1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

JeSoul:

There are crimes we commit against each other and there are crimes we commit against the laws of the land - and sometimes these two intersect. I think each situation is different and should be approached as such.

If a 'member' of the church despoils a child, not only will I call the police, press and anyone else who will listen on him, I might be tempted to unload my 9mm on him as well. I have dealt with a christian producer one time who took my money and never delivered the services. I simply let it go and warned others not to do business with him. If the amount of money were larger, I would've probably tried to get it back one way or another.

There are various levels/degrees of crimes - and subsequently levels/degrees of response - and hence levels of punishment.

MyJoe:


JeSoul the sharpshooter!

nuclearboy:

@Jesoul:

Many respects, Ma'am. I just thought to bow in fear and respect - a semi/automatic pistol in the hands of an angry woman is 

vescucci:

I guess it would be awkward (even though he'll be dead) for a criminal to tell JeSoul, 'I need this your speech like I need a hole in the head'

nuclearboy:

I think the Apostle was speaking to his and God's definition of the word "Christians"! That word "Christian" is the problem as it is a much abused and misapplied title.

As used by Paul, a Christian cannot be found in any of the situations you have used as an example. Fornicators (talk less of rapists) would not have been considered Christians in his day or by him. Swindlers, manipulators, craddle-robbers etc also would not be considered Christians at that time. That I believe, was the extent of purity of the Church that Christ left behind. Ananias and Sapphira remain a case in point showing how pure God wanted His Church to be.

With that in mind, the manner of "matter against each other" that Christians would have had in those days, would be such as disagreements likely based on misconceptions and/or inadequate knowledge of the situation. Sitting down amongst other Christians then would have clarified issues and restored love.

TODAY however, Pastors are thieves, serial liars and swindlers, murderers and criminals. To all intents and purposes therefore, the definition has changed and we see how people tell us blatantly that Ananias and Sapphira are the real Christians because they profess and "at least, they are doing something" as we see bandied on NairaLand so often. Shebi Ananias at least gave half abi (and advertised it) while you kept quiet (having followed the injunction of secrecy)?

I have always seen the Bible (and God) as dynamic. "With the Pure, I will show Myself Pure and with the Perverse, I will show Myself Perverse" is what the Word says.

IF THEY CAN GO OUTSIDE THE PURVEY OF CHRISTIANITY, THE VICTIM HAS EQUAL RIGHT TO GO TO SECULAR LAW.

JeSoul:

Lol. You fellas are funny lol.

Me I no send anybody oh. Just come and find my trouble . . . try breaking into my house or hurting a member of my family . . . you go chop correct lead. The only problem I have with the death penalty is that it is not quick and swift enough.
On point!

MyJoe:

Plus lots of guiltless people get whacked. . .  by the state. Wouldn't you say that is another problem with it?

MyJoe:

Plus lots of guiltless people get whacked. . .  by the state. Wouldn't you say that is another problem with it?

m_nwankwo:

Hi MyJoe. Even, when people are guilty, their is no spiritual bases for death penalty in my opinion. Neither the state nor an individual should harbor the desire to kill another human being even if that person is a criminal. Murder remain murder even when a murderer is the victim. Death penalty is lacking in both love and justice and do no seek ways to rehabilitate the criminal and turn him into a new path. Even if the criminal is a pathological murderer, murdering him or her is not the answer if the aim is to protect society from his evil ways. Society can be protected from his activities by removing him from the public space, and there are non violent ways to do this. My view is that the unconscious or conscious urge for revenge is the motivating impulse for seeking death penalty and not the urge for justice or for protection of society from the activities of the criminal.  Violence is a viscous circle and will only breed violence. Violence reprograms the brain making it virtually impossible for the spirit to have any influence on the physical body. Once human beings are subjected to so much violence , all that you will see is the crudest form of baseness. Neither the state nor individuals should encourage any form of violence and the first step  in this is for all nation states to abolish death penalty. Stay blessed.

JeSoul:

  Appreciated.

But could not disagree more and could not articulate my belief as well as you have. But simply put, I believe in crime and punishment and justice meted out accordingly. And as a christian living by the bible, see no case against it but infact just the opposite.

