Posted by
Republiservative on Friday, November 20, 2009 6:54:08 PM
Within most major faiths, capital punishment has been not uncommonly tolerated if sometimes applied capriciously and unpredictably.
In the historical Hindu Code of Manu (a god of black hue and red eyes), capital punishment was frequently applied per type of offense, even trifles, and could be: impalement on a stake, trampling by an elephant, burning, roasting, being cut to pieces, being devoured by dogs, or undergoing mutilations.
Old Hebrew law afforded death by stoning but in many instances also slaying with sword, spear, or dagger per mere expediency or choice of the executioner. The thought here was although Genesis said God expelled a killer, but would be sevenfold harsher to one taking vengeance against a killer, as long as it wasn’t vigilantism outside official venues capital punishment could be kosher.
In traditional Muhammadan canon (such as Laden-slacking Pakistan's State-run Islam dictates), one could lose body parts for an array of offenses, but even where fathers killed their sons, about the only capital punishment would be for apostasy from Islam (including Pakistani government policy) or to leave your own other faith for anything but Islam; also, though against Allah to kill innocent non-believers, such canon says not the slightest vengeance can be had unless another Muslim had promised protection of an unbeliever’s life.
Martin Luther in “Plass”, and even Pope John Paul II in encyclicals, stressed up to lethal force if needed could be used where one is attacked through no fault of their own (Luther excluded resistance only if in a Church; Catechism of the Catholic Church articles 2265, 2266 approve State use of armed forces and death penalty on stipulation); these leaders reasoned that without respect for one’s own humble human dignity re self-defending, one cannot respect dignity of others.
I myself feel it wouldn’t be for the interests of humanity that well-conducted and useful members of the community or world should be more exposed to deprivation of life by murder in order that the lives of murderers may be spared. But there should be dignity even for defendants taken into any nation’s or State’s custody.
Whereas common law (or “natural law” or “religious canon”) seems excellent for achieving the chancery purposes in commercial and civil law, universal criminal codes requiring charge limit (AND charging no matter “who offered who protection”)to overtly excessive physical action(s) against the body(ies) of another(s), affording real representation to defendants, providing humane execution, and according a well-formed appeals process seem best for avoiding excessive or egregious use of lex talionis and for exercising what universally is conceived as human rights of detainees in cases of capital punishment…without derogation to the essence of any peaceful faith or peaceful philosophy of unbelief.