Should Libertarians support Capital Punishment?

[Swordsmyth]

You're not reading me correctly. I literally said "New Covenant"-that means the fulfillment of the law when Christ entered the world. Indeed the Decalogue was not "ended", nor did I say it was. Again, as I said before you were interpreting the Pentateuch like a Jew instead of a Christian. A Christian needs to look at it in light of the New Covenant. For greater clarity on what exactly it means to do this, read the Church Fathers as well as the text itself.

A command is a command, since you do not claim that it was fulfilled like the law of Moses then it is still in force.


“Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" leaves no room for interpretation.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Noahic Covenant is not a temporal covenant. Are you getting it mixed up with the Mosaic covenant?


“And God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creation that is with you, for all successive generations;’” ( Genesis 9:12).

I think we missed each other on this issue by a few secs in posting and actually agree. See 28^^

[r3volution 3.0]

I support the death penalty.

In one and only one instance....

In person, in self defense.

There are probably other cases too. Like if an entire community knew that someone's only beloved daughter was regularly beaten by her boyfriend and the law never did anything about it and he mysteriously got a lead lobotomy, I wouldn't ask a whole lot of questions about it and assume he tripped and fell real hard on a bullet.

So, you're okay with the death penalty, provided that the accused doesn't get a trial?

[r3volution 3.0]

I've been thinking about this lately too. The only other justifiable case for a death penalty would be for a person who is so demonstrably dangerous he literally cannot stop himself from hurting and killing others.

How would you deal the with the murderers who don't fit that description (which is most of them)?

If prison, who pays for it?

If compensation to the victim's family, doesn't that effectively allow wealthy people to purchase a right to murder?

[heavenlyboy34]

A command is a command, since you do not claim that it was fulfilled like the law of Moses then it is still in force.


“Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" leaves no room for interpretation.

Find me either 1) support for this in the New Testament or 2) your signed exemption from God from Christ's commandments and teachings on dealing with people, and I'll believe you. ~hugs~

[William Tell]

Not to be 'that guy' but since it's what you literally ask for Romans 13:4

[heavenlyboy34]

Not to be 'that guy' but since it's what you literally ask for Romans 13:4

Sorry, I should've been more specific-synoptic gospel. Epistles are important, but do not fulfill OT prophecy/law(nor are they intended to)

[Swordsmyth]

Find me either 1) support for this in the New Testament or 2) your signed exemption from God from Christ's commandments and teachings on dealing with people, and I'll believe you. ~hugs~

This is one of his commandments on dealing with people, he did not revoke it, you must take everything GOD says IN IT'S PLACE, the sermon on the mount was filled with general rules, many things in the scriptures are generalities, almost all generalities have exceptions, you must reconcile everything GOD says or you will wander into heresy, the death penalty is a GOD mandated exception to the sermon on the mount or any other general rule.

[heavenlyboy34]

How would you deal the with the murderers who don't fit that description (which is most of them)?

If prison, who pays for it?

If compensation to the victim's family, doesn't that effectively allow wealthy people to purchase a right to murder?

A rational theory of justice would say compensation. Even if there is no death penalty and x amount of prison time, a poor person could purchase a right to murder too-but with the commodity of time(and the victim's family would get nothing at all). Why is option 2 preferable to you(assuming the demonstrably guilty party isn't insane or at all likely to kill again, of course)?

[heavenlyboy34]

This is one of his commandments on dealing with people, he did not revoke it, you must take everything GOD says IN IT'S PLACE, the sermon on the mount was filled with general rules, many things in the scriptures are generalities, almost all generalities have exceptions, you must reconcile everything GOD says or you will wander into heresy, the death penalty is a GOD mandated exception to the sermon on the mount or any other general rule.

I'm familiar with all the known major and many of the minor heresies, thanks. I think you're purposely ignoring what I'm telling you to troll, so I'm done wasting my time. One-sided conversations are boring.

[r3volution 3.0]

A rational theory of justice would say compensation. Even if there is no death penalty and x amount of prison time, a poor person could purchase a right to murder too-but with the commodity of time(and the victim's family would get nothing at all).

Life in prison is a much higher price than any amount of money.

Why is option 2 preferable to you(assuming the demonstrably guilty party isn't insane or at all likely to kill again, of course)?

I'm not advocating option #2 (prison), I'm advocating the death penalty.

Prison is an absurd punishment for any crime. It would only make sense in the form of debt slavery, to pay compensation to a victim, but that wouldn't be an alternative to corporal punishment, since it could only be enforced by corporal punishment, up to and including death.