JeSoul:

^I know you do sir - which is part of what just makes you so darn awesome! Thank you!

I have thought long and often about the phrase 'sanctity of life' (I don't even like the phrase self) . . . and cannot bring myself to see all as the same - especially when the life in question has shown he/she does not value life.

. . . just musing.

JeSoul:

The only case against the DP and this is addressed today by not applying it where guilt is not beyond a shadow of a doubt - at least in the society I'm in.

  Appreciated.

But could not disagree more and could not articulate my belief as well as you have. But simply put, I believe in crime and punishment and justice meted out accordingly. And as a christian living by the bible, see no case against it but infact just the opposite.

m_nwankwo:

Hi MyJoe. Even, when people are guilty, their is no spiritual bases for death penalty in my opinion. Neither the state nor an individual should harbor the desire to kill another human being even if that person is a criminal. Murder remain murder even when a murderer is the victim. Death penalty is lacking in both love and justice and do no seek ways to rehabilitate the criminal and turn him into a new path. Even if the criminal is a pathological murderer, murdering him or her is not the answer if the aim is to protect society from his evil ways. Society can be protected from his activities by removing him from the public space, and there are non violent ways to do this. My view is that the unconscious or conscious urge for revenge is the motivating impulse for seeking death penalty and not the urge for justice or for protection of society from the activities of the criminal.  Violence is a viscous circle and will only breed violence. Violence reprograms the brain making it virtually impossible for the spirit to have any influence on the physical body. Once human beings are subjected to so much violence , all that you will see is the crudest form of baseness. Neither the state nor individuals should encourage any form of violence and the first step  in this is for all nation states to abolish death penalty. Stay blessed.

nuclearboy:

Hi M_Nwankwo

Here's a purely hypothetical situation I'd like your take on - you have a 2 year old daughter and walk in to find wife AND that baby under threat by someone obviously under the influence of drugs. In your presence, derangee stabs your wife for fun then announces grandly that its your daughter's turn.

Incidentally, there is a machete close to you that he didn't notice. What will be your next line of action or ought I say, what will you do?

JeSoul:

But simply put, I believe in crime and punishment and justice meted out accordingly. And as a christian living by the bible, see no case against it but infact just the opposite.

MyJoe:

Just BTW, did you read Dostoevsky novel of that title? I think it gives a lot of insight into crime and its repercussions and how society may approach the matter of punishment.

m_nwankwo:

Thanks for your kind words. It is essential that we believe that which our souls sense to be the Truth. Based on your present experience and insight, you cannot see why death penalty is wrong especially when the criminal himself have no regard or respect for the life of others. It will be wrong for me or anybody else to persuade you otherwise. Thus, your present position on death penalty is in sync with that which is alive within you and you should keep it that way. I am always very happy when fellow human beings give expression to that which they genuinely believe and even when I disagree with the belief, I know the person is on the right path. As always stay blessed my sister.

nuclearboy:

Hi M_Nwankwo

Here's a purely hypothetical situation I'd like your take on - you have a 2 year old daughter and walk in to find wife AND that baby under threat by someone obviously under the influence of drugs. In your presence, derangee stabs your wife for fun then announces grandly that its your daughter's turn.

Incidentally, there is a machete close to you that he didn't notice. What will be your next line of action or ought I say, what will you do?

LOLs. . .something like "who do anyhow go see anyhow" isnt it?. . .I really love your scenario and at the same time appreciate M_Nwankwos stance.

MyJoe:

It is taken for granted in modern criminal jurisprudence in many places, including Nigeria and the US, that guilt is to be “proved beyond reasonable doubt”. (By the way, it is "beyond reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of doubt" - they mean different things.) So what I was referring to is the well-known fact that in spite of safeguards written into legislations, a few innocent people still get executed. Right now, I don’t have the time to dig up US cases where people spent years on death row only to be found innocent. In some cases it is the same police officer who investigated the offence and advised the state to seek the death penalty that goes through the process of the getting the “felon” released. A rise in such cases forced some US states to put a "moratorium" on the application of the death penalty.

