Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: FL, I don't think it's pills. Maybe a little too much merlot.

It was fun for me to see Proinsias coming to the defense of another unbeliever. Even though Proinsias is seduced by a sort of mysticism, and snorider is a typical angry atheist, they are both on the same team against God.

Hatred of God makes strange bedfellows. Amusing!

FL

PaulSacramento wrote:When a person is in jail, they are no longer a threat to society, as such society is NOT justified in killing them.
The examples you posted are fine except that in the case of an incarcerated person He/she is no longer a threat.
What the DP becomes then is what it is correctly called, Capital Punishment.
Is punishment a justifiable reason to kill another person?
That is the question IMO.

I disagree with the DP on the simple basis that there is no 100% foul proof method to confirm that a person is guilty AND deserves to die.
I submit that, IMO, even 1 innocent person put to death is 1 person too many.
Especially when we DO have alternatives to protect society.

Paul, you make some good points. But, I'm still not sure if I think the death penalty is justifiable. I may now lean 50.00000000001% towards against the death penalty now.

Ivellious wrote:I'm certain this topic has been discussed here before, but I'm curious as to how the lot of you feel about the death penalty for certain crimes. I ask in the wake of talking to a pro-death penalty group on campus (well they weren't students, but they were visiting my school). They were a highly conservative group that brought up some Bible stories that apparently said that the death penalty was the "Christian thing to do." They referenced Old Testament laws and how Jesus condoned the crucifixion of other criminals when he was being crucified.

Thoughts on this?

Death penalty can be a just penalty, for example, it is an "even" penalty for someone who has murdered another.

Penalties imposed I suppose would come down to issues like grace and forgiveness, redemption or penalities being on par with the crime, restriction upon the perpetrator to commit further crimes.

In death, obviously the offender cannot commit any further damage upon others. So there can be no greater security here than the death penalty.

Penalty-wise it must be even otherwise justice is not served. The most even penalties are those that are equivilant to the crime. This is a place for legislators.

Grace/forgiveness, is all well and good. But should not lead to gullibility or naiveness. For example, it makes no sense to afford grace/forgiveness to a serial killer or pedafile that sets them free, who would then re-offend at the next opportunity.

Then there is also redemption. With crimes of a lesser nature such as stealing rather than murder/rape, I see redemption (community service) as a valid approach. Theologically Christ redeemed us and paid for our offense to God.

When talking of these issues, it is important to distiguish between theological concepts that centre on our relationship with God, and social concepts of justice that centre our relationship with others.

God condones government authorities to mete out punishments to restrict evil in society. They may not be perfect, but hopefully they do restrict evil. Penalities for breaking the law are all a part of that. So I don't think God looks down at one nation and says "Ohh, they're using the death penalty that's not very gracious" or looks at another nation and says "Ahhh, he got off lightly for his crime..." Rather, both societies have their own laws and penalties and help guide their societies, and those who break them earn the consequence of their action.

Death penalty can be a just penalty, for example, it is an "even" penalty for someone who has murdered another.

Does the fact that it's even always make it suitable? It would appear so, but for me the difficulty lies in one of the points that PS made, there are alternatives which do the job without the need to take another human life. Still very undecided however, great discussion going on here!

SB

Sam1995 wrote:

Death penalty can be a just penalty, for example, it is an "even" penalty for someone who has murdered another.

Does the fact that it's even always make it suitable? It would appear so, but for me the difficulty lies in one of the points that PS made, there are alternatives which do the job without the need to take another human life. Still very undecided however, great discussion going on here!

SB

It certainly make it a valid option within society.

There are those who have committed murder and then sincerely changed upon converting to Christianity. Many argued for leniency on behalf of such persons, however the fact remains their crime was committed and a fair payment is still required to the victim.

“But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”

When Paul was brought before Festus, he said, “For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die” (Acts 25:11 I would say that this shows that Paul recognized that there ARE offenses worthy of death and that the government had the right to administer death in those cases.

Paul, again: "“But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

“And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man” (Genesis 9:5) This directive was never rescinded in the OT or the NT. Not by Jesus, Paul, or an apostle.

People always like to bring up the adulteri passage - but that is likely unscriptural, as it appears to have been added much later.

I do believe that pre-meditated murder by an adult should require the death penalty - if for nothing else than to show the value society holds a human life - that it is so precious that if you deliberately take it, you should know you must forfeit your own life. But the problem is, at least in the U.S., is the legal system doesn't have enough checks and balances to prevent innocents from being wrongly convicted/executed. But as far as justice, I also have a real problem with society bearing the cost and indignity of feeding and housing a murderer sentenced to life. And I think we confuse the act of forgiveness, by thinking that one shouldn't justly pay for his crimes. Giving one sentenced to death a fair trial, comprehensively and independently reviewed, is rightful. Give them also time to make their peace with God. And even if the death penalty only deters just a few murders, it is worth it - but only if fairly arrived at and with enough checks and balances.

Between 2005 and 2010, I worked with murderers about to be released into society after having served their time. I drove a truck and they helped me move stuff around as part of their re-insertion into society. Two of these guys* told me that they would have preferred the death penalty to spending 25 years in jail and then being on parole for the rest of their lives. Neither guy was born again, and both went back to prison after their release for other crimes committed after their release.

Of all the men I met during those years, only one has repented and become a Christian. He had been prayed for and adopted - spiritually - by an old nun, and she led him to Christ. That man is still free on parole and is directing a charitable organization.

I thought you should know another side of the story.

