Murderers Must Die: Judeo-Christian Values

[Torog]

Murderers Must Die: Judeo-Christian Values, Part XVIII (Dennis Prager Alert)
Townhall.com ^ | 07/19/05 | Dennis Prager


Posted on 07/18/2005 10:38:06 PM PDT


One should not confuse Jews or Christians with Judeo-Christian values. Many Jews and many Christians, including many sincerely religious ones, take certain positions that are contrary to Judeo-Christian values (which I have defined at length: In a nutshell, they are Old Testament values as mediated by Christians, especially American Christians).

One clear example is the death penalty for murderers. Many Jews and Christians believe that all murderers should be kept alive, that it is not only wrong to take the life of any murderer; it is actually un-Jewish or un-Christian.

Jews opposed to capital punishment cite the Talmud (the second most important religious text to Jews), which is largely opposed to capital punishment; Christians opponents cite Jesus on loving one's enemies, for example; and Catholic abolitionists cite the late Pope John Paul II and the many cardinals and bishops who, though not denying all of the Church's teachings on the permissibility of the state to take the life a murderer, largely oppose capital punishment.

Yet, the notion that a murderer must give up his life is one of the central values in the Old Testament. Indeed, taking the life of a murderer is the only law that is found in all Five Books of Moses (the Torah). That is particularly remarkable considering how few laws there are at all in the first Book, Genesis.

When God creates the world, He declares a fundamental value and law to maintain civilization: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He created him." And the law is repeated in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

When all murderers are allowed to keep their lives, murder is rendered less serious and human life is therefore cheapened. That is not only the Judeo-Christian biblical view. It is common sense. The punishment for a crime is what informs society how bad that crime is. A society that allows all murderers to live deems murder less awful than one that takes away the life of a murderer.

There are those who argue that precisely because they so value human life, they oppose the taking of a murderer's life. They argue that you cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. But that is the same as arguing that you can't teach that stealing is wrong by taking away a thief's money or that you can't teach that kidnapping is wrong by kidnapping (i.e., imprisoning) kidnappers.

To the Torah, the first source of Judeo-Christian values, murder is the great sin; the immoral shedding of human blood (as opposed to the moral shedding of human blood in self-defense or in a just war) pollutes the world. That is why the Torah legislated that even an animal that killed a human should be put to death. The purpose was not to punish the animal -- animals do not have free choice, hence cannot be morally culpable. And it was hardly to teach other animals not to kill. It was because a human life is so valuable, it cannot be taken without the taker losing its life.

But, some will object, the Torah decrees the death penalty for many infractions, yet we don't put to death people who practice witchcraft, commit adultery or other capital infractions -- why those who murder?

There are two answers.

First, the only capital crime mentioned before there were any Jews or Israel (in Genesis when God creates the world) is murder. Other death penalties applied specifically to the people of Israel when they entered the Land of Israel -- a special code of behavior for a special time in a special place. And virtually none of those were carried out. The primary purpose of declaring a sin worthy of capital punishment was not actually to execute the sinner, but to declare how serious the infraction was when a society was establishing itself as the first based on ethical monotheism. Capital punishment for murder, on the other hand, was obviously intended for all time and for all people -- it is independent of the existence of Jews and declared to be fundamental to the existence of a humane order.

Second, all the other death penalties are laws. The death penalty for murder is not only a law; it is a value. Laws may be time bound. Values are eternal. Thus, the Christians who believe in the divinity of the Torah are not bound to the Torah's dietary laws (such as not eating pork and shellfish); but they are bound to the value of taking the life of murderers.

Finally, the Old Testament is preoccupied with justice. And allowing one who has unjustly deprived another person of life to keep his own is the ultimate injustice.

There are many good reasons to be wary of taking the lives of murderers -- such as insufficient evidence, corrupted witnesses, distinguishing between premeditated murder and a crime of passion -- but love of life or a commitment to biblically based values are not among them.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Although it seems an anomaly to some, the fact that conservatives oppose abortion and favor the death penalty, while liberals are on opposite sides, has a basis in the same issue - the value of human life.