I don’t even want to talk about China where they simply pick you up, torture you into confessing to the crime and on that confession sentence you to death, or Iran where, finding nothing in the law books to accuse an undesirable of, they will say “he has offended God” and give him the death penalty. The US and other first world countries have cases of innocent people who got whacked because the justice system is imperfect, as it is run by mortals who only got five senses. This has not been addressed. I doubt it can. And for me, this is a major problem with the death penalty and the only way to solve it is to abolish the death penalty completely. But my complete rejection of the death penalty goes beyond that. Which is why I think states like New Mexico have tried, but not enough.

You see how heartless the death penalty is when you observe cases like Tookie Williams. He had obviously turned a new leaf. He served the community. He insisted he did not do that particular crime. He had become a model citizen. But, no. The society's crave for revenge had to be satisfied.

Pastor AIO:

1Cor 6 1 - 6


If a member of your church Desecrates your 16 year old daughter would you rather settle the matter in church, or would you take him to court so that the full weight of the law can be brought to bear on him?

If you have a contract with another christian and he swindles you and runs. The day you catch him, will you call police for him or will you call other church members?

If a pastor is a thief, a paedophille or a rapiist, should the matter be settled by the secular courts or should he be brought to church where if he repents he can be forgiven and the evil spirit exorcized out of him.

JeSoul:

 I only support the application of the death penalty where it is indeed beyond [b]a shadow [/b]of doubt - not just reasonable.

JeSoul:
 Your argument is strong and compelling and I do agree 1000% in the famous saying "it is better for a guilty man to go free, than an innocent man spend a day behind bars". I strongly agree that there are few things worse than innocent men imprisoned. So circle the wagon back to my first quote above - I only support it when the case is irrefutable - and usually when there is a confession involved, video evidence, independently confirmed DNA evidence from pro and anti parties etc. Eye witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable and subjective so I place little value on those in capital offense cases.

JeSoul:
  Let me present to you this case that happened in my backyard few yrs ago . . .

- A quiet evening in Mont Vernon, NH. 4 teenagers randomly pick a house. Armed with a machete & knife, they break in and brutally stab and slash and gash a mother to death as she lay sleeping in bed. Then turn and apply the same treatment to her 11-yr old daughter - stab, slash and gash her with a machete and knife (dad was away on a business trip). They leave them to their death. They take/steal absolutely nothing. Their only goal was to kill whoever was in the house. Miraculously the little girl survived, but will live a life terribly scarred. They're caught and brought to court. During the trial, none of them denies anything, they confess their only aim was to simply kill. 3 of them expressed regret and remorse - but the leader of the gang laughed out loud in court several times, relishing the attention. He even gleamed and smiled in pride as gory details were recounted and presented. 

I honestly want to know why such a bastard (pls forgive my choice of words) should be allowed to live? People who have shown wanton, lascivious, devilish, reckless, remorseless care for human life - do not deserve to have that same courtesy shown to them. By committing such grave, incomprehensible crimes, they give up the right to be treated as valuable human beings.

JeSoul:
Maybe I'm merciless.

JeSoul:
But my mother returning home one evening with her car riddled with bullet holes from a robbery attempt was enough to impact my young mind more than any philosophical or hypothetical musings. I can still remember putting my small fingers into the holes, trying to comprehend what have happened. Evil must be made to face the music for their crimes. Future murderers must be shown that there are grave and severe consequences for taking another human life. Why should they sit in a comfortable jail cell (paid for by me btw) to live out their days while their victims lie 6 feet under?

JeSoul:
I do understand that there are 'degrees of murder' - we should not be rounding them all up and lining em up for the firing squad  - but killers like in my example above, I fully support the DP.
Ah! surely you must know how I feel about China and co . . . those people execute people for looking at them the wrong way, or using the president's toilet. When I say DP, I'm refering to how its practiced in developed and generally 'moral/reasonable' societies - not jungles like many countries in Africa and North Korea and co.

JeSoul:

Revenge is not the right word sir, more like justice.