[William Tell]

Sorry, I should've been more specific-synoptic gospel. Epistles are important, but do not fulfill OT prophecy/law(nor are they intended to)

Well, if the OT and the Epistles line up, where do the gospels differ?

[Swordsmyth]

I'm familiar with all the known major and many of the minor heresies, thanks. I think you're purposely ignoring what I'm telling you to troll, so I'm done wasting my time. One-sided conversations are boring.

I'm not trolling, we just have a difference of opinion, you are free to hold yours, since you are tired of the debate I will stop.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I find the idea of objective punishment as 'odd'. Libertarianism, as I understand, is the bedrock for property rights. The concept of limiting how a property owner may choose to punish an individual for aggressing on their property rights strikes me as chipping away at the rights of the property owner. I'd agree that there can be 'general agreement' in the punishment for a crime- in the same fashion as there can be a general agreement that some delicious pizza from restaurant X is better then a $#@!ty frozen pizza, but those people who disagree and like the $#@!ty frozen pizza better are not wrong. In the end I think libertarians should support whatever punishment the property owner doles out (or sympathizers in the case of murder).

[fisharmor]

So, you're okay with the death penalty, provided that the accused doesn't get a trial?

I thought you knew me well enough to know my position on the current legal system.

In summary: It's bull$#@!. From beginning to end, the whole thing is bull$#@!.

There is a roughly seven million percent greater chance of a vigilante father avenging harm to his daughter will produce justice, than our current legal system.

So whether or not people are tried in it doesn't concern me. It shouldn't concern you, either.

[fisharmor]

Earlier today I found out that my neighbor's son died.
He had the same thing all the men in her immediate family had, including her deceased husband: some sort of neurological defect I haven't gotten the details on. It claimed all the men, and Harry was the last.

Well, Harry had a caretaker who convinced him to move out of his mom's house and marry her. His mother disapproved immediately, recognizing her for a black widow, because there was some sort of insurance payout.

She found out recently that he's been dead and cremated for some time.... by the papers she was served recently, which cut her out of the insurance settlement altogether.

That is justice in our current system. That was all completely above board.

We're not even talking about taking a life there. We're not talking about some kind of miscarriage.

That is justice, according to the system.

[Krugminator2]

I
There are probably other cases too. Like if an entire community knew that someone's only beloved daughter was regularly beaten by her boyfriend and the law never did anything about it and he mysteriously got a lead lobotomy, I wouldn't ask a whole lot of questions about it and assume he tripped and fell real hard on a bullet.

I would be in favor of charging anyone participating in this kind of mob justice with first degree murder and executing them if convicted.

[oyarde]

You been smoking again tonight?

Maybe tomorrow night .

[Anti Federalist]

In any legal system (incl. a hypothetical stateless legal system), innocent people will sometimes be convicted; people are fallible. There's no escaping this, unless you're seriously willing to abandon punishment altogether and let criminals roam free.

And when the state is found to be wrong, which happens on numerous instances, an innocent man can be released and paid restitution.

Hard to do that if the victim of incorrect state punishment is dead.

[r3volution 3.0]

I find the idea of objective punishment as 'odd'. Libertarianism, as I understand, is the bedrock for property rights. The concept of limiting how a property owner may choose to punish an individual for aggressing on their property rights strikes me as chipping away at the rights of the property owner. I'd agree that there can be 'general agreement' in the punishment for a crime- in the same fashion as there can be a general agreement that some delicious pizza from restaurant X is better then a $#@!ty frozen pizza, but those people who disagree and like the $#@!ty frozen pizza better are not wrong. In the end I think libertarians should support whatever punishment the property owner doles out (or sympathizers in the case of murder).

Does this apply to negligent crimes as well?

E.G.

You negligently bump someone's fender in a parking lot; he would be within his rights to blow your head off with a shotgun?

Pepsi negligently contaminates a single can, such that Bob gets a stomach ache; Bob can seize the entire Pepsi Company?

[r3volution 3.0]

I thought you knew me well enough to know my position on the current legal system.

In summary: It's bull$#@!. From beginning to end, the whole thing is bull$#@!.

There is a roughly seven million percent greater chance of a vigilante father avenging harm to his daughter will produce justice, than our current legal system.

So whether or not people are tried in it doesn't concern me. It shouldn't concern you, either.

No one's talking about the existing legal system.

Imagine your ideal (anarcho-capitalist) social order.

You think that it would be better for people to be executed by lynch mobs, than for there to be trials?

[r3volution 3.0]

And when the state is found to be wrong, which happens on numerous instances, an innocent man can be released and paid restitution.

