Therefore, I must not go on a diet because I might eat a twinkie.
Thnak you for posting this.
It’s kind of like saying that the first time there is a fatal traffic accident, we should close down all the roads and junk all the cars.
Roads kill.
Bump! Good post.
We are no longer following the bible on the death penalty. If we did we would have fewer problems and avoid errors. Note the requirement of the witnesses to do the stoning. This should give pause to most witnesses about the importance and responsibility of their testimony:
http://www.dianedew.com/dthpnlty.htm
I. The death penalty is a deterrent against crime.
Deuteronomy 21:21 “All the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.”
II. Under the Mosaic Law, the death penalty was not only permissible but required.
Genesis 9:5-6 “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”
Numbers 35:31 “Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.”
III. Two witnesses were required, that there be no error.
Numbers 35:30
Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15
IV. Biblically, by whom should the penalty be executed?
A. By the witnesses.
Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:7
Acts 7:58
B. By the congregation.
Numbers 15:35,36
Deuteronomy 13:9
Yep. And why is it that libtards are so anxious to not only make, but celebrate exceptions if the human being put to death is an unwanted baby or a handicapped woman in a coma?
That some atheist death penalty opponents try to use Christian tenets to argue against capital punishment is annoying and ultimately unsuccessful. Attempting to equate opposition to abortion to capital punishment is absurd when one considers that abortion is the violent (for the baby) killing of an innocent, defenseless unborn infant done at the mothers whim while capital punishment is the killing of a convicted, adult murderer - usually after multiple trials and appeals - and is accomplished with much effort to avoid the criminal being executed to experience any pain. There is simply no comparison.
Good column bump.
I’m pro-death penalty for crimes that warrant it.
But I do think that there should be a way to better ensure that the evidence that is given in a death penalty case is solid.
I don’t want to see people given the penalty because of lazy defence or a prosecutor who wants to make his case so he can run for office.
I don’t support endless appeals, but maybe something like a three judge panel that goes over the case to best ensure that the evidence is solid.
OK, but who is the Lord's appointed agent for the execution of justice in this world?
The argument also falls apart if you consider that ALL justice is fallible. It is not much less of a tragedy to convict someone in error and take away 30 years of their life. Or 20. Or 10. So if we’re going to refuse to apply the ultimate sentence because we may err, how can we rightfully apply any sentence at all?
We administer justice not convinced of our own infallibility but with a faith that Due Process works. In the case of the death penalty, that Due Process is as rigorous as any Man can devise. And it works.