For a person who exhibits genuine remorse - I am a bit torn. Only because I still believe in forgiveness and moving on. But at the same time Laws are not created with wiggle room - or else they won't be laws. They cannot be applied dynamically and subjectively on a case-by-case basis or should I say reversed/not reversed depending on the future remorse of the perpetrator. If the law says you commit murder, and you will be subject to death - it is your own choice to ¹ leave the society ² obey the law or suffer the consequences - people who chose the latter and unfortunately turned over a new leaf after the crime, must still suffer the consequences.

JeSoul:

Nuclearboy your scenario is . . . lol.

I would actually treat very differently people who were impaired at the time of their crimes. Drug addicts, mentally ill, emtionally unstable people etc I think should be judged and sentenced differently from people who merely took a stroll out and decided to kill someone for the heck of it.

nuclearboy:

@MyJoe:

I actually asked that question because of you but not of you. I KNEW (100%) that M_Nwankwo (since he had shown up) would give a balanced response that would probably even go where even I did not consider (AND HE DID); because my understanding of Jesoul's "9mm" post seems to me to exactly replicate that scenario.

My meaning is that Jesoul would NOT commit murder under less than extreme conditions just as M_Nwankwo too has suggested "may" be his leaning if such comes up. Very recently, I have been proud to do something on this forum I would under other conditions absolutely rebel against. And I would happily do so again under same conditions.

Have you considered there could come up situations so extreme that you would gladly trade places with Jesoul and after using the 9mm, apply a "UTC" (axe) as well? Its all well and good to hold the moral high ground but I feel it premature to decide whats right or wrong when none of us knows what the future holds for us. Many have done unbelievable things, not because they wanted, but because of situations. And governments have been known to allow such as the "death penalty", simply because of public opinion (to restrain jungle justice but rather have a controlled implementation)

By the way, I'm curious - whats your take on the originating post at https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-654729.0.html ?

MyJoe:

I understand. I was merely re-stating how the legal system actually does it.

You mean where we actually know, like Lawrence Anini or John Alan Mohammed.

I see the point. I share these sentiments. Never doubted them their validity. It’s hard to ague against them.

The death penalty does not deter crime, it has been known to fuel it – there’s a lot of Pro and Con text on that about and I have found one side far more compelling than the other over the years.

And most cells certainly aren’t comfortable. An American judge a couple of years back came up with the clever idea of constantly playing. . . wait for it, classical music for inmates! He realized that most inmates hated the cool sounding stuff and hated jail as a result! On a more serious note, I understand some US federal jails are not that bad, but with the rate at which aggressive commercial interests are using prisoners for hard labour in America nowadays I won’t pray for a US jail. Besides you have got to see places like Parchman in Mississippi to believe that “hell is real” is no idle talk. I won’t bore you with details of what I saw when I had an opportunity to meet robbery suspects, many of whom have since been killed, years back at someplace I was quite reliably informed was a hotel compared to a standard Nigerian jail. I do understand that the prison system is flawed, what with AK-47 and M-16-wielding inmates defying soldiers in their fortified cells in Venezuela as we speak here. But the problems with the prison system border largely on sabotage and corruption and are much easier to deal with than that of killing innocents.

One of these days, the Motley Gang of Nairaland Mugabists is going to come for you at the FA section!

MyJoe:

Thanks for the above because it brings out my point very well. In fact, when I mentioned Stanley “Tookie” Williams, what you wrote above is exactly what I was thinking.

Now let’s look at the “degrees of murder” and why I believe a comprehensive abolition of the death penalty is the way to go.

First, there are people for whom we are not sure that they actually committed the crime. A guy commits murder and makes it look like someone else did it. In fact, there is a picture of “someone else” holding the gun. Or the prosecutor argues that since the victim died at three thirty and it has been clearly demonstrated that no one else entered the premises between 2.30 and 4pm, he did it. The jury agrees. Most capital offence cases fall into this category – no confession, no video. We believe they did it, but we don’t know. Stanley Williams’ case fell into the category. For you, we should not apply the death penalty in this case. I agree.