Hard to do that if the victim of incorrect state punishment is dead.

Will all wrongfully convicted and imprisoned people be exonerated eventually?

[heavenlyboy34]

I find the idea of objective punishment as 'odd'. Libertarianism, as I understand, is the bedrock for property rights. The concept of limiting how a property owner may choose to punish an individual for aggressing on their property rights strikes me as chipping away at the rights of the property owner. I'd agree that there can be 'general agreement' in the punishment for a crime- in the same fashion as there can be a general agreement that some delicious pizza from restaurant X is better then a $#@!ty frozen pizza, but those people who disagree and like the $#@!ty frozen pizza better are not wrong. In the end I think libertarians should support whatever punishment the property owner doles out (or sympathizers in the case of murder).

Well, libertarian justice simply demands compensation of the victim. There may be more than one way to do so. But I'm not sure why you'd even want anything more or less than objective compensation for victim(s)-or as close as humanly possible. Going beyond that lends itself to the corruption that's SOP in arbitrary rulings of statist justice systems.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, if the OT and the Epistles line up, where do the gospels differ?

Huh? You got that backwards. The OT messianic prophecies and prefiguations are fulfilled in the gospels. There are lots of them. I simply don't have time to write it all out. There's voluminous footnotes and articles in this book that explain it.

[William Tell]

Huh? You got that backwards. The OT messianic prophecies and prefiguations are fulfilled in the gospels. There are lots of them. I simply don't have time to write it all out. There's voluminous footnotes and articles in this book that explain it.

No, I don't have it backwards. I'm asking what part of the gospels abolished capital punishment, a practice which was prescribed in the OT and confirmed in the epistles. Should be a pretty simple to point to verses that confirm your view.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, I don't have it backwards. I'm asking what part of the gospels abolished capital punishment, a practice which was prescribed in the OT and confirmed in the epistles. Should be a pretty simple to point to verses that confirm your view.

Here ya go (relevant verses cited herein):

