27 February 2003 21:45
zippy commenting on the death penalty (0225):often when people go on killing sprees it's b/c they all of a sudden snap. do you think these people care what kind of method is used to execute them?
i found out yesterday that oddly enough, some people hold the viewpoint that rehabilitation of criminals is better than preventing them from committing crime in the first place. since it was a web site, i'm free to speak my mind and say that i think somebody'd have to be brain dead to say that, but whatever. prevention is obviously better than a later rehabilitation. so it becomes a question of what's the best method of prevention. fear is certaintly one choice, a good sound moral eduction certaintly another. as christians we have a different view on the subject. ie, some people will listen to good sound moral instruction, others are bent on committing evil and nothing's going to stop them. so for starters, it's a good idea to try and convince people to "be good" hopefully by getting htem to become christians, or at least appeal to their sense of humanitarianism. with God out of schools and evolution in (ie, there is no right and wrong), its a very tough job to reach this generation after they've been indoctrinated. but you have to start somewheres. what i'm curious about is those who are going to stop at nothing to gratify their desires, what should a christian response to them be? there is a biblical basis for prevention by fear (hellfire and brimstone comes to mind, sudden death by God does too, it happened to annanias and saphira. also romans 13:3 says, "rulers hold terror for those who do wrong." terror is a pretty strong word). so in that case, the government (established by God) has the duty to use fear in crime prevention.
indeed, i was watching a tlc documentary on police snipers the other day that stated what becomes apparent with a little thought. police derive their power of enforcement from the license to kill. i could never be a police officer for the simple reason that they are required to kill in protection of the public good, that is incompatible with my beliefs as a christian. people ask, "who then is to enforce the law?" well, the entire world isn't christian, we have a secular government, let it be that way (this also ties in with my general disclination to condone christians in politics). let non-christians run the system. "what if everybody becomes christian" great, then we won't need police any more right? or at least police given the power to kill. we police our churches with the power to excommunicate, but we do not have the power to cut a person off from God. likewise i feel the gov't has the power to imprison/restrict, but not the powr to cut a person off from life.
well, you can say that if police have the power to kill, then the gov't should have the power to execute. i do not have a direct answer to this. i only say that the arguments against outweigh this particular argument for. when one says, we can diminish the power of the police to a lisence to injure. i say no, there are no garuntees. the ultimate consequence of violence is death. commit no violence, there will be no death by violence. (and here this ties in with my non-resistant belief in dealing with an assailent. granted, i migth be able to over power him, break his harm or some such and prevail. but there is also a good chance, esp when weapons are involved, of injuring him fatally. or me. if i get myself killed trying to prevent the rape of my wife, what good am i going to be to her after the fact?). however, there are situations where force might be used by a stronger power. for instance, if my children were fighting, i might be required to separate them by force. likewise the police have been given the power to fight with force up to and including death.
so if i argue there should be no christians in the police, military, or government, where does that get me? for i cannot deny that there are many christians doing much good in the government, in the military, and in the police force today. what about polititians in supreme leadership, such as winston churchill, or george w. bush, where would the countries of great britain and the us be today with out them and their influence? i don't know. but i trust that God would provide. military people especially can be scornful of conscientious objectors, saying that we don't appreciate what veterans have done for us, those that have died for our freedoms. i absolutely do not want to be disrespectful to such veterans, but while they have their claim, i have mine. I DID NOT RECIEVE MY FREEDOMS FROM VETERANS OF THE US MILITARY. I RECIEVED MY FREEDOMS FROM GOD AND GOD ALONE! sure, if americans hadn't fought the revolutionary war, we might still be subject to great britain. so what? christians in china, indonesia, rwanda, christians all over the world have fewer freedoms than us, but they still have the joy of Christ, they are still part of the kingdom of God, and that is what matters. yes, i enjoy religious freedom here in the US. i am somewhat skeptical of how much "good" it's doing us, but i do enjoy it. but i am perfectly willing to suffer a loss of freedom provided i am still able to serve God.
but that's slightly off topic. yes, i think it probably unavoidable that our police force be given the license to kill. but it is not unavoidable to execute people. there are clear alternatives to execution. why do we execute people, why is it deemed just punishment? is it because they are a menace to society, there is no hope for them, so lets solve our problem permanently by killing htem? ever notice how in the movies, the good guy gets the upper hand on the bad guy but can't kill him in cold blood? so now the bad guy's in the way? something always happens so that the bad guy makes a go for it, now the good guy can shoot him but it's not in cold blood. or the bad guy makes a go for it and ends up falling in a ravine or something. so in the end everything's all neat and tidy. that's not real life folks. the reality is that the good guy has to play by the rules. currently we have the rules twisted so that we can indeed kill them, although it takes more money than its worth and decades of time. but i do not think we need to kill to sufficiently deter future crimes. serial murder's should certaintly be kept imprisoned, but why not have them make moneyfor the system instead of spend it? why not have them suffer punishment that makes them truly repentant? in this way the gov't will have no more blood than absolutely necessary on their hands.
21:45 email me permalink / commentary (0)
