Talk:Capital punishment

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think somebody with a good theological background should take a look at the Bible section of this. A better explanation than the standard Jesus/adultress argument is needed as to why most Christians don't support capital punishment for adultery, homosexuality etc. MountainDew 02:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

A good entry on Capital punishment would be welcome. By the way, that adultress story in the Bible is not authentic. See Adultress Story - Original Work.--Aschlafly 02:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Especially after reading that a couple weeks ago, I think it's clear that that should have no place in this article. It's clear that somebody who opposes capital punishment wrote that section to imply that Christians should not support capital punishment, and I like to try to avoid making normative statements as much as possible. I changed it for now just to say that most Christians no longer follow every rule in the book of Leviticus. I'd like to add a section or new page about the Christian debate over capital punishment. MountainDew 02:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I took out the biblical explanation for Christians generally not supporting capital punishment for non-murder offenses. In fact, hardly anyone supports capital punishment for non-murder offenses. No obscure explanation is needed. I am sure there are many reasons. I also took out "capital punishment severely violates the 6th commandment", as most Jews and Christians do not hold that view. RSchlafly 14:19, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the 6th commandment means "thou shalt not murder", not "thou shalt not kill". Given the rest of the Old Testament, saying that it bans capital punishment is a biblically untenable position. DanH 14:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

DanH, does the 6th commandment say "thou shalt not kill" or not? This page is about the truth and not about your opinion what it means. Jesus goes even further: ""You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. "" Mt 5:21-22. Every modern state has enough means of punishments, which obsoletes capital punishments in most cases with few exceptions of extreme situation. The capital punishment was necessary to establish law and order in historic times, but is mostly obsolete nowadays. This is not just my humble opinion, but catholic catechism. [1] RSchlafly's argument that most Jews and Christians do not hold that view is void. Firstly, views held by most Jews and Christians do and have changed, but this pages are about the truth. Secondly, his statement rather reflects his opinion, since most Jews and Christians actually object capital punishment. Any relativism of the 6th commandment also relativates opposing abortion. --schifra 13:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The article is about truth, not your POV. It now says, "On the basis of the 5th commandment "Thou shall not kill" [4] the vatican clearly repudiates the use of capital punishment." That is just not true, and the reference does not support it. It is not acceptable for you to put in some Biblical interpretation that has been rejected by Christians and Jews for 1000s of years. RSchlafly 15:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Consider that capital punishment is proscribed for certain cases in the same book of the Bible that has the Ten Commandments. Given that this is the case, we need to look for the most consistent interpretation of scripture. DanH 15:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The catholic catechism is very clear on this and the reference does clearly support this: paragraph 2267 in the chapter capital punishment ends with "cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent". This does not contradict the other cases of the scripture, but simply leaves them to the now historical necessity to establish law and order. The vatican official standpoint is very clear and resulted in written support of UN initiatives to abolish capital punishment [2] and [3]. The latter starts with: "The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death." I think this is clear enough. --schifra 16:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

LeanrTogether - let's not Edit War. My points are prefectly valid and logically consistent. Debate me here, and we'll see where we get to. Then we can edit. Endlesspossibility

The usual standard is to go here first if there are any difficulties, but the edit is removed until concensus is reached. Learn together 14:00, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

OK, that's fine with me. So - what's the problem with my entry? Do you or do you not agree that there is a logical inconsistency with the death penalty? I am not making a pro- or anti- death penalty argument, I am simply pointing out that in many ways, the death penalty is a very complex argument, and there are many prime inconsistencies inherent in the policy. Endlesspossibility 14:04, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Your argument from the start is flawed in that you draw a conclusion that the rights of the individual trump those of the state and then apply it to all cases. I am not aware of anyone who holds this position. As I stated, you create a strawman, then you knock it down. Learn together 14:24, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, two things. First, I'm not drawing any conclusions. My point is one of logic, not morals, political position or the 'correctness' or not of the death penalty. Please outline to me an argument for the death penalty, from fundamentals, that is logically consistent. I'd be interested to read it.