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I say to you, Love your enemies . . . .Matt. 5:43In September, 1995 the Wisconsin legislature once again considered enacting capital punishment -- the killing of convicted criminals -- in our state.Wisconsin abolished capital punishment 141 years ago.Of course, states can enact such laws as the majority endorses.These laws may be morally good, neutral, or evil.A new capital punishment statute would put the state in the business of killing.What is most appalling, reeking of hypocrisy here, is the fact that many religious people are saying that capital punishment is morally good, righteous, and even compatible with the Gospel!Some political organizations that label themselves Christian, loudly advocate capital punishment as well.If the state conducts executions, it will be another triumph of violence.That will be one thing.But for Christians to promote such state violence is another thing.And this is the unrighteousness I address -- not that of a violent state, but that of Christians.
I am very grateful that the Orthodox Church in America, at its 9th All American Council in St. Louis in 1989, passed resolutions condemning both abortion and capital punishment as unrighteous and evil.Both are killing.The distinction of innocent and guilty victims, that it's evil to kill the first and all right to kill the second -- is not a New Testament concept at all.Some use such a distinction to condemn abortion on the one hand (as it must be condemned) and then to advocate capital punishment at the same time.Such a distinction and contradiction cannot be found in the Gospel or justified by it.In reality, all such killing harms not only its victims, but also its perpetrators -- and the society that espouses it.
In the case of capital punishment, the basic motive (if truth be told) is not deterrence but retribution -- vengeance, to use a less polite word.In fact, the public outcry for capital punishment is clearly and admittedly a cry for vengeance.Vengeance not by God at His Judgment, but my men here and now.We can find many references to such vengeance in the Old Testament; but how can the Gospel of Christ be twisted and misconstrued to justify it?Can the spirit of the Gospel be so misinterpreted?What's more, how can those who claim to be Biblical literalists and fundamentalists so ignore the direct meaning of Jesus' words?To give him credit, Pope John Paul II in his recent encyclical calls both abortion and capital punishment evils, unconscionable acts of violence.Unfortunately, many who call themselves "conservative" Catholics will take
only one part of his statement seriously and brush off the other part, just as they have done with the many papal pronouncements on nuclear arms and economic and social justice.
The Gospel's Testimony on Killing and Vengence
1)"And forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors . . . " (Matt. 6:12) "Forgive us our sins, as we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us . . . "(Lk. 11:14) What are we to say to the condemned criminal?We forgive you, but now die to pay your debt to society?To kill is an act of absolute unforgiveness.In killing, we do not affirm life but attempt to destroy it.Whatever worldly sense this may make to some people, it cannot be squared with Christ's words, or with our taking them to our mouths in prayer -- the Lord's Prayer.
2)"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth . . . " (Matt. 5:5) Now before someone suggests that the prosecuting attorney can call for the death sentence in a meek way, or the judge meekly pass a sentence of death, or the executioner carry out the state-sanctioned killing in all meekness, let us look at what the Greek word of the original Gospel implies.In classical Greek, the word "meek" refers to people who are mild and gentle, rather than hard or violent (Plato).It indicates a nature that is not inclined to become embittered or angry at what is unjust: the attribute of a generous and magnanimous soul (Epictetus).In the Septuagint (which is the Greek Old Testament), the prophets use the word to describe those who endure the severity of exile with patience and hope that God -- not man -- will eventually bring forth justice.
For I will leave in the midst of you a meek and lowly people.They shall seek refuge in the name of the Lord, those who are left in Israel . . . . For they shall pasture and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.(Zepheniah 3:12-13) God expects His faithful people to be meek and lowly.He will bring justice and peace to them -- not in this age, but in the age to come.
The clearest interpretation for Jesus' use of the word "meek" can be seen in Psalm 37 (LXX 36):8-11 from which He evidently derived the passage in the Beatitudes: Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath.Fret not yourself; it tends only to evil. For the wicked shall be cut off; but those who wait for the Lord will possess the land. Yet a little while, and the wicked will be no more. Though you look well at his place, he will not be there.
But the meek shall possess the land, and delight themselves in an abundance of peace.The psalm tells us to leave the vindication of the righteous to God. We are to be meek -- gentle, patient, long-suffering -- till God brings about His justice in His time.Will the state ever exist in such patient meekness?Evidently not; but the state belongs to this age which is passing away.Christians belong to the age to come.It cannot be Gospel-loving Christians who cry out for the state to carry out violent and bloody vengeance.It is the meek, not those who demand an eye for an eye, who are the blessed inheritors of the Kingdom.So says the Word of God.In fact, He says that He Himself is "meek and lowly in heart," and that we are to take up ourselves the "light" and "easy" yoke of this lowly meekness.(Matt. 11:29).
3)Jesus is the King who comes to us "meek and sitting upon an ass . . . "(Matt. 21:5)
The mission of Jesus takes place on earth in lowliness and meekness.His life is not a life at court; it characterizes Him as the lowly in heart, i.e., the One who is fixed wholly on God . . . . In Matthew 21:5, with the help of the fulfilled prophecy of Zachariah 9:9, the entry of Jesus (into Jerusalem) is depicted as that of a nonviolent, non-warlike king of salvation and peace.In this respect, Jesus stands radically opposed to the Zealots and to all champions of a political Messianism.In the Beatitude of Matthew 5:5 we read of the "meek" who on the basis of their oppressed situation, acknowledge not their own will but the great and gracious will of God.To them Jesus promises the inheritance of the coming aeon, which includes . . . secure dwelling in their own land.(V. Hauck, S. Schulz, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VI, p.649.)
We who assume the name Christian are to follow Him in the way of meekness and lowliness.We cannot venerate the Lord, while we follow a way other than the one He treads before us.
4)On several occasions, Jesus Christ comes face to face with the issue of violence for retribution or self-defense, with the issue of capital punishment.In John 8, Jesus comes to the Temple, sits down as a rabbi would, and teaches the people.The scribes and Pharisees gather to put Him to the test.They bring forward a woman caught in adultery, presumably a married woman.The penalty prescribed for this in Deuteronomy 22 is death by stoning.(Incidentally, there are some countries, like Saudi Arabia, where adultery is a capital offense for women today.)
According to John 18:31, the Romans had taken away from the Jews the right to administer capital punishment.The hypocrites who test Jesus ask him about applying the Deuteronomic law, and demand, "What do you say about her?"This is meant as a trap for Jesus, involving both the Jewish law and the prerogatives of the Roman state.But Jesus simply bends down and writes "with his finger on the ground," just as His divine finger once inscribed the Law upon the tablets of stone on Sinai.Then He says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."And again He bends down to write in the dust.
The words He writes send the strict enforcers of the law of retribution stealing away in silent confusion.Jesus turns to the condemned woman:"Woman, where are they?"He asks."Has no one condemned you?"She answers, "No one, Lord."No one-neither the self-righteous nor God."Neither," He says, "do I condemn you; go and do not sin again."(John 8:2-11)
Now apparently this account found its way into New Testament manuscripts in only the third century.Thus its importance becomes even more clear for Christian ethics in the
worldly society in which the early Church existed.The point is this: The Word of God foregoes enforcement of the strict law of retribution.This is not just a personal commutation of sentence.For He also dispels the condemners who would take God's authority over life and death upon themselves.To avoid falling prematurely into a political trap, Jesus does this silently, by shaming the devotees of capital punishment.By His actions He sets aside the law of retaliation.
Likewise, in the Sermon on the Mount, He overturns the principle of retaliation expressed in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:24, Deuteronomy 19:21): You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth . . . .'But I say to you.Do not resist one who is evil.But, if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also . . . .(Matt. 5:38-39)
Do you see how much farther the Word of God goes than just forbidding vengeance?He commands forgiveness and even love of persecutors.(Matt. 5:43-44, Luke 6:27-28).We poor sinners may fail to carry out this command; but let us not confuse the spirit of the Gospel with the barbaric cry for blood-vengeance that rise from the same mouths that dare to say, "Our Father . . . forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Jesus Provides the Example
Does Jesus merely tell us how to deal with those who offend and transgress?No.He provides the example, an evangelic example that we can only set aside if we want to give up Christ altogether and return to the Old Law.When the evildoers come to seize Him in Gethsemane so that they can inflict upon Him an unjust death, an apostle takes a sword and slashes off the ear of one of those who come to seize and slay the Son of God.But Jesus says to him:"Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."(Matt. 26:52)Then, according to Luke 22:51, He touches the ear of the wounded man and heals him.
The constant interpretation of this passage in early Christian times was that wielders of the swordof vengeance -- the judge, the executioner, (by modern standards, the judge or jurist seeking the death penalty) -- all these fall under this threat.They all participate, as the murderous criminal does, in the shedding of blood, the taking of life.And they too become marked by the experience, cursed by their own bloodletting.
St. Cyprian, the 3rd century bishop-martyr of Carthage, makes it clear that it doesn't matter whether the murderous retaliation comes from an individual or from the state.Killing is killing. The world is drenched with mutual bloodshed.When individuals slay a man, it is a crime.When killing takes place on behalf of the state, it is called a virtue.(To Donatus, 6) Whether or not the state sanctions it, says St. Cyprian, the Christian can have no part in the shedding of blood:" . . . after the reception of the Eucharist, the hand is not to be stained with the sword or bloodshield."(On the Goodness of Patience, 14)
Finally, we have Jesus' ultimate sermon of active love on the cross.The mob cries out for capital punishment for him, marking themselves with blood:"His blood be on us . . . . "(Matt. 27:25)They call for the death penalty for Him -- one of the countless times from that day to this that innocent people have been sentenced by courts to die.But the God-Man, hanging beaten, mocked, and naked upon the cross, wants no vengeance.His words resound in our ears and throughout all time, the living testimony of God for all who really look to Him to know the way of life:"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"(Luke 23:24).
Not avenge them, not slay them, but "forgive them."The answer to this question of capital punishment, and to every question of violence, is not to be found in the words of political theorists, of demagogues, of talk show babblers, or even of the aggrieved victims of violent crime.The answer is to be found in the words and actions of Jesus Christ, who is always the Father's positive answer, His "Yes" to life.
Fr. Thomas Mueller is the parish priest at SS Cyril and Methodius Orthodox Church, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Dean of the Chicago Deanery.

