What is the best penal system?

[Paidion]

Strange, do you know any person who does not differentiate between conduct in personal relationships with neighbors, on the one hand, and the duties of a judge at his bench, on the other? Doesn't every thinking person make such a distinction? Why should Jesus be though to be different from other thinking people?

Because, unlike other people, He was the Son of God, and didn't hold to a double standard of morality—one for personal relationships and a different one for state justice.

[dwight92070]

To Jepne,

To compare the Law of Moses, which is indeed God's law, to Sharia law is to spurn the character of God. To say that someone who administers justice under the Law of Moses is similar to a member of ISIS is, I'm sorry, inexcusable ignorance. To think that I or anyone who agrees with the Law of Moses would enjoy dismembering someone is, to put it mildly, greatly mistaken. David praised the Law of God, which was the Law of Moses, over and over again in the Psalms. Look at Psalm 119, all 176 verses. The Law of Moses was perfect, just, pure, more precious than gold, powerful, to name just a few qualities stated in the Bible.

Regarding dismemberment, Deuteronomy 25:11 says: "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity." The other time dismemberment could be implied is in Exodus 21:22-25 where the phrase "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, etc." is used. God had good reasons for prescribing this punishment in specific cases and it was to be done in a specific way. The leaders did not just go around joyfully deciding which part of the body they wanted to "axe" that day, and to whom. As far as I know, these are the only 2 situations where God prescribed dismemberment.

God is the one who commanded this punishment. If you think He is cruel and not much different than Allah, then maybe you should leave Christianity and find a religion with a kinder, more compassionate god. But if you understand that His judgment s are true and righteous altogether (as the scripture says they are), then you might want to rethink your rash statements. Remember, God destroyed every man, woman, and child in a world-wide flood. He rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah and all were killed. Remember, also, that Jesus was God in the flesh, the same God who did these things. Is your standard better and more compassionate than God's? I don't think so.

Dwight

[dwight92070]

To Jaydam,

Maybe I could have chosen a better question to propose this topic, but I would like to comment on your point that I am focusing on the death penalty vs. the entire penal system. I believe there is a good reason for that. The death penalty is the most severe penalty given in any penal system. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the least penalty given, which might be something like a small fine. The major problems we have in this country with crime are not going to be solved by changing the fine that we impose on someone for jaywalking. If we can deal with the worst crimes correctly, I think dealing with all the less severe crimes will fall into place. In other words, in my opinion, dealing properly with a criminal who deserves death, will decrease the amount of lesser crimes, because those committing the lesser crimes will see how quickly their lives could end, should they decide to increase their criminal activity.
You also bring up showing mercy and rehabilitation. I agree with Steve on this, i.e. if I understood him correctly. In a good penal system, justice has to be done. If we show mercy to every first time offender, for example, we are favoring him, one person, over society, thousands of persons. Thousands of people could be at risk, because we want to show mercy to one man. Neither Genesis 9:6, the Law of Moses or Paul in Romans 13 advocate giving a guy a break if this is his first offense.
I agree with my pastor that jail is a terrible environment, even for a criminal, to stay in for years. If they commit a capital crime, execute them. If they commit a lesser crime, punish them, fine them, whichever is appropriate, and then release them.

Dwight

[Jepne]

Dwight, a fine is not a violent act, and indeed can discourage people from jaywalking. I have no problem with that - it can be used to pay policemen to bring criminals into custody to protect the citizenry.

My statements are not rash at all - I have thought them out carefully since the execution of the Rosenbergs when I was eight years old, leaving their sons orphaned and on a lifelong quest to know their parents. The movie "Billy Budd" I saw when a teenager and have spent considerable time since investigating the lives of prisoners and their families.

I thank God for those such as Sister Prejean, and groups of lawyers who work pro bono to save the lives of those who like Hurricane Carter would have been executed. Jesus said that when we visit prisoners, we are visiting him. He did not qualify that with 'good' or 'innocent'.

I see whole Christian communities living by the Law of Christ as put forth in the Sermon on the Mount and only once in 17 years heard of a crime committed among them in another province.

I am so glad Jesus came to show us the way to true justice, and give the promise of a restored earth in which EVERY man will give account of his words and deeds.

[steve]

Because, unlike other people, He was the Son of God, and didn't hold to a double standard of morality—one for personal relationships and a different one for state justice.

Paidion, this is a very counterintuitive claim. Where did you learn this strange, unrevealed fact about Jesus? Contrary to your claim, Jesus told Pilate that the governor's power to execute criminals was given to him "from above" (John 19:11). This seems to refer to Pilate's authorization to administer criminal justice as being from God—though I am sure that you can think of some unlikely alternative meaning, as for all other scriptures that challenge your personal sentiments.