The key in the difference between valuing the life of the unborn and not that of a murderer is innocence. Who can be more innocent than an unborn baby? As far as the murderer, the life being valued is that of the victim, not the murderer. To value the killer more than the victim of itself devalues innocence and life.

[F L E S H]

Don't waste your time Torog, the christian right will always be hypocritical. Killing = equals murder, no matter whether it's some guy who's doing or it's the state.

In the end, WHO CARES what's written in the old testament? It's a different law written for a different time, and now, as it becomes convenient to you, you pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore.

I know you don't believe in Darwinian evolution, but can you at least concede that human consciousness has evolved over the past 5,000 years? Now, does it make sense to you to apply the same laws that were applied 5,000 years ago, in a society so completely different from our we can't even imagine it?

What about the Middle Ages? I have a name of noble origin, am I allowed to pssess serfs and make them work my land for a tribute? Can I become king and get my own knights? I can find old law codes that state anything I damn well please, it doesn't mean we have to follow them!

[Nullific]

OH MY GOD FRANCE IS 20% TERRORISTS!

[potpimp]

I dont base my opinions on the death penalty or abortion on 2000 year old fairy tales

[bhallg2k]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." - First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." - James Madison

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." - John Adams



Man, I wish people would start realizing that our country was not founded with Judeo-Christian values in mind.

[F L E S H]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." - First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." - James Madison

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." - John Adams



Man, I wish people would start realizing that our country was not founded with Judeo-Christian values in mind.
Thanks. Noone believes me when I say the same thing. Why do people think the founding fathers were religious zealots, when in fact they were extremely anti-religious, in a way that would get them in trouble today if they said tese things publicly?

[nicholasstanko]

why cant we just kill murderers?

what purpose do they serve if we lock them up for the rest of their lives? why would you want to keep paying for a serial killer to have three meals a day and free health care?

why would you want to keep jam-packing the prison system?


is it because prisoners labour to make 20 cents an hour? is it because they provide jobs for all that security and big prisons mean more government funding?


man, i hope not *winks*



let's roll.

[F L E S H]

what purpose do they serve if we lock them up for the rest of their lives? why would you want to keep paying for a serial killer to have three meals a day and free health care?
that might very be true, I think in some extreme cases, it might be justifiable to ahve the death penalty.


why would you want to keep jam-packing the prison system?


but that argument isn't effective to support the death penalty. It's not murderers who are packing up the prisons, it's the guys who get arrested for selling or smoking weed and other such kind of 'criminals'. Killing all the murderers won't even come close to solving that problem.

[F L E S H]

In the end though, I don't really have too strong an opinion on the death pnelty debate. What I find stupid is people using the bible to try to justify the death-penalty.

[pisshead]

the founders were not anti-religious at all. that's incredible.

they wrote the world 'god' and 'creator' and 'created' throughout lots of their writings...read the federalist and anti-federalist papers.

they all didn't believe in god, but they weren't anti-religious.

[nicholasstanko]

that might very be true, I think in some extreme cases, it might be justifiable to ahve the death penalty.

How extreme can cold-blooded murder get?


but that argument isn't effective to support the death penalty. It's not murderers who are packing up the prisons, it's the guys who get arrested for selling or smoking weed and other such kind of 'criminals'. Killing all the murderers won't even come close to solving that problem.

It wouldnt solve the problem but it wont contribute either. if you just took out the murderers thats millions of dollars that doesnt have to go to food and health care and shelter.

[highinspain]

Isnt it a shame we need to look back 225 years to find a qualifed opinion, why with 300 million people can not one or two voices in current life stand up and create a true following of like minded individuals, to effectively, and with responsibility for individual rights, run the US...

It makes me sad that the experiment called America somehow got so far of the path it was on 30 years ago..let alon the path it was on 225 years ago.

[bhallg2k]

why cant we just kill murderers?

I like to avoid the religious side of this debate. So my argument is this: it costs too much. Jailing someone for life (well, 40 years at least) is cheaper than executing someone.

