I prefer lower-case punishment

Dead Man Walking

Molina, schmolina.... good luck against the Tigers.
ben spain.

We should punish everyone in the Capital, starting with the Capitol.

Mets schmets...at least now they can heal those worn bodies.

http://actualkingdom.blogspot.com/2005/12/zihuatanejo.html

http://actualkingdom.blogspot.com/2005/12/here-is-man.html

http://actualkingdom.blogspot.com/2005/12/some-select-responses.html

An honest response to your question:
I'm not a big fan of institutional authority because power corrupts and cannot be regulated. The ultimate power of taking lives should not be a granted power of any authority, even a government supposedly balanced by branches and constitutions. I don't see retribution as a necessary part of the justice process, and it doesn't seem to be a good deterrent, so I would yank the death penalty given the opportunity.

So, what kind of chance do you think the Cards have? Using strength of division, run advantages, and winning percentages, MSN.com has ranked them as the worst World Series team ever, but the 1987 Twins were in the top three and they won--against the Cardinals...

I thought you would appreciate the attention to detail in the last half of this article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/061023

The story at the link below demonstrates why the death penalty should be used.

Mike

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224359,00.html

The web page for Mike's article did not come up. Is the address correct? Can the article's argument be summed up or reiterated?

Sorry about the link, I don't know what's wrong with it. Try pasting this one into your browser: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224359,00.html

It was a link to the story about Jeffery Lundgren's execution yesterday by lethal injection at Lucasville. He was convicted in 1990 of the brutal murders of an entire family--parents and three daughters ranging from 15 to 7 years old--in 1989. Each familly member was lured one at a time into a barn where he shot them several times and dumped the bodies in a pit. He was the head of a break away sect of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He claimed God told him to kill the family because they were not entusiastic enough about their faith. The whole thing was carefully planned and executed. Two other people, his wife at the time and I think a son, are serving life sentences for their part in the killings.

After 16 years, his execution is not about revenge or retribution, it's about justice.

Mike

Mike--That is a horrific story that I can't begin to imagine, but I fail to see how it "demonstrates that the death penalty should be used."

Mike,

Why do we assume that retributive is the only form of justice, or even the best?

If god was only concerned in retribtuive justice, we would all be in hell, correct?

But He was concerned with reconciliation. With making the relationship right. Shouldn't we be as well?

How are we defining justice. Do we define it as a citizen of a secular government or as followers of Jesus Christ?

God's treatment towards us, as recorded in the gospels, was neither fair nor reasonable and is not a good example of the justice carried out by our government.

God is the one who instituted laws--a la the ten commandments. Laws are only necessary because of the Fall. Were it not for that, crime, sin, hate, etc would be unknown to us. Unfortunately we do live in a fallen world and law and order are necessary. Without law, we would have anarchy. Just as God instituted laws, He also instituted punishment. Adam and Eve were punished for disobeying God, Cain was punished for killing Abel, the Israelites were punished time after time for disobedience, Ananias and Sapphira were punished for lying to the Holy Spirit.

Romans 13:1-4 reads thus: 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

We see time and time again in the Bible that when we sin, there are consequences. There are consequences even when we admit our wrong and ask forgiveness, be it of God or another person. We are each responsible for our own actions and must deal with the repurcussions of each act of sin. I believe that the death penalty is a justifiable punishment that should be used when warranted by the nature of the crime in question. I think the whole death penalty debate comes down to a difference of opinion. There are pros and cons on each side of the issue and I don’t think that any one view is truly right and the other wrong. My opinion though is that it should be used.

Mike,

I appreciate your fairness and bravery tackling such a topic when there are so many voices that do not agree with you. Let me start by thanking you for engaging the topic, and by asking you to please continue to share your heart and mind.

David,

Not to be an ass, but I have clarify that the options you gave are not complete--I do not define
justice either as a follower of God or as a citizen of a legal system. The way I understand it, justice is more primordial than either, and both (if either are legitimate) should accord with justice, not vice versa.

