Crystal Walrein said:
Well, I guess they go by the statement in Exodus that anyone killing on purpose should be put to death themselves. Meh.
Actually, the oldest forms of Judaic law no longer apply to Christianity; aside from the fundamentals, the New Testament is a new set of instructions.
Speaking of said instructions, they are indeed based on the highest principles of mercy and forgiveness. This, however, is powerless in the face of the international system of separation of church and state, as governments, doing their best to be objective, base punishments for crimes on the severity of the crime.
This is not to say, however, that the choice of what is defined as crime is equally as objective. Most countries that value order enough to implement a justice system tend to base what is considered a punishable offense or not foremost on what is considered iniquitous in the largest indigenous religion, as, whatever one's personal view on religion is, it is obvious that it is useful for establishing social norms and mores and keeping order. And, from this, the basis for all laws springs, more or less; as, with any law, it is rooted in criminalizing the violation of any sense of fairness in any element of society, and, truth be told, fairness only has concrete definition in the various religions.
This being said, it is more than a bit presumptuous to label a certain religious group hypocritical for the existence of the death penalty in a country. As was previously mentioned, governments set these rules, and, as we were discussing America in particular, it is impossible for one group to create all the rules for the world's most heterogeneous country. As much as some of us may detest one law (or lack thereof) or another, most nations are at the point where it is almost impossible to pass or repeal laws. I admit to there being laws that I believe to be immoral, and I may feel fervently enough regarding certain issues to actively work for change, but so many disagreements exist between the innumerably various factions of a democratically-elected government that I do not expect to ever see myself getting my way.
Lack of democracy; in other words, suppression of diverse thought, tends to be the most effective modern way to maintain order, unfortuantely; unlike many religious societies of old where order was achieved through mutual respect, order now comes through fear and power. Islamic republics and the implementation of Sharia law are an interesting and pertinent example; it is one of the few cases where a group has seized and manipulated a religion to create a police state with great success, so much so that the governments have succeeded in indoctrinating the people with their definition of justice, whereas most states ruled in a dictatorial/oligarchic fashion have power over the action of the people but cannot seize the mind.
In this victory over action and mind, terrorism arises, with the manipulated version of Islam becoming the real version, and one that carries the justice of oppressive government with it. And, as the only true way for a government to prove their might is to threaten death, death is the main weapon of the terrorist.
However, in freer societies, death is always taught to be a last resort technique, despite the reason being fundamentally the same; always either in the belief that it is justice or merely to make an example to future criminals. The fact is, man passing judgement on man by means of execution has existed as long as man has exacted punishment. This is most certainly antithetical to some religions and the generic principles of modern society, but, the problem arises when death as punishment is acceptable as religious doctrine in some faiths (again, Islam automatically comes to mind) and one system of justice itself becomes a punishable injustice in another justice system.
In general, regarding Christianity, the death penalty has existed in such societies out of no better reason than men who cannot hold themselves to a certain standard believing that justice is better served when gratification is more instant; out of something primal, Man's
Thanatos, as Siegmund Freud called it (though this man should rarely be trusted in the field of human nature, psychology, and sociology.) It is a need to kill, a need to witness and be a party to death that supercedes the religious principles of many; and, getting back to the hypocrisy issue, I do not see it as being able to be labled as such because of the centuries and centuries of misinformation passed down in various societies regarding the details of their own morals; simply put, it is not common knowledge that Christianity forbids execution.
Zacarias Moussaoui tempts even the most principled of us, though; one can puzzle over such issues that, if given life instead of death, he could potentially be a danger to other inmates; prison is a very fertile breeding ground for radical Islam, and it makes one question whether Moussaoui would be more of a danger alive than dead. (Though, upon hearing that he would be guaranteed lifelong solitary confinement, this fear is assuaged.) Others may wonder if life in the place of death would never give Moussaoui the opportunity to have his faith in radical Islam tested to its limits by mortal terror, but, on closer examination, death is obviously nothing more than martyrdom for him.
So what do we do in a case where death obviously seems so deserved? In this case, since Moussaoui wins in his mind no matter what the outcome, as either way he feels validated by punishment at the hands of people he is trying to bring to his own personal justice, it would be pointless to reciprocate the base philosophy of the terrorist against him. Although the taking of the moral high ground in this case would be largely symbolic, as it has no impact whatsoever on our war on terror, it is pointless to kill someone for violating our laws when he had desired to do the exact same thing. We definitely made the right choice this time.