Why "Thou Shalt not Kill" DOES Apply to the Death Penalty

Published on March 4, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

For years, I have heard conservative Christians advance the argument that, because the word "kill" in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is rightly translated "murder", it does not apply to war or the death penalty.I am setting the former aside in favor of the latter for this particular argument.

Yes,the word IS properly translated "murder". Then,we must ask if the death penalty is morally considered to be murder. My answer to this is: yes AND no. In the case of someone who is PROVEN to be a murderer, no,it is not morally considered murder. However, of the cases prosecuted in the United States, VERY few murders meet that standard. The Scott Peterson case is an example of this. While I remain with those that believe Peterson probably DID kill his wife,I HAVE to emphasize the word "probably" in this particular case.There is a definite preponderance of circumstantial evidence in this case, and I would say the prosecutor satisfied, in my mind the "reasonable doubt" standard essential for conviction in American courts. But my contention is that capital cases are ONLY justifiable with a MUCH HIGHER burden of proof than in the Peterson case.

In the past several years, there have been many high profile examples of individuals wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. One such example even made it to "Extreme Makeover". EVERY instance of execution of these wrongfully convicted criminals IS murder, and a certain amount of moral guilt falls upon us for these executions. ONE murder of an innocent remains, in my mind, justification for nullification until or unless we have a way of absolutely assuring that an individual convicted of a crime is absolutely guilty, without a shadow of doubt. We have ways of securing prisons against escape, and vast prison reform measures would be needed before complete elimination of the death penalty would establish an acceptable level of security, but we must rethink our attitude towards the death penalty.

The Supreme Court of the United States did,in the past week, take a positive step in that direction, but we have a long way to go until we make the changes we need to make in this area.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2005

I agree with you, especially in the Scott Petersen case. I, like you thin he did it, but right now, no one (except the murderer) knows who did do it, and so there is a scintilla of doubt.

But beyond that, the 'christians' that use the technicality of murder vs kill are forgetting that is the old testament and Jesus gave us a new covenant. WHile the laws of the old convenant are not to be thrown out, Jesus expanded on them, so that the issue of killing may not be in the 10 commandments, but it is in the teachings of Jesus.

ParaTed2k

on Mar 05, 2005

While I am a proponent of capital punishment, I will still go out on a limb and agree with you here.

The ultimate penalty should be reserved for the ultimate criminals. Namely, those who have proven (through their actions) that they are beyond rehabilitation and putting them to death is the only recourse left.

While I share the feelings of most, that Scott Peterson's murderous actions are heinous and despicable, I part with most on the idea that they mean he should be put to death. Saying that he deserves the same punishment as a Ted Bundy, Timothy McViegh, or Suddam Hussein flies in the face of justice itself, reducing the whole concept of justice to mere revenge.

joeKnowledge

on Mar 05, 2005

While I share the feelings of most, that Scott Peterson's murderous actions are heinous and despicable, I part with most on the idea that they mean he should be put to death. Saying that he deserves the same punishment as a Ted Bundy, Timothy McViegh, or Suddam Hussein flies in the face of justice itself, reducing the whole concept of justice to mere revenge.

agreed.

Random Democrat

on Mar 05, 2005

My dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

Moral or not, isn't the death penalty, by it's very definition, lawful?

kingbee

on Mar 05, 2005

as you likely know, during the time when gwb was governor of texas, that state executed 152 individuals. one person who was NOT executed--and who is the only person granted clemency by during the bush governorship--is, amazingly enough, henry lee lucas who was believed for a time to have killed as many as 600 people before being arrested and tried for capital murder in texas.

altho there's now is some doubt he committed many of the murders to which he confessed, it's almost certain he did kill three people, one of whom was his mother.

Moral or not, isn't the death penalty, by it's very definition, lawful?

just as lawful as the nuremburg laws enacted during 1935-36 in nazi germany...or similar laws establishing racial segregation in the us.

bakerstreet

on Mar 05, 2005

I dunno Gid, if you are gonna make it a religious issue, you can't avoid the problem that the death penalty was not only sanctioned, but MANDATED by the Bible. The same for war. To hold "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to that standard ignores all the times God told the Israelites to go kill every man woman, child, and goat of the Phillistines.

I don't think either of us see all that and the rest as literal "commandment", but once you stray to where we are, it becomes personal interpretation, personal belief.

