Is the death penalty morally wrong?

[Gameface]

This gun is designed to disable vehicles.

This gun is designed to shoot down incoming missiles

I inherently see guns as a defensive tool, not one for killing, but for defending life. But I suppose that's because I specialized in shipboard defensive weapons in the Navy and because I've owned several guns and have never wanted to kill anyone or anything with them.

I absolutely recognize the deadly potential of firearms. But I think firearms are extremely useful for peaceful purposes and not only useful for killing.

So the statement "The only purpose of a gun is to kill" is an absolute statement and one that is easily refutable by showing any other purpose at all for a firearm. Either it is a true statement or it isn't. In this case it isn't true.

 

[Gameface]

I'm confused by this part. In the past people have criticized cops and said "why did the cop shoot the guy so many times?"
And "why not just shoot the criminal in the leg and wound him?"
And I have saw your response that the cops are trained to shoot center mass with multiple shots. That seems like a good way to kill a person.

Also, the best way to stop a threat would be death to the threat so shooting to stop a threat and shooting to kill seem like they could mean the same thing

Yeah, shooting a person center mass is very likely to kill them. I guess the difference might seem semantic more than anything else, but to me it is important. Because the only legitimate use of a firearm against a person is if they are a threat to innocent people and the firearm should only be used to most effectively stop that threat. The person doesn't need to die, they just need to stop. If pointing a gun at them and telling them to stop does the trick then you've used that gun far more effectively than if you pull the trigger, imho.

 

[Stoked]

True.
Cops usually are not trying to murder someone to the point that if a guy is laying on the ground and not moving they will put in a fresh clip and empty that into the guy too but I think there are many times when mace, rubber bullets, tazers, etc would stop the threat just fine and yet they choose to shoot 5+ shots into the dudes chest instead.

Of course not every cop will always follow their training all the time either so im sure GF is correct about them being trained to stop the threat..... They just don't always choose the correct way to stop the threat without killing the bad guy

This spins off into a whole new argument imo. I think that there are times when there were absolutely better methods to stop the threat.

I can also absolutely see the argument I have heard from law enforcement about how fast these occurrences are. When the moment comes it is often immediate and in close proximity.

I've seen training videos where an officer is a half dozen feet from a suspect when the suspect chooses to attack them and they have closed the distance in 1-2 seconds.

 

[fishonjazz]

This spins off into a whole new argument imo. I think that there are times when there were absolutely better methods to stop the threat.

I can also absolutely see the argument I have heard from law enforcement about how fast these occurrences are. When the moment comes it is often immediate and in close proximity.

I've seen training videos where an officer is a half dozen feet from a suspect when the suspect chooses to attack them and they have closed the distance in 1-2 seconds.

Ya.
The argument, as far as I understood it, was are guns made for killing?
I say yes. Though you don't always have to use them for killing. Which can be said about anything really.

My point was that when the first gun was invented I'm quite sure that the inventor was like "look, I made this machine so that now we can fire metal projectiles at pieces of paper with circles drawn on it (targets) and beer bottles.
I'm quite sure that the gun was created to kill and nothing more. Over time, as guns and ammo became more common and available and easy to get, people started using them recreationally...... But to me that does not change their purpose for existing. Just like if people started using lethal injection machines as paperweights or electric chairs as normal chairs to watch tv in that wouldn't change the fact that they were made for killing

 

[Stoked]

Ya.
The argument, as far as I understood it, was are guns made for killing?
I say yes. Though you don't always have to use them for killing. Which can be said about anything really.

My point was that when the first gun was invented I'm quite sure that the inventor was like "look, I made this machine so that now we can fire metal projectiles at pieces of paper with circles drawn on it (targets) and beer bottles.
I'm quite sure that the gun was created to kill and nothing more. Over time, as guns and ammo became more common and available and easy to get, people started using them recreationally...... But to me that does not change their purpose for existing. Just like if people started using lethal injection machines as paperweights or electric chairs as normal chairs to watch tv in that wouldn't change the fact that they were made for killing

I agree that guns were originally made to kill.

I was avoiding that discussion as I have nothing to add. Just addressing some of your tangents is all.

 

[fishonjazz]

I agree that guns were originally made to kill.

I was avoiding that discussion as I have nothing to add. Just addressing some of your tangents is all.

And you addressed them well.
I agree with most of your points

 

[fishonjazz]

Yeah, shooting a person center mass is very likely to kill them. I guess the difference might seem semantic more than anything else, but to me it is important. Because the only legitimate use of a firearm against a person is if they are a threat to innocent people and the firearm should only be used to most effectively stop that threat. The person doesn't need to die, they just need to stop. If pointing a gun at them and telling them to stop does the trick then you've used that gun far more effectively than if you pull the trigger, imho.

I agree with this.

I still they were made to kill though..... Which is why they work as a deterrent.

