small percent of the population, it is a possibility.

Yes, I acknowledge these people exist. However, as you pointed out they usually are mentally quite unstable. My argument was with Sandee's claim that crimes are committed entirely of a person's own choice/free will. Being mentally unstable is not a choice.

Sandee The load of Bull is the self righteous who think they had no Part in their bros upbringing society is largly at Fault for many of the atrocities commited today and yesterday.

Those who meet God on death row will get in to heaven easier than a preacher preaching hate and discrimination Society is YOU. And only you can change society,

Brother Jesus taught what Judgement can do to a Man, Just by being Hung on a Cross, and still we judge the other guy, which society had a hand In bringing up.

Careful on your Judgements sister It just may be your fault Litle Jonny killed his neighbor. we asa society judge what we do not know, as in what were the cercumstances Of what made Jonny do what he did.

Better to Forgive than Judge, unless you are in a position of authority to do so .

There will be more criminals than preachers, and self righteous church goers who listened to the hate and predjiduiced mesage of those who spoke hate for Father God in our Heaven,

this is not a Judgement, but a Truth.

Love Omnaka

Sandee if we accept that actions have causitive factors behind them it makes it easier to irradicate the circumstances that lead people to crime in the first place. More preventative programs would be put in place to stop crimes before they happen. Society can't pretend to be ignorant about what creates crime, it doesn't produce a good outcome for anyone.

How do we as a Society welcome back to society, a Bro or sister who has done a crime and Paid for it by going to Jail?

Do we welcome them back with open arms, and love, for a Hard Lesson learned?

Or do we asa society stigmatise them for life Making them pay over and over again , Giving them the worst jobs , striping their votes off the rolls, keeping them from having the same rights as those who never comitted a crime , or better yet who have not been caught.

If a man steals a loaf of Bread , and gets sent to prison with murderers , Rapists , Or a runaway in with Thieves and Murderers, Then stigmatise this bad Man after he serves his time, Do you really think this has no basis for someone reofending and or poverty or Drug use?

Tak off the blinders , These bros are the same ones Who Heavenly Father Loves for experiencingf Bad so that they might Know Good. Too bad society can not think Like God.

Society is us.

Love Omnaka

How do we as a Society welcome back to society, a Bro or sister who has done a crime and Paid for it by going to Jail?

Do we welcome them back with open arms, and love, for a Hard Lesson learned?

Or do we asa society stigmatise them for life Making them pay over and over again , Giving them the worst jobs , striping their votes off the rolls, keeping them from having the same rights as those who never comitted a crime , or better yet who have not been caught.

If a man steals a loaf of Bread , and gets sent to prison with murderers , Rapists , Or a runaway in with Thieves and Murderers, Then stigmatise this bad Man after he serves his time, Do you really think this has no basis for someone reofending and or poverty or Drug use?

Tak off the blinders , These bros are the same ones Who Heavenly Father Loves for experiencingf Bad so that they might Know Good. Too bad society can not think Like God.

Society is us.

Love Omnaka

Society and family and upbringing have a huge part of who we are but WE CHOOSE WHO WE BECOME. Everyone has problems but we learn to deal with them without committing crime so what makes the ones who choose crime as a way to deal with their issues any better than us? I have a problem with people abusing children and think they are the lowest people on the earth and the child who has been abused certainly does deserve patience and understanding UNTIL they start going out killing or raping and then it is society's problem. It does not matter what their circumstance is they commit crimes because THEY choose to. What about the parents of a child that has been molested and murdered, do they have the right to go out and kill the person who done the horrible things to their child? They have a choice to either deal with their pain and suffering like everyone else does or go out and kill the murderer of their child. You can sit back and blame child abuse, poverty or society but the fact remains while the criminal may have had a terrible life they make the choice to commit crime not us as a society.
I also want to make myself clear on the point of rehabilitation, I believe when one has been released from jail or prison they have every right to live in society and work and be viewed just like anyone else. No one is perfect and they deserve a second chance. I was saying in a previous post that we see death row inmates as guilty even if they are not, thats a stigma attached to death row inmates. I do not agree with it but it is the way things are. I think Omnaka is a brave person as he endured jail and being accused of things he had not done and he CHOSE to bring a positive outlook and learned from his ordeal. Not everyone is capable of doing that, to be falsely accused and then learn to take something positive from it.

Always a pleasure

Thething is you are guilty untill you can prove your innocence, and those who are not on Death row are Made Fellons whose vote does not count and are stigmatised by having gone to Jail for the rest of their lives By those who Make the laws , who made sure the fellons vote does not count,

Black people in Gettoes who commit crime , are to Blame for their own circumstance?

I think not, Iam not saying all of society is doing this to Our brothers and sisters who have been to Jail and then been opressed after serving their punnishments, but society is largly to blame.

Was not that long ago everyone thought owning