Prisons are ridiculously efficient - some would say inhumanely efficient - and the costs associated with food, clothing, health care and shelter for a prisoner do not approach the legal costs of the mandatory appeals process for those convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death.

[F L E S H]

Isnt it a shame we need to look back 225 years to find a qualifed opinion, why with 300 million people can not one or two voices in current life stand up and create a true following of like minded individuals, to effectively, and with responsibility for individual rights, run the US...

It makes me sad that the experiment called America somehow got so far of the path it was on 30 years ago..let alon the path it was on 225 years ago.
Truer words haven't been spoken... or written, at least, in this forum.

[Nullific]

Im with Bhallg2k, I had to write an essay on capital punishment a few years ago. At first I thought the same, murderers are useless and only consume space and waste resources.
Well then I found out that it isn't as if those sentenced to death are shortly thereafter executed, not at all. Such convictions go through numerous appeals that cost the state money and back up the judicial system. After at least a few years of that the convict sits on death row for another decade or longer before they are finally executed.

[nicholasstanko]

I like to avoid the religious side of this debate. So my argument is this: it costs too much. Jailing someone for life (well, 40 years at least) is cheaper than executing someone.

Prisons are ridiculously efficient - some would say inhumanely efficient - and the costs associated with food, clothing, health care and shelter for a prisoner do not approach the legal costs of the mandatory appeals process for those convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death.

How much would it cost for a million bullets to the backs of millions of heads? You may deem me coy, but hear me out. Why don't we just blow a hole in the backs of their heads? its cheap and our executions are never televised anyway.

it makes no sense to keep these guys alive. if you erase religion (which we should be doing) then there's no other incentive. I'm not taling about some pot smoker im talking about a repeated violent rapist or a child molester or a depraved serial killer. wake up people. the only reason we dont have mass executions is because the gov. gets prisoners to work for 20 cents an hour. that's state-sponsored slave labour. that's alot of jobs taken from guys already getting fucked over by the outsourcing to china.


kill the fucks.


all hail retribution

[nicholasstanko]

and btw, i also thin the death sentence should be carried out within a few weeks. none of this death row bullshit


lets roll

[Nullific]

Are you fucking kidding me?
You want to omit an array of legal processes and safe gaurds so that the state can simply convict a man (or women) of a crime they deem punishable by death and slaughter him (or her) by means of a bullet in the head?

This begs another question, who is going to pull the trigger?
Im not religious in the least bit, but I still see a major problem with convicting an alleged criminal, then swiftly shooting them in the back of the head.

There are numerous other points one could make, such as that killing a person for a crime does not reverse the damage they have done. It also allows them a quick and easy escape, a physical death. As opposed to having them sit desolate and regretful, confined in a prison cell for the rest of their human lives, a more psychological death.

[NowhereMan]

Are you fucking kidding me?
You want to omit an array of legal processes and safe gaurds so that the state can simply convict a man (or women) of a crime they deem punishable by death and slaughter him (or her) by means of a bullet in the head?

This begs another question, who is going to pull the trigger?
Im not religious in the least bit, but I still see a major problem with convicting an alleged criminal, then swiftly shooting them in the back of the head.

There are numerous other points one could make, such as that killing a person for a crime does not reverse the damage they have done. It also allows them a quick and easy escape, a physical death. As opposed to having them sit desolate and regretful, confined in a prison cell for the rest of their human lives, a more psychological death.


lets ask Charlie Manson wtf the deal is?

[bhallg2k]

Ok, here's non-religious argument #2: judges and juries aren't infallible. It's been shown on more than one occasion that innocent people have been put to death in this country. The former governor of Illinois George Ryan (a Republican), in fact, instituted a moratorium against the death penalty because a man named Anthony Porter was exonerated after spending 17 years on death row. It was found after further investigation that as many as 13 people sentenced to die in Illinois were completely innocent.

Until you can absolutely, 100% guarantee that only those who are truly guilty are the ones put to death, I don't see how it's worth it to take the chance.