As a soft atheist, I have to examine what justice means for finite beings where ultimate balances of good and bad can not be guaranteed and may not be idealized in an afterlife. This has shifted my thinking away from the traditional concepts of justice as good for good and bad for bad, as well as justice as some idealized utopian society to be realized later by some omnipotent force. Instead, I have to find characteristics in and among those to whom justice matters to understand what the concept means and to discover whether it is something that we have the right to expect or not.

What I am working on now is a concept of justice based on the relational complex with which every moral agent is necessarily entwined and defined. Since we are relational beings with an extremely large number of conditional relationships, the matrix of relationships begins to look as the starting and ending point of justice.

What if justice is not about rewards and punishment, or about a specific state of affairs, but about modes of relationship? What if the word justice is related to the word righteousness in more than a linguistic sense (tracing the Greek roots), and instead, having right relationships, or working to make right relationships, is the essence of justice? Justice would be a dynamic affair then, not static, idealized, rational, eschatological, or legal. It could never be defined or ensured by legislation or dogma. It could never be discovered and encapsulated in certain terms. But it exists because it is one way of being in relationship as a being that is connected and related to everything and everyone.

Brandon, or anyone else, if you have ever encountered a thinker with similar concepts regarding justice, I would be very interested in being referred to their writings/thoughts. I feel pretty alone at this moment in regards to this notion of justice, and it is not always easy to articulate.

I think I'll let Casey break down the hermeneutic of Romans 13 since I have tried on many occasions and it doesn't seem to have any effect.

I will say though, that God did not institute "laws" in the way we currently think of them. God in fact, had no desire for the people of Israel to even form a government. The 10 commandments you speak of constituted the covenant for the people of Israel. These commandments were to be followed irrespective of the laws of the land...in the same manner that the new covenant, what we are called to live by, is to be followed by members of the kingdom, irrespective of the laws of the land. This new covenant includes forgiveness and the hope for reconciliation, not judgment and the hope for death to avenge the dead.

It's strange that you can so forcefully agree with the death penalty because it is the "law of the land". Yet you seem to have a problem with the idea that abortion is legal. Shouldn't you, according to your understanding of Romans 13, support abortion or any law already on the books?

I think you're hiding behind this verse so you don't have to confront the morality of the issue. It is similar to the way people argue for or against torture based on whether it provides reliable intelligence. The idea that capital punishment does not lead to reconciliation and healing of the perpetrator or victim is the reality that needs to be confronted, not whether it is legal, and not whether it leads to a reduction in crime (which it does not).

Corbin, my final for one of my classes will be dealing with your question for resources. I'll try and send something to you on it near the end of the semester (december).

Corbin-

I have to disagree with you--even if you measure justice outside of a context of divine/human interaction, it is inherently eschatological. the life of certain societies, indeed based on relationship (emperor/empire, feudal lord/serf, president/citizen) hinges on their concept of justice bringing something to fruition and completion in the truly Hebraic sense of 'eschatological'--a completion. we all live via eschatological motifs, and if we support the d.p. then it speaks highly of what our desired eschatology is...

As to the Romans 13 passage, Brandon deferred to me and I defer to N.T. Wright in the article "New Testament and the State" on www.ntwrightpage.com simply because I couldn't possibly explicate it all here.

the summation would be this: the heart of the 1st C. Jewish belief system was nationalist revolution. Paul is calling, as Jesus did, in Romans 13 for the reconstituted Israel (i.e. the church) to abandon insurgent rebellion and embrace servanthood. However, Paul's extant charge that Jesus is Lord and not Caesar (echoed in Rev. 7:1ff by John, see also Wright, "Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire" via the website above) stands over and above the legislated practices of the Roman culture.

In turn, Jesus is Lord and democracy/America is not, and the practice then of capital punishment stands over and above that claim and the call to be the reconstituted Israel.