 

[franklin]

I'm confused by this part. In the past people have criticized cops and said "why did the cop shoot the guy so many times?"
And "why not just shoot the criminal in the leg and wound him?"
And I have saw your response that the cops are trained to shoot center mass with multiple shots. That seems like a good way to kill a person.

Also, the best way to stop a threat would be death to the threat so shooting to stop a threat and shooting to kill seem like they could mean the same thing

An officer having a gun is a deterrent. Shooting to kill is not the goal. Deterring is.

 

[fishonjazz]

An officer having a gun is a deterrent. Shooting to kill is not the goal. Deterring is.

Yup. I agree

 

[franklin]

Sorry fish, I haven't read the thread much so don't really know what you two are going on about. I found that section an odd exchange.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sorry fish, I haven't read the thread much so don't really know what you two are going on about. I found that section an odd exchange.

It's all good.
It was quite the de-rail job

 

[carolinajazz]

In the Biblical nation of Israel, the death penalty could not be imposed unless there was a 1) Confession. 2) Two witnesses to the crime. Now, how much fairer and just can you get?

 

[DutchJazzer]

In the Biblical nation of Israel, the death penalty could not be imposed unless there was a 1) Confession. 2) Two witnesses to the crime. Now, how much fairer and just can you get?

leaving out crucuial information bro. but whatever it is ok.

 

[carolinajazz]

leaving out crucuial information bro. but whatever it is ok.

Here's the "crucial" information you need!

Bible Laws in U.S. Constitution

Article*III, Section*3, of the U.S. Constitution states: “No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

This is similar to the Bible law, which stated: “No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin. .*.*. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.”—Deut. 19:15.

....also, if the person confesses to the crime, then the judicial proceedings can go on or take place! The important thing is that justice is done and the crime "fits" the punishment!

MOSAIC LAW PRECEDENTS IN AMERICAN LAW—

Two or more witnesses for conviction of serious crime—Deut. 19:15
Punishment should not extend beyond guilty party—Deut. 24:16
Even ruler is subject to law—Deut. 17:18-20
All citizens equal before law—Lev. 19:15
Right to an impartial and public trial—Deut. 16:18-20
Protection from perjury—Deut. 19:15-21
No cruel and unusual punishment—Deut. 25:2,*3
Murder distinguished from manslaughter—Num. 35:16-25
Protective custody for accused murderer, hence, presumption of innocence—Num. 35:12
Judges with high qualifications required—Ex. 18:21,*22

CONTRASTS BETWEEN MOSAIC LAW AND AMERICAN LAW—

Emphasis on compensation for victim in Bible law—Ex. 22:1-9
No prison system provided by Mosaic law
Consistent death penalty for deliberate murder, hence, no repeat offenders—Num. 35:21
Advanced program of public legal education—Deut. 31:10-13; 6:1-9
Bible courts did not require costly formalities, were easily accessible to common citizen
Basic legal code not added to, kept simple enough for all to understand—Deut. 4:2
Juvenile delinquency kept minimal—Deut. 21:18-21
No lengthy waiting for trial

 

[DutchJazzer]

Consistent death penalty for deliberate murder, hence, no repeat offenders—Num. 35:21

i think ur misunderstanding the death-penalty mosaic law death penalty is nearly impossible.
lots of requirements which are pretty much impossible to achieve.

 

[carolinajazz]

i think ur misunderstanding the death-penalty mosaic law death penalty is nearly impossible.
lots of requirements which are pretty much impossible to achieve.

Obviously, in today's Society, humans and human ruler-ship supersedes any thing remotely tied to God's laws and principles as clearly outlined in the Bible. Your right, it's just not going to happen. But here is some further food for thought:

Comparative Gravity of Wrongdoing.
Although sin is sin, and in any case could justly make the guilty one worthy of sin’s “wages,” death, the Scriptures show that God views mankind’s wrongdoing as varying in degrees of gravity. Thus, the men of Sodom were “gross sinners against Jehovah,” and their sin was “very heavy.” (Ge 13:13; 18:20; compare 2Ti 3:6,*7.) The Israelites’ making a golden calf was also called “a great sin” (Ex 32:30,*31), and Jeroboam’s calf worship similarly caused those of the northern kingdom “to sin with a great sin.” (2Ki 17:16,*21) Judah’s sin became “like that of Sodom,” making the kingdom of Judah abhorrent in God’s eyes. (Isa 1:4, 10; 3:9; La 1:8; 4:6) Such a course of disregard for God’s will can make even one’s very prayer become a sin. (Ps 109:7, 8,*14) Since sin is an affront to God’s own person, he is not indifferent to it; as its gravity increases, his indignation and wrath are understandably increased. (Ro 1:18; De 29:22-28; Job 42:7; Ps 21:8,*9) His wrath, however, is not solely due to the involvement of his own person but is likewise stirred by the injury and injustice done to humans and particularly to his faithful servants.—Isa 10:1-4; Mal 2:13-16; 2Th 1:6-10.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Obviously, in today's Society, humans and human ruler-ship supersedes any thing remotely tied to God's laws and principles as clearly outlined in the Bible. Your right, it's just not going to happen. But here is some further food for thought:

