BREAKING: Boston Bomber sentenced to death

[RFayette]

Guilty plz

[RFayette]

People really ought to have a little more compassion for humanity. Really despicable outcome.

Compassion for an unrepentant terrorist? I'll pass.

[RFayette]

As someone who is unconditionally pro-life, I feel distressed, disappointed, and overall let down by both this decision and the incredibly inhumane way many here have responded. It is especially concerning when those of faith respond in such a way.

Um, other than the adultery/stoning passage, I don't see anything where Jesus would condemn a government for carrying out a prescribed penalty for violating a crime, especially as something as heinous as murder.  I don't know what Jesus would think, but empirically, most Christians are pro-death penalty, and probably at a higher rate than the rest of the country. 


I understand we have different moral systems, but why are you "distressed" by a criminal who hates society getting his just deserts?  If he got life without parole, it would have a similar effect, and I'm sure  you wouldn't criticize that.   So what's the big difference?

[RFayette]

As someone who is unconditionally pro-life, I feel distressed, disappointed, and overall let down by both this decision and the incredibly inhumane way many here have responded. It is especially concerning when those of faith respond in such a way.

Um, other than the adultery/stoning passage, I don't see anything where Jesus would condemn a government for carrying out a prescribed penalty for violating a crime, especially as something as heinous as murder.  I don't know what Jesus would think, but empirically, most Christians are pro-death penalty, and probably at a higher rate than the rest of the country. 


I understand we have different moral systems, but why are you "distressed" by a criminal who hates society getting his just deserts?  If he got life without parole, it would have a similar effect, and I'm sure  you wouldn't criticize that.   So what's the big difference?

Lol, your ignorance of theology is showing. Also arguments like "but people who are religious are pro-death penalty!" doesn't disprove the fact that Christian teaching runs counter to any concept of the death penalty. Did you even read the quote I put in my post?

Here's some more from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that you think that Jesus, who explicit taught forgiveness, would not condemn the modern use of the death penalty is just ignorant. He was not nearly as hypocritical as many on the religious right are today...

Why does it distress me? It's morally heinous public policy and destroys our society when we find it prudent to fight atrocities with more atrocities. We are continuing down a path that is untenable when we continue the use of the death  penalty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A few responses:
1. Your quote cites Exodus, one of the first books in the Old Testament, which also specifically prescribes the death penalty for numerous offenses.  The same God of the Old Testament also calls the Jews to war against other tribes.  "Kill" has generally been interpreted as "murder."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RENPaY043o
When it comes to theological stuff, I admit I'm quite biased toward the Protestant side, so for me, a quote from a bishop or Pope has no bearing without the scripture if we are to talk about the "traditional Christian" view of something.

2. The term "destroying society" is awfully strong for simply meting out justice to those who commit atrocious acts.  I don't understand how a humanely, fairly-administered death penalty after a fair trial is an "atrocity" whereas a life-without-parole sentence in a supermax prison is a "just punishment."   Psychologically, you could argue the latter is more damaging anyways. 

I will grant you Jesus's argument of forgiveness, but you must also believe life without parole is also unjust.  I can't see how you could support one but not the other while being consistent.

3. Rather than denigrating the sanctity of life, the death penalty for murderers upholds the principle that life is so sacred that if you violate someone else's right to life, you thereby forfeit that  precious thing.  After all, that communicates just how seriously we take a person's right to life to be. 

[RFayette]

Also, one last thing Turk:  Jesus never condemned the Romans for their justice system which instituted the death penalty for common criminals.  Jesus said "Give unto Caesar that which is his"; he never criticized the Romans for executing robbers, thieves, etc., and they used the death penalty far more extensively than we do now.

I respect your viewpoint, but  I frankly do not see eye-to-eye with you on this.

[RFayette]

Using the Bible as a citation for specific morals is a flawed way to think anyway, but sadly it's what millions in this country are going to do anyway.

Of course, I don't base my view on the Bible, but as a Christian, it does matter to me from a personal standpoint, and I respect others for whom it is significant.

(Response was intended for RFayette regarding the issue of the death penalty not being called out. I don't even want to get into the issue of abortion which has even less to take from the Bible. Taking the moral perspective of one time period is a horrendous way to rationalize a current policy.)

Let me clarify.  My position on the death penalty is not because of what the Bible says about the subject.  I was just pointing out to Turk that one could just as easily make a pro-death penalty case from the Bible as an anti-death penalty case.  This link sheds further light on a pro-death penalty Biblical position.
http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html

Personally, I favor the death penalty largely because it serves as an unambiguous moral judgment on the utter depravity of an act that far exceeds a typical murder case.

I do believe states like TX overuse the death penalty.  I think it should only be used when there is more than one murder (and I would probably set the bar at at least 3) or the 1 murder was so heinous/torture-filled that it demonstrates true callousness


One thing I will say about the incrementalism argument for prison inmates:  the incrementalism argument is great if we're talking about the federal court system, because lifers have to spend their whole time in an utterly-awful supermax and thus have nothing to lose by killing someone (though unlikely given their limited human contact) whereas a state prison inmate often starts out in "maximum security" but not supermax (so 16 hr/day confinement instead of 23 hr/day, maybe) and even has the chance to work their way down, whereas a BOP inmate is likely stuck at supermax for a very very long time. 

In this case, the incrementalism argument is good because people who did far less still get LWOP in a supermax prison, so the only more severe punishment is death; the fact that there were 2 separate heinous crimes being committed makes this that kind of case, IMO.