One important note about the OT examples of punishment for sin that really shapes this discussion: The agent(s) carrying out the acts you mention are either YHWH himself or beings under the direct power of YHWH. Meaning, they are influenced by perfect justice. I do not believe we can confidently claim jury trials and our contemporary legal system to operate under the influence of perfect justice/motivation.

If you can say that with all sureity, I will give the next few months of my time to renovating my position on capital punishment. Again, not a personal thing, just a place where I have strong feelings.

Subversion,

I respect your theological emphasis on eschatology, even as an a-theological principle. To quibble, because that's what gives inane pseudointellectuals pleasure, I would lean on a Derridean suspicion of finality and closure. It is not that there is no future orientation, but rather the sense that at some point in time or in the process a whole will and must be realized is a hope that I actually find more dangerous than beneficial. But beyond pragmatic concerns, I would think that saying justice is intrinsically eschatological implies that justice is inherently not yet, and that approaching the not yet is a false obsession with presence and absence.

Sorry to everyone else--that was just fun to think through. I appreciate any response, but this comment can be safely ignored for the sake of the capital punishment dialogue.

I do not agree with the death penalty because it is the "law of the land" as you put it. I agree with it because I believe that the State is justified in using it as a punishment for certain types of crime. (As a side note, abortion is hardly a law. It is a permissible practice because there are no (or limited) laws against it.) I’m not trying to hide behind Romans 13 either. I merely used it to point out that we are told to submit to the authorities over us—whatever or whoever said authorities may be—in so far as doing so does not violate our higher calling to obey God. In this case, obeying the law against murder seems to be in line with God’s commandments.

I am certainly not putting forward the notion that juries and our legal system operate with perfect justice. Only a fool would believe that. Anything contolled by human hands is imperfect by nature. Under our system though, there is the whole appeal process—which takes years in most cases. Sometimes during the process reason is found to overturn a death sentence or conviction entirely. Sometimes it doesn’t. The bottom line is, whether we’re talking about the death penalty, prison time or some other form of punishment, there are consequences for our actions that must be faced. I don’t think our penal system is a way of taking revenge on a person for committing a crime. Punishment is the simple result of wrong choices—sin.

mike, i guess because it is made pretty clear to any student of the new testament...that does not mean it is clear to ALL ¨christians¨, but are you familiar with the pretty radical and challenging passages of the gospel known as the ´sermon on the mount´?
i ask, of course, because jesus was speaking to a whole lot of jews. and jews, naturally, followed the law of moses (which can adequately be summed up in the Ten Commandments). he upsets a whole lot of people (then, and now), with replacing those laws and implementing New ones. that is why, for instance, the controversial verses begin with, ´you have heard that it was said`, and then he quotes moses, and pushes the law much further and to a finer point saying things that you seem to disagree so passionately about. that is what christians refer to as ´the way´, or the ´narrow path´.
i am perfectly fine with you disagreeing with the gospels or with jesus, or with the kingdom that he proclaimed...i just wish, like corbin, you called yourself something other than a christian.

i know, it sounds real harsh...but for someone surrounded in the amish community, it seems pretty obvious that you are not receiving much from them in the way of the culture-challenging lifestyle of those that choose to follow jesus with more than just their lips.

peace

Sister Helen Prejean stood in-between the guilty and the grieving.

She sought confession and redemption on death row with a "murder"er/rapist...and sought forgiveness and healing with the "angry"/vengeful parents.

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not "murder", and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is "angry" with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Punishment is not a reality, it is merely a political opinion...one that has no power in the face of love, mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Systems and laws are created because we are not willing to stand in-between and seek reconciliation.

We must do so in spite of sin and consequence.

Dead Man Walking

I ran across this today in Brennan Manning's "Abba's Child."

"God calls his children to a countercultural lifestyle of forgiveness in a world that demands an eye for an eye--and worse. But if loving God is the first commandment, and loving our neighbor proves our love for God, and if it is easy to love those who love us, then loving our enemies must be the filial badge that identifies Abba's children."

Not that I am condoning the use of capitol punishment, since I have yet to figure out where I stand, but I am inclined to ask....

