July 15, 2005

Death Penalty Revisited

This posting was one of my first postings when I began blogging in January. Although I am not in the habit of "rerunning" my posts, I thought although my examples may be dated, this post is still on topic. This was the beginning of my decision that I can no longer personally support the death penalty, at the time I wrote this I was not sure but I am now.

During the contraversy surrounding Terri Schiavo, I made the decision that if I am going to fight so hard for the sanctity of life, no government entity should be able to pick or choose who is deserving of that life or not. Yes, it is difficult when I hear of the gruesome acts by people like Joseph Edward Duncan or the BTK killer. In my mind if anyone deserves death, it is these disgusting people. But I just personally can't justify death.

God can only give life, God should be the only one to take it away. We criticize liberals and call them hypocrites for their stand against the death penalty and their stand for abortion. "They can protect criminals, but not babies."... Well I think our position is a bit hypocritical too. If we argue that all life matters and is important, how can we allow government sanctioned murder?

As a good card carrying member of the Republican Party, I am pretty much in sync with most of the ideological values that the party represents. Having given that disclaimer let me venture onto a topic that, Iíll admit, has not been one that I have ever really given too much thought about until recently.

The death penalty.

At first it sounds great. Sure, you have so little regard to human life to take someone elseís life? Fine. Say hello to Mr. Sparky. And for most of my life this is how I have regarded the death penalty.

But I am beginning to wonder if putting to death anyone can fit into my personal ideology. I am adamantly against abortion and euthanasia. The act of willfully taking anotherís life devalues human life. The story last month regarding the newborns being euthanized in a Dutch hospital made me shudder. Imagine where life is so unvalued that a doctor is allowed to take it?

The value we place on our lives not only reflects our death but it reflects how we live. The only way anyone can be abusive to others is to not value and appreciate that person.

Scott Peterson in my opinion is evil. He murdered two people because of his selfish desire to be free of any responsibility and commitment. He, in my mind, deserves to die. And it is his death sentence that has led me to question my beliefs.

Osama Bin Laden should die. Now. Any terrorist should.

Anyone who takes a life should have their own life taken. These are things I have known for as long as I can rememberÖ

But. What about the giver of Life? If he is the ultimate decider of such things, then what would He do?

Saul, a religious zealot, persecuted Christians vengefully and watched as they died. He was there when Stephen looked up into the heavens and was savagely stoned. But on an ordinary journey, Saul was changed by God, and became Paul. Today we would try him at the very least an accomplice to murder and truly he was a terrorist. But God didnít give up on his soul and he became the most prolific writer of the New Testament.

David had it all but he stopped looking up and saw her. He lusted and took her, and then she became pregnant. To cover up his sin, he begged her husband to come home from battle but when he refused because he didnít want to abandon his duty, David murdered him. But this was David the king of Israel who after being shown his sin had a contrite heart and a repentant spirit. This was the ďman after Godís own heart.Ē

We are Godís creation and he can take our evil, the wickedness of man and make us into something so much better. What right as a society do we have to destroy any creation that is Godís?

Posted by Jody at July 15, 2005 10:03 AM | TrackBack
Comments

You know my stand on the death penalty, and I know yours. We will most likely never agree on the issue. To me, there is a clear cut distinction between taking the life of an innocent (such as a fetus/unborn child, baby, child or even an adult who's behavior does not warrant death) and making sure that a cruel, subhuman murderer never has the possibility of again foisting their evil actions upon others, particularly those innocents.

Posted by: Jeff H at July 15, 2005 11:10 AM

This is the one issue I have always felt out-of-sync with the Republican party on, maybe it's a holdover from the early days when I thought a little differently. However, I will never understand how an entire party can be against killing people who have demonstrated that they deserve it, yet be for killing those who have done nothing to deserve it, and indeed have not even been given the chance to live. I guess I would summarize my position as being pro-life, with no exceptions, although at least I can understand the reasons behind the death penalty.

Posted by: Nettie at July 15, 2005 04:13 PM

"I am adamantly against abortion and euthanasia" - me too, but I am just as adamantly pro-death-penalty.

The key here is in the first two cases you are terminating life without cause, i.e. - they have done nothing wrong. In the latter, you are accomplishing many things but the important thing is that this is being done to an individual who deserves it.


/TJ
... NIF
... The Wide Awakes

Posted by: TJ at July 16, 2005 09:07 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?