I understand where you are coming from, but someone who opposes you could say that society creates a standard of proof just for those reasons. I don't think I could have sentenced Scott Peterson to death given the proof, but then it isn't a nation-wide voting situation... god help anyone on trial if it was.

bakerstreet

on Mar 05, 2005

Dr. Guy: The only time I recall Jesus was tasked with capital punishment it was in the form of a "trap" question. If he had told them to go on and stone her, it would have been in violation of Roman law. If he had said not to, he would have violated Hebrew law.

His answer, "He who is without sin" satisfied both, given they were there to stone her under false pretenses, anyway. Note he didn't say "Don't stone people, you shouldn't stone people." I think if that was the message, it would have been made pretty clear.

"just as lawful as the nuremburg laws enacted during 1935-36 in nazi germany...or similar laws establishing racial segregation in the us."

And yet when those same Nazis were tried, again at Nuremberg, the death penalty was a preferred option. 11 out of th 18 were sentenced to death.

Dr Guy

on Mar 05, 2005

Moral or not, isn't the death penalty, by it's very definition, lawful?

Lawful is not always Right. After all, Slavery was 'lawful' for over 100 years. Did that make it right?

Dr Guy

on Mar 05, 2005

just as lawful as the nuremburg laws enacted during 1935-36 in nazi germany...or similar laws establishing racial segregation in the us.

Less of a reach, and more appropriate is my above comment. But I agree with you on most of your post.

Dr Guy

on Mar 05, 2005

His answer, "He who is without sin" satisfied both, given they were there to stone her under false pretenses, anyway. Note he didn't say "Don't stone people, you shouldn't stone people." I think if that was the message, it would have been made pretty clear.

Exactly! So who is without sin?

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 05, 2005

Actually, Baker, yes, it did mandate the death penalty in certain circumstances. BUT the same OT laws provided cities of refuge for those who accidentally killed someone, and DID require that the accused be proven guilty to a certain legal standard. My issue isn't "does the government have Biblical authority to enact the death penalty". It DOES. That is beyond questioning. My issue has to do with my MORAL position towards the death penalty both 1) in the age of grace, and 2) under the standards that the US applies it. Too many individuals have been sentenced to death and been PROVEN innocent after their death for me to agree with the current standard. The death of a wrongly accused innocent IS murder (I'm pretty sure that's why "thou shalt not bear false witness" also shows up in the Big Ten), and we need to reevaluate our standards for application of the death penalty.

In short, if we had a way of insuring that EVERY execution was of a person GUILTY of murder, AND provided a standard consistent with the Biblical application of the death penalty (aforementioned cities of refuge), I would not be opposed to it. But neither standard is going to be met, much less both of them, and my opposition remains intact.

bakerstreet

on Mar 05, 2005

"Exactly! So who is without sin?"

As I said, this was a question about politics, not capital punishment. Who's law do we follow, Roman occupational law, or Hebrew law? If He had chosen either, He would have been guilty of a crime with the other.

Jesus was addressing a specific group of people, in a specific situation. I don't think that He would have left a "Thou Shalt Not Permit Capital Punishment" mandate to be interpreted from such a vague statement.

"BUT the same OT laws provided cities of refuge for those who accidentally killed someone, and DID require that the accused be proven guilty to a certain legal standard."

So do our laws. We have numerous sentences for someone who kills someone else, and the vast majority don't carry the death sentence. Do people guilty of negligent homicide or manslaughter get the death penalty? Hell, do most of them spend any substantial amount of time in jail? Peopel who are guilty of killing someone aren't madated the death sentence automatically. The vast majority don't get the death penalty, of those who do, the majority sit on death row for decades. Many (most?) end up with their sentences toned down to life on appeal.

Dr Guy

on Mar 05, 2005

For those who beleive in capital punishment, you are right. For those that do not, he was calling all of us to re-examine our vengence mentality. It is a belief issue, that is all.

Shovelheat

on Mar 05, 2005

What's worse, the needle or the time spent waiting for it. IMHO it's the time...

Link

Draginol

on Mar 05, 2005

The old testament, where the 10 commandements came from, regularly allowed for the killing of people for commiting crimes. Read leviticus some time, there's a whole host of things you can kill someone for.

That said, I don't really care whether the bible agrees with the death penalty or not. The United States has the death penalty because we Americans are given a lot more freedom than people in other countries (example - we have the right to carry guns) and there must be consequences for abusing those freedoms.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!