[nicholasstanko]

Are you fucking kidding me?
You want to omit an array of legal processes and safe gaurds so that the state can simply convict a man (or women) of a crime they deem punishable by death and slaughter him (or her) by means of a bullet in the head?

I never said to omit anything. If it can be proven without any doubt that the person is guilty, then they should be expediently executed. I only suggested a few weeks deference to allow for meditation and handling of post-mortem matters. Our DNA technology is advanced enough to accomplish such feats. and if it isnt, then why isnt more money being funneled to the reasearch?

This begs another question, who is going to pull the trigger?
Im not religious in the least bit, but I still see a major problem with convicting an alleged criminal, then swiftly shooting them in the back of the head.

There are lots of people that wouldnt mind pulling the trigger. And why not hang em high? But what I'm curious to know, is why you have a problem with shooting someone in the back of the head that would eagerly rape your wife, your children and then cut them into pieces. Keep in mind, i'm not talking about executing a drug trafficker or a pimp like the chinese do. I'm just baffled by how you'd rather lock some guy away with a roof over his head and three square meals a day than just remove him from the human equation?

There are numerous other points one could make, such as that killing a person for a crime does not reverse the damage they have done. It also allows them a quick and easy escape, a physical death. As opposed to having them sit desolate and regretful, confined in a prison cell for the rest of their human lives, a more psychological death.

One could make said points, but how does that begin to solve any problems? we could sit around and pretend to be the reincarnation of aristotle all day, but we've still got a huge issue to deal with.

And are you kidding me about psychological death? it would appear from documentaries and testimony that alot more hardened criminals condition themselves to their surroundings. sure, the first few months maybe even years can be hell, but how do you solve this? by becoming tougher and more violent, all in the name of survival. Jail is supposed to be feared, but yet all it seemse to do for the most part is breed more violence before it's released.


and btw, did you know that to make room for prisoners, rapists and murderers are let loose (or at least they recieve more lenient parole hearings) so that pot smokers can be housed? probably more indirectly than anything.

[nicholasstanko]

Ok, here's non-religious argument #2: judges and juries aren't infallible. It's been shown on more than one occasion that innocent people have been put to death in this country. The former governor of Illinois George Ryan (a Republican), in fact, instituted a moratorium against the death penalty because a man named Anthony Porter was exonerated after spending 17 years on death row. It was found after further investigation that as many as 13 people sentenced to die in Illinois were completely innocent.

Until you can absolutely, 100% guarantee that only those who are truly guilty are the ones put to death, I don't see how it's worth it to take the chance.

okay, so how about the millions upon millions spent each year just to build prisons and house inmates be used to further research dna technology? then we'd be in a position to cut down on trial durations and we can lessen the bog down of the courts to focus more time on individual cases. sounds like a better plan than piling people up in jail that dont deserve to live.

[Nullific]

I never said to omit anything. If it can be proven without any doubt that the person is guilty, then they should be expediently executed. I only suggested a few weeks deference to allow for meditation and handling of post-mortem matters. Our DNA technology is advanced enough to accomplish such feats. and if it isnt, then why isnt more money being funneled to the reasearch?
Science is far from perfect, and there is always room for human error. If a lab error is made and the person is executed just weeks later it would be far too late when and if the correction is made. It doesn't happen that fast for a reaon, in many states that use capital punishment an appeal is mandatory after a suspect is found guilty.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732280097.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true
http://www.injusticebusters.com/05/Forensics_Chicago.shtml


There are lots of people that wouldnt mind pulling the trigger. And why not hang em high? But what I'm curious to know, is why you have a problem with shooting someone in the back of the head that would eagerly rape your wife, your children and then cut them into pieces. Keep in mind, i'm not talking about executing a drug trafficker or a pimp like the chinese do. I'm just baffled by how you'd rather lock some guy away with a roof over his head and three square meals a day than just remove him from the human equation? Well some people tell me I have no emotions, but perhaps I just find it a bit inhumane, messy and cruel to put a bullet through the back of another persons skull and let their brains blow all over the floor. I suppose we could reinstate the good ol' guillotine or stake burnings while we are at it.


and btw, did you know that to make room for prisoners, rapists and murderers are let loose (or at least they recieve more lenient parole hearings) so that pot smokers can be housed? That would be a good point, if we were talking about the flaws of the prohibition. You'd also be interested to know that student drug law offenders risk loosing their eligibilty for financial aid.

