As Christians, church leaders and bishops in the Episcopal Church, we urge the General Assembly to act to abolish the death penalty (“Report fuels death debate,” Dec. 13).
As Christians, we are guided by the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Here he specifically rejects retribution by stating that even the teaching in the Old Testament of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is to be rejected in favor of the teaching that calls for reconciliation (Matthew, 6:38).
Responding to killing with more killing will not make society less violent. Retaliating for death with death is not simply punishment but a further justification of violence as a way of life. We simply cannot kill our way out of the violence.
If they are such strong believers in life, have their dioceses rejected RCRC?
Ditto! I could expound for days, but in the spirit of Christmas, I will refrain.
TEC hasn’t rejected either RCRC or PP. I don’t know if these two dioceses or their respective member parishes support them or not. The bishops do make the point that we can’t know for certain always if only the truly guilty are sentenced to death. Therefore, I’m more in favor of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Living in an area with a huge murder rate I rather think of the death penalty as a deterrant. But I agree that the standard of conviction for the death penalty to apply should be more than eyewitness ID by a stranger so that we are certain that only the truly guilty are put on death row.
Giving credit where credit is due, Bishop Rabb replied to my e-mail to him on the topic saying that he is also against TEC’s association with RCRC.
Thank you for the clarification, AndrewA.
#1 It’s Matthew [b]5[/b]:39 not 6:38.
#2. The “eye for an eye code is not to [b]encourage[/b] retaliation but to limit it to the scope of the original crime. It does NOT seek to allow for more punishment but rather less. But the Sermon on the Mount encourages compassion in punishment, NOT leniency. In other words, if you put my eye out–or steal my coat–I need to consider discipline/punishment that doesn’t cause you to lose your eye but rather shows consideration for your need to read.
The Death Penalty is a means of showing the value of a human life: Life is SO precious that its value is no less that of another life. But we are now given the compassionate option: life imprisonment, perhaps, without hope of parole. What this really means is that Life for Life is the standard: Jesus allows us to consider compassion but NOT freedom from punishment!
I have a problem with the death penalty as a punishment, period. It gives up all hope on a human being. I also have a problem with it, as it is applied: the process is so drawn out that it is never a deterrent and it makes the criminal, who has always been convicted of a horrendous crime a sympathetic figure, when his/her victim(s) is the one for whom sympathy should be being shown. It also causes other countries not to extradite truly bad criminals, who have committed eggregious crimes in our country. It is, IMO, a totally useless penalty and should be banned. But, for predators who are recidivists, for those who commit crimes that are torture crimes, there are punishments worthy – total separation from mankind in all aspects, so they never have the opportunity to hurt or torture or kill anyone again (big cost to taxpayers OR bring back the penal colonies in totally isolated areas without possibility of escape and put all the violent torturing predators together to take care of each other (at little or no cost to taxpayers).
The only problem I have with life in prison with out parole is some one has to look after these people. They have no hope of getting out and can be difficult to care for, a threat to other prisoners and the guards. I think a reform of the death penalty is required. There was a horrible death penalty case here in Georgia where a fmaily was murdered and the women were raped and then murdered. The endless appeals nearly bankrupt the county and none of the criminals involved were executed. The community just gave up or would have gone broke. There was no doubt of guilt.
For me, as a Christian, it is a simple question. As a society, how many [i] innocent [/i] people are we prepared to kill in order to punish [i] some [/i] of the guilty with death? Ten percent? Five per year? One? Government rightfully exists only for the purpose of protecting the rights of the governed. Few would argue that our government is infallible. Society should put lawfully convicted murderers away for life; the Lord will deal with their eternal soul.
Tough issue. In Atlanta, they recently sentenced Brian Nichols (sp?) to life without parole. He was in for a violent crime to begin with and then killed four or five people in an escape attempt at the courthouse. I assume that more than one person witnessed him murdering a court reporter and a judge. Somehow, in spite of being proven guilty at the outset, he was able to extract a lengthy and extremely expensive trial out of the pockets of Georgians. And now we have to subsidize him for the rest of his life, and he most likely costs more each year than I make. And he’s still a young man. That being said, I wouldn’t personally have the heart to pull the lever on him.