First off, I’m not quite sure where to stand on the death penalty, I think I stand with Pope Francis in a sense of mercy where possible. Some countries have a ghastly prison system where even few years stay is like a horror, leave alone a stay in whatever death row or maximum security entails. Some countries barely have a functioning government that can provide essentials to its population, leave alone for its prison population. How is such a government supposed to deal with its killers? Will rich countries support them?

One of the main problems with the death penalty probably is that sometimes you get the wrong person.

Epistemology is never perfect and will never be perfect.

I find it difficult because the Bible never says that you should build an enclosure in which killers should be caged permanently either.

In a sense you could see the e death penalty as a sort of self-defense. You’re ending the life of someone who desires to end your life.

It’s exactly what you do in war and a just war too. The difference is only in the numbers.

I also have a discomfort at the huge amount of money spent in sustaining these people that are not going to do any work for all their lives.

But then I tell myself that we spend a lot of money on other much more stupid things anyway, at least this is a mercy sort of.

I don’t think Lofton’s argument “it is sometimes permissible to violate…” holds up.

To give some context, Pope Francis’ previous document has said that something like “the death penalty is always a violation of the dignity of a human being irrespective of the circumstances”. But to square it up with previous teaching Michael Lofton is saying “that’s true, but its sometimes permissible to violate the dignity of a human being”. I don’t think that’s logically sound. A violation is a sin, unless we’re using some different definition of violation that I’m unaware of. The whole point of saying “violate” is to avoid as unholy. Violation is a violation of the sacred, nothing else. At least that’s how I think of it.

Personally I’m inclined to agree with the ruling against the death penalty. If you look at it from the pov of the prisoner and his family, the mercy is not there. Further the problem of wrongful conviction is too large to ignore. Finally, if you compare it to war, this is akin to the killing of a POW.

Dignity in simple terms would mean “value”, and value in whose eyes? Primarily in God’s eyes. Our value to God is essentially as his children and his image- bearers.

because of the dignity of life, no one can take it away, basically. Its like the argument for the Pro-Life cause. You can’t touch life, because you can’t pay for it, you can’t buy it, you can’t trade it. Jesus bought it with his Blood already, right? You can’t also, as a consequence degrade/humiliate/dehumanise it, and so on. Then the argument extends to the unborn and to transgender etc.

Well, then that becomes a question of whether a sinner loses his dignity. Obviously this cannot be true, since Jesus came for sinners. The unborn child will also grow to be a sinner, nothing else. There’s no way you can make a theological case for “murderers must necessarily be put to death”. You can possibly make a case for “it might be permissible but not necessary for a state to put a murderer to death”. It’s not a simple question, and I’m not saying I’m clear on the issue. But you know, I’m aware of death row inmates who convert to Christ, and who love Jesus more than the rabid atheists out there who roam free.

The question is when the murderer has not lost his dignity totally, then why is his life totally taken from him?