https://oca.org/the-hub/the-church-o...and-the-gospel

[fisharmor]

I would be in favor of charging anyone participating in this kind of mob justice with first degree murder and executing them if convicted.

Yes, most people think this is much more concerning than when the state executes innocent people.
In short, you are the problem.

[fisharmor]

No one's talking about the existing legal system.

Imagine your ideal (anarcho-capitalist) social order.

You think that it would be better for people to be executed by lynch mobs, than for there to be trials?

I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth.

I said that there are cases where I would turn a blind eye to what is right.

I do not have the gall to call it justice.

I believe in a market for justice. So I am not married to the idea of trials. If mankind figures out a different way to achieve justice, then that's what I would go with.
I cannot foresee what that would be because I cannot tell the future.
But I'm not going to crow endlessly about how great trials are, because we have trials now, and from start to finish, they are bull$#@!.

[dean.engelhardt]

I used to.

I no longer do.

Ron is right on this.

Same boat here. I thought I was a tough on crime conservative when I was younger and supported the death penalty. I've done a 180 with age.

[jmdrake]

Genesis 9:6

“Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

King James Version (KJV)


GOD takes the responsibility for making right any mistakes after we do the best we can.

Exodus 21:23-25 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Matthew 5:38-39 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also

So are you an old covenant Christian or a new covenant Christian?