The Death Penalty

Is trying to be moral easy? No. Can a person think with their heart? Maybe, but will it often be wrong? Yes.

We are supposed to think with our brain with minor input from our heart, but sometimes we find that too much blood flows from the brain and can skew the results.

Want examples? O.K., take when a male starts taking notice of a desirable woman. His blood leaves his brain and arrives somewhere else below the belt, and he no longer thinks clearly. In fact otherwise very intelligent men often make fools of themselves. :)

When we have empathy for a murderer our blood leaves our brain and arrives back at the heart and again we make poor judgments.

It is easy and makes us “feel good” to make judgments from the heart. Heartfelt judgments make many people feel very good about themselves, and to some that is more important than doing the right thing.

They rationalize that “if it feels good, it MUST be right.” Adultry "feels good" but is it right? Joy riding in a stolen car "feels good", but is it right?

That is why so many people allow “a little indiscretion” because they want to have people love them for their “understanding.”

Having compassion should not stop us from insuring that justice is done and so people who need to learn life’s lessons can.

Again, heartfelt judgments are the easy way out. When our children misbehave is it easy to enforce the rules? No, it is very difficult.

Our heart says to let them off the hook. Being Liberal is easy; doing the correct thing is difficult because sometimes it affects people’s lives and who wants to be the bad guy who enforces the rules? Most real bad guys hate the police and judges.

The correct way to make judgments is to do what a judge does in the courtroom. Look at the circumstances, look at the standards from which we are to apply them, and then make a decision.

Let's start with the "The system is flawed" argument.

“Well your honor, I know there are videos of me robbing the bank, but we need to eliminate all of the "robbery" punishments because the system is flawed.”

So, let me get this straight, we should only apply laws when the system is perfect? Does that argument sound ridiculous? Yep, but it certainly makes sense to those who think with their heart.

Well, that is the same logic they apply to the death penalty.

I have gone back and forth on the Death Penalty. Partly because I want to be loved for being compassionate too, but I always come back to the position that it is a correct principal and I will attempt to explain why.

If a man comes over to my house and steals my car, do I have the right to get it back? Of course I do.

Usually I will call the Police and have them do it for me.

This is the basis for having society "make the victim whole.” It is called Retribution and it is moral and just.

Someone kidnaps you, they take away your freedom, again you are justified to require the Police, (government), to take away his freedom.

If someone is stabbing your spouse, would you be justified in killing them? Yes.

Again, notice I said "killing" them and not "Murdering" them. Self Defense of your family's life or your life is justified. And that is all that Society is doing when it takes the murderer's life. It "kills" the murderer, it doesn't "murder" the murderer any more than you would be "murdering" if you were defending your life.

The definition of Murder is the "Purposeful and Unlawful taking of an innocent life." That is why the Bible correctly translated says "Thou Shalt not Murder.”

But where most people miss the point in the Old Testament in the quote "An eye for an eye", the context here is that this was to be the guidelines for a judicial system of "making the punishment fit the crime.”

We do it all the time with our children. If they come home an hour late, we don't give them the same consequences that we do if we find out that they slashed the tires of the neighbor’s car.

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Gen. 9:6)

The purpose of the penal system is not to rehabilitate people; it is to protect the innocent.

If you ask everyone in prison if they are guilty, almost all of them will say no. It is amazing how many people "find Jesus" in prison.

My oldest son told me what happened to him when his wife was mad at him and was kicking and slapping him, so he reached up finally and grabbed her wrist and pushed her down.

The neighbors called the police on her, but the police said both of them had to go to jail because they said my son, should have just left instead of pushing her down.

He agreed that he could and should have just got in the car and left until she cooled down. What were they fighting over? She said they should be “friends” with their children and not give them any consequences, while he said they must have consequences. She lost her cool and got very angry. Why, because he was so calm. She let her emotions, (heart); rule her actions instead of discussing it with her logic and brain.

While in jail, a counselor came into a big room and asked, “How many of you deserve to be here?” My son and only one other person out of about 200 raised their hand. She said, “Well I can see that only two people in here will NOT be back, I will see the rest of you again.”

Do people deserve a second chance? Yes, in every case where the victim can be made whole.

Can the life of the victim be restored? No. Then should the murderer be given a second chance? No.

If we steal money, and then pay it back, we can and should be forgiven. But, in the case of Murder, perhaps the reason in the Bible we find that God requires the murderer give up his life is so when the murderer is standing before God, God can say, well you paid back you deed with your life and now I can forgive you.

I Don't know that to be the case, but it might be. Food for thought.

There is only one unpardonable sin, and that is the sin against the Holy Ghost. Meaning, a person had a sure knowledge that God exists and then he fights against him.

Is the Murderer's life anymore precious than the victum's?

The two most important things to get out of this are the following laws of nature:

1. People must "learn" that their actions have consequences and that consequences are good for their own growth.
2. People must "observe" that actions have consequences that are commensurate with the crime or society will cease to have respect for the law and will not have any safety.

When people get a ticket, why do you think most people get upset? They know that they did something wrong, so why do they get upset?

The reason is that all of us know that the law was not applied equally. Some speeders are not pulled over, so they ask "why me?"

The consequences must be always applied, and with the correct amount, or we loose respect for authority and law.

Should there be an "ultimate" consequence for an "ultimate" crime? The Bible says so, and reality says so.

People will argue that capital punishment is not a deterrent. They will cite all kinds of statistics to prove their point.

I love statistics, but I also think all information we process needs to be filtered with logic and common sense.

Does the following scenario make sense to you: What if you were a criminal and you were told that if you murdered anyone with a blue shirt on you would get the death penalty, but if you murdered anyone else, you wouldn’t?

Would it make a difference to you?

Would it make “any” difference to "some" criminals? Not all murders are “heat of the moment”, that is why we have First Degree Murder because it was “planned.”

Again, using common sense, any intellectually honest person would have to answer that question "YES".