Secondly, there are no strawmen in my posting. I see that term being used constantly on CP, and it's the typical argument used to simply avoid or remove debate. I would appreciate it if you did not quite so quickly remove valid content that you simply have not tried to understand, or disagree with. And please - do respond to my invitation for a logically cohernet argument. Endlesspossibility 14:34, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

It's your logic I have difficulty with. It's faulty from its very first premise, and that is the premise that it uses to draw its conclusions. You ask for an argument for the death penalty, which has to make me ask why? Are you looking to put one in the article? I'm assuming you already know the general position. Execution gives closure to the family of the victims and acts as a deterrent for others and therefore saves other innocent lives. The question becomes how do you temper justice with mercy in a fallen world? Where is the line that is drawn to determine when it is appropriate to take life? Learn together 14:56, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I've been banned for some reason, so this is the last you'll hear from me. Since I am now a sock, this comment will also likely be removed. However, "Where is the line that is drawn to determine when it is appropriate to take life?" is exactly the point I was trying to make. I would ask you to encourage debate over this article - many Christians disagree with the death penalty, and I'd love to see more debate here on the topic. I won't be back myself, obviously, but please understand that I meant very well, and wanted to see this Encyclopedia improve. It's sad that debate cannot be allowed here, but so be it. Refreshing 15:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about your removal. You may yet get a chance to come back in the future, but it's important to understand what you are dealing with and what is desired here. Debate would usually be a separate article, not forced upon the capital punishment article itself. This is set up so people checking up capital punishment can get quick, factual information presented in a concise format that is easy to understand and flows well. Also, it is understood that the edit warring that is so common to the other pedia doesn't happen here. If an edit is reverted, then discussion in the talk page is appropriate to find something that works. Many of us have been around the block a few times and lived quite a bit of life; we are aware of the issues necessary for debate, but we also recognize where that should take place and where it should not. Learn together 18:02, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I removed this:

One primary argument against deterrence holds that no one committing a murder expects to be caught. Therefore, the murder is committed irrespective of the consequences.

Who gives this silly argument? People who commit murder usually understand that they might get caught. If so, then punishment is a deterrent. RSchlafly 23:56, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

We could add your response to that. That way, we can still have your viewpoint, but still say we presented both sides. DanH 23:58, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
It is not even a fair statement of the other side. I've heard people argue that murder is often a crime of passion, and people sometimes commit it regardless of the consequences. Hence punishment is not an effective deterrent for them, the argument goes. But nobody argues as in the article about murders not expecting to get caught. RSchlafly 00:40, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
I hope I don't offend you Dan, but I agree with RSchlafly's view. Someone I knew later committed planned murder and is currently in jail and I can tell you even as he tried to hide it the best that he could, he always feared getting caught. I'm not saying either position is the right one, but the argument does not do justice to the side wishing to remove the death penalty as it seems to be somewhat out of touch with human reality. Arguments based upon accidentally putting an innocent man to death, a just society should not sink to the level of those who would commit such an act, etc, would seem to present a stronger case. Learn together 20:37, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

"Emerging" Country?

China? Russia is positively third world compared to China's economy. I wonder if that could be better stated? --₮K/Talk 09:13, 5 April 2008 (EDT)


With the inclusion of issues (quotes) directly from the bible, I think this article should have a link to a Debate page. The topic of capital punishment and Christianity is one that should engender really well thought out, interesting debates. I don't really know, though, if i fully understand the roll of debate here - if it's just to discuss a page in a technical sense, or if it's to have fun discussing important Christian topics.--JeanJacques 15:08, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

christian view

I plan on writing an article on the christian view of capital punishment fully citing the bible and interpretations. Will link to pertinent section after article is finished.

--Purpetualtruth 03:08, 29 January 2009 (EST)