Category Archives: Debate

It’s been two weeks, so I’ll just jump right in responding to Min’s last post.

If capital punishment is unjust, it should simply be abolished. There is no need to ask the question of whether it’s merciful to spare someone. The very point would be that it’s unjust.

You know, I’ll go along with that. I do think that it is unjust.

Min then quotes this verse, with the explanation that it’s just a statement from God that wasn’t part of Jewish law:

Gen 9:6 – Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This may be a stretch here, but that verse doesn’t convince me because it doesn’t say that man gets to decide who should die. If God wants to tell someone (audibly, with witnesses) to kill someone for killing someone else, then an argument could be made for capital punishment. But that doesn’t happen in this day and age.

Are you saying, Amanda, that regardless of how great a scale the murder and how great a detachment from remorse the person has we should spare his life? So, it’s ok to let Sadaam, Hitler, etc. live?

Yes. It’s quite simple, actually. God gives life, and God takes life. Man is neither the author or the finisher of life. This isn’t to say I don’t think they should spend the rest of their human existance behind bars with no hope for appeal or parole. I just don’t think they should be murdered.

To me, if there’s no repentance and no remorse, there’s no reason for me to be merciful. If you look at every instance of God’s justice/mercy balance in the Bible you’ll see that God was merciful on those that asked, those that showed remorse, or repentance. If you didn’t do one of those things you got what you deserved.

Or am I mistaken?

This attitude both saddens and angers me. You only show mercy to those who deserve it? That’s not mercy. And it’s not Christ-like. The people in the New Testament who were shown compassion and/or mercy weren’t repentant or remorseful of their sinful life until they met Jesus Christ.

Today, how do people meet Jesus Christ? Through his people. Through you, Min. And when you say things like “if there’s no repentance and no remorse, there’s no reason for me to be merciful” you are not introducing anyone to Christ.

I do not believe the death penalty to be Christ-like, in any capacity. There is no mercy shown to the men and women who are condemned and then murdered.

No, I haven’t forgotten (or given up on) the death penalty debate. I know it’s my turn to post something, but I just haven’t had the ability this past week to coherently put my thoughts together.

It’s coming, I promise.

I’ve been thinking about this post for several days, and I’m still not sure I can fully articulate my points, but it’s past time for Min to read a reply to his most recent post on our death penalty debate.

In his post, Min completely glosses over my main argument (that there is no mercy in the death penalty) and zeros in on my statement about justice. He believes that the idea of mercy has no place in this debate; that it is a red herring.

As a Christian, I must disagree!

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

Perhaps I should say that regardless of whether or not the death penalty is just (and I do not think it is), I believe that it matters more if it is merciful.

And that is at the crux of this debate. Min and I are coming at it from complete polar opposites. Not only are our viewpoints opposing, but the fundamental principles behind why we believe what we do on this issue are different. Until we can reconcile that, we’re never going to see eye to eye.

Now, to address Min’s points:

However, all of that is irrelevant, because it is not for us to decide who lives or dies.

I was about to jump for joy when I read this statement. Finally, I thought, we agree on something! But alas… it was not to be. For Min’s point was that God has told us when we are to use the death penalty – followed by numerous biblical examples. All from the Old Testament.

He follows the examples with:

My point is not that these all should be the law today. My point is that this begs the question, was God just in having death as the punishment for these crimes? Was God just in having death be the punishment for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Was God just? Absolutely. He can’t be unjust.

But… if you say that all of the examples you gave shouldn’t be law today, then what should be law? In Biblical times, it was a just law because God declared it to be so. We both agree that adulters shouldn’t be stoned today. So when is the death penalty a just punishment now? How do you know? There are no scriptures giving the decree.

And that is what makes the death penalty inherently unjust, to me. It is man deciding when man should be allowed to live and die. It has nothing to do with God (I would love to see you try to argue that today’s death penalty has something to do with God). And this is exactly the reason why so many are perplexed that one can be anti-abortion and still be for the death penalty.

But back to my main point: mercy. Mercy is the point. We should show mercy to the world. We are to be salt and light. We are to show compassion. The death penalty does none of those things.

