The third installment of the torture series. Suicide was the sequel to the torture thread, and this is the sequel to that. They all tie in together, it's quite fascinating.

You are the king's executioner.
Good king, bad king, you pick. Any form of execution, any customs, any traditions. How do you justify taking human life? What do you do if you don't agree with the sentence? Murder must be avenged, but what if the murderer repents? What about non-lethal punishments?

What about firing squads? As I understand, the way it was done was only one man's gun was loaded. That way no one knew who actually killed him, so no one was guilty. But does that work? Or did they all kill him, because they killed in intent?

Here's where it ties into suicide. I didn't want to derail that, which I think this is. What about forcing someone to commit suicide? Rather than helping them. What if you give them a choice? Take your own life or I'll haunt you to the ends of the earth? Basically, sparing yourself being their executioner by making them their own? Is that murder? Or is it justice?

Here go all hypothetical discussions concerning executions.

God told the Israelites the conditions of the death penalty and if you notice they had no need for prisons. It was restitution or (should the punishment fit the crime) death. If they repented they know what they did was wrong and needn't worry about their eternal souls.

As for method, my people tend to use penalties such as exile or being turned over to vicious beasts. No one is to blame for their death and should they survive it is clearly the will of God.

This one looks like fun... let's bring back protagonist John...

My stance on "writing about it" remains the same as in the torture thread. Write what you want to write, just be considerate of audience.

Now as to doing it... Romans says to obey the governing authorities, unless in direct contradiction to Biblical mandate. God speaks against murder, but against execution, that I don't know. Let's remember that back in the Bible days, governments were anything but just. That means that there wasn't going to be any "this trial wasn't fair, so it isn't right to kill the guy sentenced to death." There just weren't fair trials most of the time. Look at Jesus' trial.
This means that if any of the executioners were Christians, they were killing regardless of "justice."
But the point about Israel is a good one. God said, "kill them all, down to the children." No matter how much they begged and pleaded for mercy, whether they were kids or babies, God said to knock off all of the Canaanites. Every. Single. One. No. Exceptions.
I think it is a mistake that Christians today are so afraid of violence. They ought to be afraid of what Jesus taught against in the Sermon on the Mount. He said that the emphasis on "no murder" was wrong; the intended emphasis was on "no hatred or anger leading to murder."
Long story short... protagonist John is an executioner. Someone unjustly condemned is brought before him to be killed. "Obey the governing authorities..." in my opinion, the axe must come down.
Of course, Protagonist John should probably look for another job, if I were him.

I just try to avoid it, where possible. But I think I agree with Reiyen, pretty much all the way around. I wouldn't be able to handle a job like that.

If John knows the man is unjustly condemned, then he should do something about it. Because methods of unjust trials were condemned by God, and the unjust trial would be against what God said.
If he didn't know one way or another, then yes, he has to execute the guys. Otherwise. . . a) he's letting someone get murdered, not executed, and b) unless he repents later on, we no longer like him as a protagonist. It's "You knew he was innocent, idiot! Why didn't you do something?"

There are a few examples of unjust trials condemned by God, such as trials at night, like Jesus' trial, but otherwise He didn't say much. He didn't tell any of the Gentile believers they should try to reform their courts. He didn't tell any of the Roman believers that they shouldn't participate in the justice system. God knew there was injustice, but all He seems to have said was, "Obey the governing authorities. . . for they do not wield the sword in vain." We all know what the sword was for... its the axe in the story of Protagonist John.
That's why I said John should probably quit his job.

It's a difficult subject for me. When they executed people for adultery, blasphemy, murder etc in the Old Testament Jesus hadn't died and paid the penalty for sins then.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

So does that mean that if you want to execute people for murder by God's law you also have to execute them for adultery or any law breaking offence? I feel that killing people in the Old Testament doesn't hold the same for today. Maybe I'm just being soft. I prefer prison sentences in my books


I have murder etc in my book, it's a murder mystery so it's like the main subject, but justice will be seen to be done in the end. I guess in Elizabethan times punishments were far stricter than they are in this day and age, so I'm not sure how I'll deal with that. As long as justice is done I don't think it matters in what way you do it.