If you want to sort out the criminal justice system and uncrowd the prisons then the first step is to legalize drugs. There are plenty of sick fucks out there who for their crimes probably deserve to die, but putting a bullet through their heads does not undo their crime or entirely console their victims. I doubt lethal injection is any more expensive than shooting a person, and it is far cleaner. The victim or close relatives should have say in whether or not the convicted is executed if the crime is horrenous enough.
The system should never be allowed to act so quickly, as the system will always be imperfect so long as humans are behind it.

[Funken Monken]

The bibles not worth diddly anyway. Sure, you have somethign to believe in, thats nice, but the book is fallible. Anyone who believes the Old Testament is free of contradictions should re-read it several times.

God did not write this document -- it was written by men and no matter how divinely inspired it may have been, the ideas were filtered through the consciousness of the writers before being recorded.

The New Testament, likewise, was written by men, and according to what is known as the Higher Criticism -- The use of scientific techniques of literary criticism to establish the sources of the books of the Bible -- the gospels were written several decades after the death of Jesus, and who in their right mind could assert that the words of Jesus could be precisely remembered for several decades?

An interesting exercise is to obtain a red-letter edition of the New Testament (in which the words actually attributed to Jesus are in red) and see how much of the Christian dogma is actually based on the words of Jesus, as distinct from the personal ideas of the Gospel writers.

The most frequently quoted verse from the New Testament: â??John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.â?� Are NOT the words of Jesus, but of the author of the gospel.

[nicholasstanko]

Science is far from perfect, and there is always room for human error. If a lab error is made and the person is executed just weeks later it would be far too late when and if the correction is made. It doesn't happen that fast for a reaon, in many states that use capital punishment an appeal is mandatory after a suspect is found guilty.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/10/1070732280097.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true
http://www.injusticebusters.com/05/Forensics_Chicago.shtml

IF IF IF...science is infallible. I suggested giving the condemned get several weeks after the verdict. Lab tests can be checked several times during that period. And gimme a break about why they arent executed that fast. YEARS to come to a conclusion? Don't forget federal prisons get funding based on their inmate quota as well as other things.

Well some people tell me I have no emotions, but perhaps I just find it a bit inhumane, messy and cruel to put a bullet through the back of another persons skull and let their brains blow all over the floor. I suppose we could reinstate the good ol' guillotine or stake burnings while we are at it.

dont be so dramatic. Were you in on the thread when we talked about how animals get slaughtered with a steel spike to the brain? Quick and painless. You wouldnt even have to look at the fucker. just press a button.

That would be a good point, if we were talking about the flaws of the prohibition. You'd also be interested to know that student drug law offenders risk loosing their eligibilty for financial aid.

i heard that one before. that really sucks big time though.

If you want to sort out the criminal justice system and uncrowd the prisons then the first step is to legalize drugs. There are plenty of sick fucks out there who for their crimes probably deserve to die, but putting a bullet through their heads does not undo their crime or entirely console their victims. I doubt lethal injection is any more expensive than shooting a person, and it is far cleaner. The victim or close relatives should have say in whether or not the convicted is executed if the crime is horrenous enough.
The system should never be allowed to act so quickly, as the system will always be imperfect so long as humans are behind it.


I agree. the victims families should have major say as to what happens to the murderer. It should either be death or life in prison. Or maybe it could be a secret raffle. like say the state or judge makes a decision, the family should also make a decision. The decision is kept secret and it's randomly picked. that way noone would know for sure how either had voted. Both could vote for death...both for life...or be split even. point is, noone would know for sure.