Comparative Gravity of Wrongdoing.
Although sin is sin, and in any case could justly make the guilty one worthy of sin’s “wages,” death, the Scriptures show that God views mankind’s wrongdoing as varying in degrees of gravity. Thus, the men of Sodom were “gross sinners against Jehovah,” and their sin was “very heavy.” (Ge 13:13; 18:20; compare 2Ti 3:6,*7.) The Israelites’ making a golden calf was also called “a great sin” (Ex 32:30,*31), and Jeroboam’s calf worship similarly caused those of the northern kingdom “to sin with a great sin.” (2Ki 17:16,*21) Judah’s sin became “like that of Sodom,” making the kingdom of Judah abhorrent in God’s eyes. (Isa 1:4, 10; 3:9; La 1:8; 4:6) Such a course of disregard for God’s will can make even one’s very prayer become a sin. (Ps 109:7, 8,*14) Since sin is an affront to God’s own person, he is not indifferent to it; as its gravity increases, his indignation and wrath are understandably increased. (Ro 1:18; De 29:22-28; Job 42:7; Ps 21:8,*9) His wrath, however, is not solely due to the involvement of his own person but is likewise stirred by the injury and injustice done to humans and particularly to his faithful servants.—Isa 10:1-4; Mal 2:13-16; 2Th 1:6-10.

Thank you for these tidbits on the moral world view of iron-age, misogynist, racist, slave holding, tribal, superstitious sheep herders. Their relevance to the 21st Century (and given all we've learned in the past few of thousand years) will certainly be given the relevance they merit.

So I suppose you get off scott free because this iron age book of fables doesn't condemn racism. Lucky you.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Thank you for these tidbits on the moral world view of iron-age, misogynist, racist, slave holding, tribal, superstitious sheep herders. Their relevance to the 21st Century (and given all we've learned in the past few of thousand years) will certainly be given the relevance they merit.

So I suppose you get off scott free because this iron age book of fables doesn't condemn racism. Lucky you.

There is a lot to learn from historical cultures both good and bad.

Many of the same issues we deal with today are the same. The increased technology doesn't make that much of a difference, and don't get a big head thinking we are that much farther ahead of these other cultures and societies. We may be ahead in some areas and behind in others, but on the whole we aren't as enormously ahead as you seem to make it sound.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

There is a lot to learn from historical cultures both good and bad.

I agree 100%

QUOTE=Jazz Spazz;1107834]Many of the same issues we deal with today are the same.[/QUOTE]

Again, I agree.

The increased technology doesn't make that much of a difference, and don't get a big head thinking we are that much farther ahead of these other cultures and societies. We may be ahead in some areas and behind in others, but on the whole we aren't as enormously ahead as you seem to make it sound.

Here I disagree, vehemently. My frame of reference has much less to do with technology than with advances in our understanding about morality. Here my frame of reference is advances with regards to morality surround issues such as human rights, human dignity, civil rights, civil liberties, etc.. Our moral understanding of the universe on these issues is so far beyond anything even imagined during Biblical times (the notion that people had inherent rights that could not morally be violated would have been laughed off among Biblical societies, although such concepts were totally and utterly alien to them). We are light years ahead of Biblical times in terms of our moral thinking such as to make the Bible a totally insufficient guide to 21st Century moral thinking.

We could simply junk the Bible by adopting the Golden Rule, which I believe was taught by Jesus in some form: treat others as we would have them treat us. To me, this is the simplest, and most sublime moral principle, and is as powerful today as it has ever been. The problem with Bible is that it is weighed down with so much other baggage and really horrible stuff that mitigate against the golden rule, and, unfortunately, it is the latter that Christianity (and certainly socially conservative Evangelicals today) tend to focus on.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Here I disagree, vehemently. My frame of reference has much less to do with technology than with advances in our understanding about morality. Here my frame of reference is advances with regards to morality surround issues such as human rights, human dignity, civil rights, civil liberties, etc.. Our moral understanding of the universe on these issues is so far beyond anything even imagined during Biblical times (the notion that people had inherent rights that could not morally be violated would have been laughed off among Biblical societies, although such concepts were totally and utterly alien to them). We are light years ahead of Biblical times in terms of our moral thinking such as to make the Bible a totally insufficient guide to 21st Century thinking on morality.

I certainly agree that as a world most of the societies have freedoms and opportunities way beyond what was allowed in all/most cultures and societies back then. Still many of the issues were the same and we should use the Bible as well as any other knowledge of histories and societies to guide our laws/governments/choices today. Am I saying use the Old Testament as a walkthrough? No, but I am saying your tone of complete disregard is not a good idea either. Learn what we can and adapt that learning and knowledge to our own situations.