FL

*one had murdered a couple of people in a rampage. Another had murdered his roomate in order to collect his welfare money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/opini ... l?hpw&_r=0

America’s Retreat From the Death Penalty
Published: January 1, 2013 211 Comments

When the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, it said there were two social purposes for imposing capital punishment for the most egregious crimes: deterrence and retribution. In recent months, these justifications for a cruel and uncivilized punishment have been seriously undermined by a growing group of judges, prosecutors, scholars and others involved in criminal justice, conservatives and liberals alike.


A distinguished committee of scholars convened by the National Research Council found that there is no useful evidence to determine if the death penalty deters serious crimes. Many first-rate scholars have tried to prove the theory of deterrence, but that research “is not informative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates,” the committee said.

A host of other respected experts have also concluded that life imprisonment is a far more practical form of retribution, because the death penalty process is too expensive, too time-consuming and unfairly applied.

The punishment is supposed to be reserved for the very worst criminals, but dozens of studies in state after state have shown that the process for deciding who should be sent to death row is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Thanks to the Innocence Project and the overturning of 18 wrongful convictions of death-row inmates with DNA evidence and the exonerations of 16 others charged with capital crimes, the American public is increasingly aware that the system makes terrible mistakes. Since 1973, a total of 142 people have been freed from death row after being exonerated with DNA or other kinds of evidence.

All of these factors have led the states to retreat from the death penalty in recent years — in both law and in practice. In 2012, Connecticut became the fifth state in five years to abolish the penalty. Nine states executed inmates, the fewest in two decades. Three-fourths of the 43 executions in 2012 were carried out in only four states. The number of new death sentences remained low at 77 — about one-third the number in 2000 — with just four states accounting for almost two-thirds of those sentences. While 33 states retain the death penalty on their books, 13 of them have not executed anyone for at least five years.

Those 13 states plus the 17 without the penalty means that 30 states are not carrying it out — and that includes California, which retained the death penalty in a November referendum vote. Almost one-quarter of the 3,146 death row inmates in the United States, as of October, are imprisoned in California, but that state has not executed anyone in seven years.

California’s chief justice said recently that the state’s official moratorium, which has been in place for six years, is likely to continue for at least three more because of problems with the execution method.

In January, executions are scheduled to take place in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Texas. As it happens, major reviews of the death penalty are under way in each of those states. The reviews are very likely to find that those states have failed to meet standards of fairness under the Constitution, just as reviews of the capital systems in other states have concluded in the last decade.

The large number of states no longer carrying out executions indicates a kind of national consensus. It points to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” an idea that the Supreme Court has evoked in judging the constitutionality of punishments. The court used that analysis most recently when it ruled that mandatory life sentences without possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders even if they are convicted of homicide.

It should similarly recognize that under evolving standards capital punishment is cruel and unusual and should be abolished.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content ... ations.php

There have been 301 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 36 states; since 2000, there have been 234 exonerations.

• 18 of the 300 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 13.6 years. The total number of years served is approximately 4,036.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 27.

Races of the 300 exonerees:

187 African Americans
86 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
5 whose race is unknown

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 146 of the DNA exoneration cases.

• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

• In more than 25 percent of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).

• 65 percent of the people exonerated through DNA testing have been financially compensated. 27 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to compensate people who were wrongfully incarcerated. Awards under these statutes vary from state to state.

• An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 - 2010 revealed that 22 percent of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.

Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions

These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.

Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions. Read more.

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct. Read more.

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 27 percent of cases. 28 of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.

Informants contributed to wrongful convictions in 18 percent of cases. Whenever informant testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the informant might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and informants should be recorded

It seems to me that there are 2 questions that often get confused in addressing the death penalty.

One is theoretical and draws to spiritual and moral values as to whether there should be a death penalty at all.

The other is practical and draws to whether our current legal system is applying or can apply capital punishment fairly and efficiently. This issue is independent of the first. One can believe in Capital Punishment in principle and yet still oppose it specifically as it's being applied in our country at this present time.

For me, the answer in terms of theory is that I am against capital punishment because I believe the giving of life is a gift from God and not to be taken by men. Capital Punishment existed in Old Testament times. I believe the context for that was cultural in part, and also changed with the coming of Christ. That said, I'm also human. There are specific instances in our society where atrocities occur where I emotionally respond and think it might be just for the person responsible to die. In those instances, I choose to allow my head to rule my heart. I understand that there are others who will disagree on this issue.

Regardless of where somebody falls on that issue however, in our context, today, in the US and the US judicial system, I am opposed to the death penalty for practical reasons and can honestly say I would remain so, even if my personal religious and moral views were in favor of capital punishment.

The material Paul has put up, puts reasonable doubt not just to specific instances of injustice, but to the system itself. Injustice cannot always be reversed or recompensed effectively, but death is forever in terms of society and the legal system. Further, the cost involved in the system makes it more expensive to society than life in prison. Given the practical issues, the demonstration of unequal application of the death penalty demographically, the demonstration of innocent people condemned to death, and the cost to society economically to apply an inefficient system I believe the Death Penalty should be removed.

Canuckster wrote:
For me, the answer in terms of theory is that I am against capital punishment because I believe the giving of life is a gift from God and not to be taken by men. Capital Punishment existed in Old Testament times. I believe the context for that was cultural in part, and also changed with the coming of Christ. That said, I'm also human. There are specific instances in our society where atrocities occur where I emotionally respond and think it might be just for the person responsible to die. In those instances, I choose to allow my head to rule my heart. I understand that there are others who will disagree on this issue.

Bart, I can agree with this. Capital punishment within the theocracy of Israel was a special circumstance. There are no other theocracies today.