Second, there are people who confess, plead extenuating or mitigating circumstances and demonstrate their remorse. For these people, you are torn, but feel the law should be applied, anyway. I see it differently. If you re-read what you wrote, you will observe that you used the word “unfortunately” in describing the act of showing remorse on the part of a willful killer. Maybe it was an error or you meant unfortunately in the sense that it is only coming after the crime, but I think it demonstrates the revenge feelings behind the death penalty. A life for a life, full stop. He killed someone, so he should be killed, full stop. Tookie, for instance, devoted his life to turning kids off crime and serving humanity and only God knows by how many the lives he saved outnumber those he allegedly killed (he never confessed). And how many more he would have saved had he been allowed to continue the good work. Can you see why I think what is at work here is revenge, and not justice?

But if justice means giving people a punishment commensurate with their crime then the death penalty, as practised in Nigeria and the US, still does not quite measure up. I mean, what is someone enters a house, massacre the men and violation the women before strangling them? Or if someone kills someone by pouring raw acid on them, does the court order a corresponding punishment? No. He gets hanged, injected or sent to an electric chair. Now, the Iranians who will pour acid on the fellow believe that is justice – before Allah and man! Tribal men in Pakistan will wipe out the entire family of the first scenario I have – to them that is justice before Allah and man! But I guess the Americans will claim these are “barbaric” and insist that their own method which gives a punishment that is far less than the crime in this case is “justice”.

Third, there are those who confess, make a victory sign and spit on the legal system the way someone around here spits on any post she doesn’t quite like – many here will remember Monday Osunbor of the Anini gang. You believe these ones should be sent straight to the gallows, in fact, the only problem you have with the death penalty in cases of this nature is that it is not swift enough. In my opinion, do these people deserve to die? Yes. Should we kill them? No.

1. We run the risk of killing innocents by having laws that allow us to kill these kinds of people.
2. He should live and suffer the consequences of his crime in a prison, get a chance to reflect on his life and choose to make amends.
3. By killing him the state desensitizes itself, loses its capacity for compassion and becomes blood-guilty. They shoot suspected armed robbers at Nigerian police stations – this has created a whole lot of problems, policemen who go around rounding up people and shooting them.

When the state of New Mexico, I think it was New Mexico, came up with a modified form of the death penalty, applying it only to those who killed law enforcement officers or witnesses to a crime, I applauded it. But when I thought long and hard about it, I realised that the problems associated with the death penalty have not gone away with all this modification. NM has since abolished it altogether, I believe.

It would be impossible to apply the death penalty exclusively to the third group because “laws are not created with wiggle room - or else they won't be laws”. No matter how much we try, there is simply no method of ensuring that only the guilty get executed. Once the law says “murderers”, all convicted murderers will get the gallows. The only path of compassion that safeguards those innocently accused and convicted is to put them all in jail. A jail is bad enough, but it does not have the quality of finality that the death penalty has. In my opinion, there is something amiss when humans who can’t bring someone to life executes someone.

I think the real problem with the West is that they have gone too soft on criminals –this applies in the US where they have the death penalty and Western Europe where they don’t. An enforcer for a drug cartel gets caught in the act. Rather than lock him up and throw the keys away, some judge grants bail and he goes off to kill some witness as soon as he is released. Lock them up for life – no parole. But what you find is the parole boards puting hardened criminals back into the streets and everyone is at risk. In places you can simply buy your way out at the police station. These are the areas that need to be tightened up.

That scenario actually raises an entirely different issue – the extent to which we will go to prevent a crime. The answer is not hard. I, for one, am not in support of the Nigerian government negotiating with Boko Haram. These guys have killed law enforcement officers and clearly intend to kill more. Should we start negotiating they are likely to kill more policemen while negotiations are going on – not even the Pakistanis have seen the ferocity and frequency with which these guys now carry out their attacks. The only way to stop them is to fight them in the war they themselves have declared. Killing someone in a fight of this nature is one thing. But it is a different thing when someone is arrested and handcuffs are placed on his hands and feet and he is then shot. The purpose then, is no longer to prevent a bandit from killing your daughter, but to avenge your daughter’s death