Are we to assume that there is no reconciliation possible beyond the grave?

Corbin-

I see the Derridean influence, but I find it hard to understand how the converse provides a fearful concept. Practically, we all are involved in initiatives that we hope come to some sort of eschatological fulfillment (in as much as it depends on our own action/responsibility). The initiatives you were taking with the local police department for example--were there no hopes for completion in that action? It would appear that there is a completion-ethic woven into the fiber of simply being. The human organism may or may not be implicitly drawn to a worldview based on eschatological (either theological or a-theological) hopes but it indeed seems that even non-type-A (like me!) persons there is an innate desire for completion. in regards then to the "not-yet", I don't perceive it as strictly "not-present" or "not-possible" but as "not-perfect". the idea of "realized eschatology" is for me a fundamental understanding of Jesus and the New Testament, namely that there are some elements of justice that are possible because of the imaging of the "not-yet." considering justice in the case of the d.p., eschatology is living as if there is a complete, eschatologically-realized justice in the future and realizing it through our own actions in the present. I realize the flaw in the logic ("the best laid plans...") but I also see that there must be a "faith-ing" that goes alongside and buffets the understanding.

serra-
to clarify: reconciliation for who? those committing the act that places them in the penal situation or those carrying out/supporting the penal activity of the death penalty? we often speak of the reconciliation in this way, but perhaps there is also the idea that the one feeling his own righteousness enough to take the life of another must be reconciled to God as well. this discussion will no doubt lead us into the concepts of war/pacifism, etc. welcome to the discussion by the way.

Subversion,

Your words certainly had weight on me today. As I traveled from Mount Vernon I considered your response carefully and heavily, as what you wrote seemed sensible and certainly disrupted my discourse.

So I hope you know that in the midst of these ideological discussions is also an existential involvement--I am engaged with you in a very real way that extends beyond a series of disconnected ramblings. Thank you for that.

I think my suspicion of eschatology is in the last word. Making an ethical decision and striving for temporal goals recognizes the dynamic aspects of becoming, while utopian constructs seem stagnant. This from a severe utopian dreamer! But it is the idea that fulfillment is waiting that makes me uncomfortable and seems to do violence to our behaving responsibly. Seeking fulfillment and acting as though fulfillment were the goal do not seem to be quite so charged as the concept of logos eschatos, where this metaphysical reality suspends and confounds the flux we feel involved in and in which we make decisions. Heaven and hell as metaphors or possibile worlds seems less eschatological and more phenomenological when it is stripped of the notion of eternity. Does replacing the focus on the shifting contextuality of a becoming remove the constraints of a stagnant eschatology? I don't know. I will have to spend more time working through that.

You are right: the not-yet is as much a conditional of our current situation as the as-of-yet, and it is not necessarily an opposition of absence and presence. I overstepped on that account.

Subversion,

Well, I was specifically thinking of the "those committing the act which places them in the penal situation." (so eloquently put I had to quote.) But you are correct, in my thinking, to call into question the state of reconciliation for both parties involved. I think that all too often we as a society believe that the ends justify the means, even though we may not admit to it. In this case, someone who puts himself in the seat of handing down judgement may wrongfully believe that he is in the right, because the one receiving his handout was in the wrong.

But my question stands. Will there be reconciliation after death? Will there be room for those of us who left a loose end? For either party in this case, will either be able to make peace with those he wronged and with God?

More and more I am becoming a pacifist, and even though I am still figuring out what that means, and how it has dramatically changed my worldview, I think it is safe to say that capital punishment is out. I have been so challenged lately in my devotional life to see all persons as God does. And I believe that when He looks at someone who has committed a heinous crime, he sees His child that is hurting and lost, and in desperate need of love and healing. Should we not be handing down compassion in the name of the kingdom? And maybe that sounds radical (and maybe not, considering the context of those I am posting with) but I do believe that Christ himself was quite radical with His teachings of "Extravangant love," yes?

I just read "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham. It will shed some light on this topic if anyone is interested.