Other posts in the series:

• Me – Debate on the Death Penalty
• Min – Capital Punishment Debate
• Min – Mercy and Justice in Capital Punishment
• Me – Capital Punishment – Merciful and just?
• Min – What is mercy? Who decides what is just?

Welcome back to the ongoing debate between Min and I about the death penalty. In case you haven’t seen them, Min posted a few rules for us to follow. This conversation is going to be good for me because, as Min pointed out, my views seem somewhat problematic and conflicting. This will be a chance for me to really think about why I am against the death penalty, rather than just stating that fact.

Min believes that it is impossible for someone to logically believe that it is both merciful and just to abstain from the death penalty. He asserts that if the definition of mercy is “not getting what you deserve” (our pre-determined definition), then justice must be linked somehow. Min’s definition of justice seems to be “getting what you deserve.” And I will concede that one definition of justice is “the administering of deserved punishment or reward.” But another definition is essentially “moral rightness.” So my question becomes, is the death penalty morally right?

I think the death penalty is morally wrong. So then, that fits just fine with my assertion that allowing a man to live is both merciful and just.

But lets think about the idea of justice for a moment. As a Christian, I see two kinds of possible justice. Earthly justice, based on our human perceptions and ideas (will he/she get the punishment I think he/she deserves?), and godly justice, based on a higher standard (forgiveness, mercy, grace, and compassion). When we decide the fate of a man’s life, regardless of what he has done, what kind of justice is being served?

Min, you argue that it isn’t merciful to keep a man in solitary confinement for the rest of his days, so we should kill him so as not to prolong his misery. But then you say that keeping him alive and in jail is not a good idea because he might somehow end up released. The first sentence sounds like  you want mercy for this man; the second seems quite merciless to me.

I also don’t understand how someone’s death could ever be merciful to someone else. You assert:

Second, I would argue that it is more merciful on the families. The current system prolongs the agony while awaiting closure. The family deserves to have the situation finished. They were unjustly punished by the removal of their loved one, and yet the one that took the life still lives and has everything he needs for life provided for him.

Based on the aforementioned definition of mercy, I don’t see how it could relate to the family of the victim. It is entirely possible I’m being quite thick skulled here, but the transition doesn’t make sense. I can understand that you might think that a murderer’s death might bring a sense of closure, or even one of relief, to a family, but I don’t see how that is mercy.

And finally, going back to my question (is the death penalty morally right?)… I can think of no circumstance where willfully putting someone to death can be a moral right. We may have to put a definition on morality here, but it’s generally the sense of right and wrong that we innately have. And we do have morality, or else we wouldn’t be so all-fired up to see justice served. I just don’t think justice could ever be served in a situation where the solution is morally wrong. 

Other posts in the series:

• Me – Debate on the Death Penalty
• Min – Capital Punishment Debate
• Min – Mercy and Justice in Capital Punishment

I wrote this post today, and mused to MIntheGap that my reasons for being anti-death penalty are somewhat conflicting.

Amanda (2:41 PM): i can argue that not having the death penalty is both merciful and just
Amanda (2:41 PM): merciful because we’re not executing the man
Amanda (2:42 PM): and just because I personally think spending 23 hours a day in solitary confinement for life is a more just punishment than ending his life on earth

And a debate was born. Two Christians; two viewpoints.

minthegap (2:42 PM): And I can argue that it’s not merciful and unjust.
minthegap (2:43 PM): Not merciful, because the family that lost their loved one(s) have a loss, but the person that took the life still has his
minthegap (2:44 PM): and Unjust, because (1) God commanded a life for a life and (2) there’s always the possibility of parole (3) They still have their life here.

I don’t want to offer any exposition on Min’s position yet. I want to give him the opportunity to speak for himself. I only quoted him here so you may see the opposing viewpoints that started the conversation.

The definition of mercy that I’m using is: not getting something you deserve. So a man who deserves death for a heinous crime would be shown mercy by not being executed. And I think that the Christian position should be one of mercy.