Did Jesus think police actions to be no different from my actions in settling a quarrel with a neighbor? Christ's chief spokesperson Paul certainly made the distinction. He said that we should not avenge ourselves (Rom.12:19), but that God has ordained the government power to be "God's avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Rom.13:4). Peter said the same thing (1 Peter 2:13-14).

Your wife has just said that paying police to bring in criminals can be a good thing. What if those criminals don't prefer to be taken into custody? What if they think it is an unloving thing for the police to do to them? What if they resist? Are you and she on the same page here?

If my neighbor steals my lawn mower, do you think I can go and force him to pay me restitution, or lock him in my basement for rehabilitative purposes? If he is reluctant to comply with these penalties, exactly how would you suggest I carry them out? Would you suggest my brandishing a gun—or would I be restricted to a Tazer and zip ties?

Do I have the same role, and the right to force compliance, as a policeman would have? Is God unaware of the difference between my role and that of a government official? How could Jesus have chosen Paul and Peter as His chief spokesmen, when they had such a wrong idea about God's character and His attitudes toward criminal justice?

Would it seem unfair for me to ask whether you have anything at all with which to support your bizarre statement? Why should we think this to be true? Because you say so? And who are you, exactly, that we should think you know the mind of God better than the apostles whom Jesus chose and personally trained?

You and Jepne make a strong emotional case. If your points were scriptural, then they would have greater merit than do other positions supported by mere sentimentality. However, without scriptural support—the one thing entirely lacking for your claims—your opinions do not rank above those of anyone else, who may think that even a rehabilitative hell (which you believe in) is below the dignity of God to inflict. Obviously, once we decide to resort to sentiment, rather than revealed truth, as the arbiter of our beliefs, there remains no reason to insist on any Christian doctrine.

Generally, you respond to this accusation by saying, "I am not basing my views on sentiment, but on the character of Christ." This is disingenuous, as you refuse to show that the things Jesus Himself said, which contradict your view, can be rationally harmonized with your sentimental view of Him. If ever you make such an attempt, without prevarication, your claim to be following Christ's teachings may be regarded as an honest one.

[jaydam]

Neither Genesis 9:6, the Law of Moses... advocate giving a guy a break if this is his first offense.

I would say here that it did not advocate giving a guy a break, but David certainly got one, and he was subject to the old covenant. So the old covenant was apparently more flexible than it would appear.

or Paul in Romans 13

Says that governments will serve God's purpose, but does not mean they do so in a Christian, voluntary manner. Aside from the example of Israel invading the Promised Land, the vast majority of historic examples that support Romans 13 means that governments will be God's servants to do his will, while the governments themselves are ungodly. Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greek, Romans, and many more ungodly nations were God's servants governmentally, but not spiritually.

Paul distinguishes between the role of the believer and the role of government between the end of Romans 12 and the beginning of Romans 13. The Christian is not to seek revenge, but the government will be God's instrument of vengeance. Does this mean the Christian can get around his duty not to carry out revenge by joining the government in politically seeking revenge through the justice system or joining the government in an armed capacity to seek revenge? I don't believe this is permissible. Yet, many Christian joined the military after 9/11 to "hit back" at the terrorists - vengeance. And it is seen as permissible by churches because it is through the government, so the personal responsibility to the Christian is lifted. I don't believe this can be done.

I do not believe a Christian can shed his personal responsibility by joining with the government.

I do not mean to derail this thread, but I believe that in order to know what penal system is best, one needs to consider the role of government. Many want to take Romans 13 to marry Christians and government, I believe the distinction in roles between personal and governmental functions entirely separates the two, and Christians should be submissive citizens, but not active participants.

Christ did not concern himself with changing politics, and I believe this example cuts both ways to those who would leave the system untouched or look to change it to be more "godly". He was apolitical, while Christians want to use Romans 13 to get political.

Ultimately, I believe Romans 13 is speaking on a national level, not on a personal level anyway. Local injustice always takes place, even while God is using the nation at large to positively work his will. So, I do not believe Romans 13 is speaking to internal penal systems, but international global stability as God moves the nations - forever working to prevent the destruction of his church at large and the complete descent into evil chaos of the entire world's population.

[Paidion]

Because, unlike other people, He was the Son of God, and didn't hold to a double standard of morality—one for personal relationships and a different one for state justice.

Paidion, this is a very counterintuitive claim. Where did you learn this strange, unrevealed fact about Jesus? Contrary to your claim, Jesus told Pilate that the governor's power to execute criminals was given to him "from above" (John 19:11). This seems to refer to Pilate's authorization to administer criminal justice as being from God—though I am sure that you can think of some unlikely alternative meaning, as for all other scriptures that challenge your personal sentiments.

Steve, I didn't have to "think of some unlikely alternative meaning." I just finished looking at the passage, and found the meaning to be immediately crystal clear. As I see it, your claim that "Jesus told Pilate that the governor's power to execute criminals was given to him from above" is counter-intuitive.

