Justification for the Punishment of Criminals

Travis · 08-08-2003, 10:04 PM

What is the justification for punishing criminals? Why do we have the right to force other people to refrain from certain actions? Why is locking someone in jail not kidnapping? Why are fines not stealing? Why is execution not murder? Please try to give a clear and simple answer, assuming Christian presupposions (i.e., if you are not a Christian you need not respond), for why our governments have the right to do this.

**+Donny** · 08-08-2003, 10:25 PM

Do I have to answer this question, Travis, or is this for other people?

Travis · 08-08-2003, 10:27 PM

I was hoping for some bites by others (who aren't correct).

JerryLove · 08-08-2003, 10:38 PM

Why does one need to believe Christian presuppositions correct in order to answer based on them? By that logic, no creationist could discuss evolution (hmm, there's an idea).

Travis · 08-08-2003, 11:14 PM

Because I don't want to get into debating moral relativism, etc, here.

JerryLove · 08-08-2003, 11:39 PM

Which explains why you want responses based on Christian prsuppositions being presupposed. It does not, however, answer the question: "Why cannot someone answer based on presuppoistions without having to genuinely believe them true?"

Travis · 08-08-2003, 11:59 PM

Fine. Answer assuming Christian presuppositions all you want, but be advised that if this deviates into apologetics (as your posts have been doing in Current Events) I will delete your posts.

fifsuperpod37 · 08-09-2003, 11:14 AM

I'll take a shot.

We have to uphold the sanctity of human life. Humans are special because they were made in God's image. This gives them value and rights in God's eyes that we need to uphold.

For example, Genesis 9:6 says "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Only by assuming man is special and should have rights do we get the basis of any sort of punishment to protect the sanctity of the victims. By punishing criminals we uphold the value of the victims. If we fail to adequately punish criminals we say that the victims aren't as valuable as they truly are.

(I learned this from Francis Schaeffer)

JerryLove · 08-09-2003, 04:38 PM

The justification for those in authority punishing anyone is "because they choose to". Any choice made by an authoity is defacto a choice God wanted, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

So to argue that an authority was wrong would be to argue that God was wrong to let them; and he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Christian enough response?

**+Donny** · 08-09-2003, 05:09 PM

Quote:

I'll take a shot.

We have to uphold the sanctity of human life. Humans are special because they were made in God's image. This gives them value and rights in God's eyes that we need to uphold.

Okay, in a sense, I would agree. I definitely think the "made in God's image" part is right, but I always hesitate when I see references to natural rights of humans, since they can be very stretched.

Quote:

For example, Genesis 9:6 says "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Only by assuming man is special and should have rights do we get the basis of any sort of punishment to protect the sanctity of the victims. By punishing criminals we uphold the value of the victims. If we fail to adequately punish criminals we say that the victims aren't as valuable as they truly are.

Okay, and what rights exist to humans?

Quote:

The justification for those in authority punishing anyone is "because they choose to". Any choice made by an authoity is defacto a choice God wanted, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

That does not mean their choices are necessarily moral. God raise Pharoah up, but that does not mean every judgment and sanction exercised by Pharoah was moral and righteous.

Quote:

So to argue that an authority was wrong would be to argue that God was wrong to let them; and he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Wrong. God has two wills. He may ordain certain bad things to happen, but that does not mean those things are morally acceptable. He hardened Pharoah's heart, but his actions were not morally acceptable. Just because God has put someone in power does not mean his actions are good ina moral sense.

JerryLove · 08-09-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Me:The justification for those in authority punishing anyone is "because they choose to". Any choice made by an authoity is defacto a choice God wanted, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Donny:That does not mean their choices are necessarily moral. God raise Pharoah up, but that does not mean every judgment and sanction exercised by Pharoah was moral and righteous.

I won't get into a discussion of weather it is "moral" or not, as that would end in a side dicussion on morals. It is however, what God has established (which is what I claimed, I did not say "moral").

Quote:

Me: So to argue that an authority was wrong would be to argue that God was wrong to let them; and he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Donny: Wrong.God has two wills. He may ordain certain bad things to happen, but that does not mean those things are morally acceptable. He hardened Pharoah's heart, but his actions were not morally acceptable. Just because God has put someone in power does not mean his actions are good ina moral sense.

I did not say that they were good in a moral sense (nor do I agree that they are not), as that would end in a discussion on the definition of "moral". I simply said that all authorities are from God and he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

If you disagree with me here, you are directly disagreeing with the Bible... my quote is almost verbatim.

**+Donny** · 08-09-2003, 09:02 PM

It is agreed that rebelling against an authority is wrong. It is not ageed that they have the right to do what they want.

JerryLove · 08-10-2003, 12:18 AM

Then why would it be wrong to rebel against something which was not right?

Also, you called Pharoh's actions evil; but these actions were the direct will of God. The Bible makes a point of telling us that the reason that Pharoh did the acts in question is because God intervened to make him do it. Certainly God's actions can be neither immoral nor evil?

God has instituted all authorities; and what they do as an authority stems from what God has instituted. I don't see how you fail to view this as "their authority to perform action X comes from God".

Travis · 08-10-2003, 08:00 AM

Jerry, whether you know it or not, this is actually getting in to apologetics. Your interpretation of Scripture in this case would make the Bible absurd and contradictory. This thread is about this ( || ) close from being split and the latter half sent to Apologetics.

JerryLove · 08-10-2003, 02:20 PM

I'm offering a scriptural answer to the question you asked. I've even avoided falling into the moral/immoral trap set by Donny. If this is apologetic, then I suggest your question is.