As to if they repent I'm not sure. I think if they repent they should see even more why they should be punished, but Jesus said when you're saved your slate's wiped clean.

Paul was a blasphemer and he stood by and consented to Stephen's death yet he was completely forgiven by God and set to minister. It's how to have a good balance I guess, showing God's justice but His mercy as well.

1Ti 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
1Ti 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

That's what the sacrifices were for. As a temporary replacement until Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice.

It's not like everybody back then went to hell. Take Elijah, as an example. Now, he didn't die, but we do know that he did sin. He was not perfect is the point. Yet, somehow, his sins were forgiven because he went to heaven. The same goes for Moses. He sinned, was punished on earth, and the sacrifices covered for him until he could be covered with the blood of Jesus. We see in the transfiguration that indeed Moses had gone to heaven.

Now, if the person had not been a believer, then the death sentence would (and is) bad news. Because we know that after they're dead, if they hadn't accepted the truth, there is no hope for them. And like I said, it's still the same way today. If they aren't a believer, and they are executed, you cut short their chances.

That's why I'm against the death penalty. If I were in the shoes of protagonist John, I never would have taken the job in the first place. If it were an un-believer, they need as much chance as they can get. If the condemned were a believer, than the penalty is likely un-just, or if it were just we'd need to question whether or not they were actually saved.

Now, all that doesn't mean you can't have a cruel evil character who dishes out the death penalty for his purposes, in fact it can help build a strong foundation for a deeply evil guy. As long as it isn't portrayed as a good thing, I don't have any trouble with the death penalty in fantasy. However, depending on the desired audience, it probably should be avoided.

So, to sum up where I stand, I am very against the death penalty. If it were up to me, I would never give the death penalty. Jail sentences and fines are more suitable. To write it in fantasy, however, it is OK as long as it is portrayed as something sad and evil, and not good.

In Christ our Savior,
Caleb

And if you look at society today, with hardly any death penalty, murderers, rapists and terrorists get off easy but the victims still have to suffer. Our ethics go to the dogs if we can't punish a crime worthy to be punished.

A lifetime or long time in prison would be a good punishment. After that, there's still hope for them. If you kill them, you're basically sending them to hell.

They've already sent themselves to Hell if they haven't repented. A life time in prison isn't so bad in this country, and the victims (taxpayers) are the ones supporting them.

But how can you ethically and Biblicaly justify killing someone? Even if they have done something awful. The commandment is 'You shall not murder.' Not, 'You shall not murder unless the government tells you to and you are an executioner.'

But if they committed a crime, it's not murder. I always think Of Joab, David's right hand man, and the early church. I don't know quite what went down with Joab's spiritual life when he followed David's orders despite better judgment. In the early church, Rome especially, there were lots of Christians in politics and the army and such. Some of them were given the command to kill their fellow Christians and from what I read it was sort of a "it's all good man, I know it's nothing personal" type deal. Granted, I don't think God would hold the executioner in lower esteem if he chose not to but it was those sorts of acts that kept the church alive, the executioner would have been killed if he refused and then he wouldn't have been able to spread the gospel further. The executioners didn't do it to save their own necks, they did it so the faith could still spread.

This is turning into an interesting conversation. I have no desire to curtail your little debate, but I would like to remind you to keep the conversation within the bounds of fiction. We are not arguing whether or not there ought to be a death penalty in today's society, but whether or not there should be one in our writings. Real life examples may be used with caution, and as examples, but if it becomes the issue or the premise then this ceases to be a theological discussion and becomes a political debate.

End friendly moderator notice. Carry on.

Then he should just not take the job in the first place. Anyways! Back to fiction...

Like I said before, if portrayed in a bad and evil light, it's good. But not if it's portrayed as good...