So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?”
Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”(John 19:10,11)

"Over me" is the operative phrase here. Pilate believed that he had the authority to release Jesus or crucify Him—doubtless because the Roman Government gave him that authority. But Jesus pointed out that Pilate would have not authority over HIM unless God gave it to him. In no way was Jesus commenting on Pilate's general authority to condemn people or release them. In this particular case, Pilate could not have condemned Jesus to crucifixion unless God gave it to Him—unless it was God's will. If it had not been God's plan to give his only-begotten Son to be crucified in order to provide salvation, then Pilate could not have crucified the Lord of Glory.

[dwight92070]

Jaydam,

You say that David got a break and therefore we see that the Old Covenant is apparently more flexible than it would appear. Your implication is that if the Old Covenant is flexible, then we should be flexible too, and show more mercy in our courts vs. justice. It's interesting how you interpret the Bible to get it to say what you want it to say. The incident with David does not show that the Old Covenant was (or is) flexible. It clearly shows that God can overrule the Old Covenant anytime He so desires. Jesus overruled the law when He allowed the woman caught in adultery to go unpunished, and when He broke the sabbath day. Jesus said that until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished. Does that sound like He is saying that the law is flexible? Of course not.

Of course, as Christians, we know that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, but under the law of Christ. But Paul tells us that the law is good, even today, if one uses it lawfully. He goes on to say that it is for the unrighteous, not the righteous.

But judges should not be flexible with the law, but should administer justice. If God supernaturally intervenes to stop a certain punishment (as He did with David), that's up to Him.

I think you have an understanding of "turnng the other cheek" that is not correct. Matthew 24:43 But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.

If a thief breaks into your house, Jaydam, will you hug him, and take care of him, or will you follow Jesus' obvious point and not allow him to break in and wreak havoc with your family and property? And, yes, violence may be necessary to stop this thief, even to the point of killing him. Jesus tells us plainly that that is what any responsible head of house would do. Are we to be less responsible, now that we are Christians?

In Luke 3:14 some soldiers were asking John the Baptist what they should do in order to show repentance and a desire to serve God. Did John tell them to lay down their swords and get out of the military? If that was God's will, he should have. No, he told them not to take money by force, not to accuse anyone falsely, and to be content with their wages. Those who obeyed John most likely went on to follow Jesus, the One John was pointing them to. So that means that they were Christians in the military, carrying swords, serving God, and serving their country at the same time.

In Matthew 8:5-10 Jesus commends a Roman Centurion for having greater faith than any of the people of Israel. If it was not God's will for him to be in the military, carrying a sword, even being in charge of 100 other soldiers who also carried swords, would Jesus have commended him? I don't think so. Or at least He would have said something to the effect of, "Now that you are a believer, put down your sword, and get out of the military." But He didn't.

God wants Christians in the military. He wants Christians in the police force. He wants Christians in government and in politics. How else are we going to be salt and light? Soldiers, police officers, politicians are not necessarily evil. They are servants of God, according to Romans 13, and yes, some of them are servants of God in 2 ways, since they are also Christians.

No, Romans 13 applies to all governing authorities, including your local police officer, politician, and judge, and thank God if they are also Christians.

Dwight

[Paidion]

Hi Dwight,

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. (Romans 13)

Richard Wurmbrand, a Lutheran minister, spent 14 years in a Communist prison in Romania. He was both starved and tortured.
He said, in the passage above, that the governing authorities established by God are said to be "not a terror to good conduct, but to bad."
"However," he said, "The Communist authorities are just the opposite. They are a terror to good conduct, and not to bad." So Pastor Wurmbrand believed the Communist authorities were NOT instituted by God, and that a good Christian would lie to them and deceive them.

These "authorities" wanted him to give them the names of other Christian so that they could be imprisoned and tortured, too. At first Wurmbrand refused, but when the tortures became unbearable, he gave them names. But they were the names of Christians who had either already died, or of ones who had escaped the country.

He made up his mind to NEVER give them the names of Christians who lived in Romania. He carried a vial of poison with him, so that if the tortures became to much for him to endure, he would drink the poison to escape revealing the names of his fellow believers.

Do you think Brother Wurmbrand was WRONG in not being subject the governing Communist authorities?

[dwight92070]

Paidon,

I would have to say that I agree with Richard Wurmbrand in lieing to the Communists to save his fellow Christians. I think of David who pretended to be insane, a form of lieing, to keep from being killed. Possibly the midwives lied to Pharoah to keep from killing Israelite babies. Yes, I believe there is a time to lie to save lives. And yes, I believe it is probable that some, maybe many governments have not been established by God, but obviously He allowed them for whatever reason. Some may be allowed by God in order to bring judgment on a country. Jesus told Pilate, You would have no authority over Me unless it had been given you from above.

Dwight