The Difference between Murder and Killing?

Comment

Comment by Francesco Luigi Rossi on February 8, 2013 at 2:06am

Correction Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1846 ...

Comment by Francesco Luigi Rossi on February 8, 2013 at 2:05am

HI everyone:

As a European, where only 1 country - Belarus (historically White Russia) - is the only one of 49 countries that still maintains the death penalty, my objection to the death penalty is that mistakes are possible. It is well known that "innocent" people have been executed for committing murders which they didn't in fact commit.

(I say "innocent", because some of these people were indeed guilty of other crimes, but not of the actual murder for which they were executed, so they were executed for being "bad" people; others were instead innocent in all senses and their sentence was WRONG and unjustified).

Lastly, here in Europe, the death penalty has been used historically as a selective weapon against political opponents, minorities of various kinds, etc.

I don't want to comment on the situation in the US, but seen from outside it is curious that Michigan abolished the death penalty as far back as 1946, followed by 17 other states, the last being Connecticut in 2012, while 33 states still maintain the death penalty. (I will refrain from making the easy comment, along with China (PRC), Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.).

I don't question the legitimacy of policemen or soldiers killing in the "line of duty", but it should be recalled that the stock defense of Nazi soldiers was "I was only following orders".

As I understand it, soldiers are bound in any case by international law, as in the story of the "Bridge over the River Kwai", where the Japanese officer felt bound only by his own code of Bushido, while the British officer insisted on the strict application of the Geneva Convention. International treaties are contracts entered into freely, so there is no excuse for not complying with them.

Similarly, policemen are bound by their national laws, to avoid them taking the law into their own hands ("vigilantism"). 

Summing up, I think modern States can afford to be merciful, although personally I think a sentence of life imprisonment is justified ("Throw away the key!"), as it keeps the convicted person alive, so that if evidence emerges at a later stage that he (or she) is in fact innocent, he (or she) is still around to be released (and indemnified, I suppose).

I would be interested in reading your comments, but I don't want to start a debate, as I am not competent to defend the European position.

PS. I agree with Dave concerning animals, etc., but people, even "bad" people, are different.

Comment by Dave Gosse on January 31, 2013 at 11:17am

What's the scripture?  "Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."  There's a bunch of aphorisms which advise on issues of justice and redress and it would be a worthwhile endeavor to collect them up in one volume.  The difference of man and the difference it makes, i.e. slaughtering animals is not the same as slaughtering people, for sound ontological reasons. 

"The modern world isn't too evil.  In some ways it is too good. The virtues have been cut loose from their moorings and are running wild.  And unrestrained virtue can do far more harm than any evil." G. K. Chesterton (paraphrase)  In their mad endeavor to do good, (save the animals, save the planet, heal this, treat that, etc.) the virtuous modern man destroys all that is true and good.  Without a foundation, a Biblical foundation, for good and evil then those who wish to do good, and there are many, have no standard for judging the effect of their effort - doing good becomes doing what makes me feel good, and feeling is no substitute for truth.

Confusing the taking of animals for food, whether raised domestically or hunted, with the taking of human life is part of the damage the virtues run wild have brought with them. Inappropriate mercy and inappropriate harshness accompany the confusion.  The failure to distinguish between agent and tool is the root of the debate over firearms.  we make every allowance for he agent, who has the capacity to act for good or evil, and blame all on the tool, which cannot, by its very nature, act at all. 

Comment by Carolyn Burns on January 30, 2013 at 9:14pm

Thanks so much!  All comments appreciated and beautifully expressed. thanks for bringing in the Luther and  Vocation aspects.  Just got notice from our Board of Ed exploring  this subject  and the Second Amendment for a discussion group!!??!.;O).Bet every hunter would show up for that one.  I also referred them to Pless's A Small Catechism on Human Life. 

Comment by Nicholas Tieman on January 30, 2013 at 7:51pm

Vocation is such a great concept, isn't it? In my opinion, one of the greatest blessings of the Lutheran tradition.

Comment by James Robertson on January 30, 2013 at 5:56am

The hangman illustrates the difference between murder and killing. It is homicide, but justifiable since the State has authority to kill in defense of the common good.

Comment by Rev. Richard Mittelstadt on January 30, 2013 at 5:50am

I do have to correct what I said, henchman was the wrong word, it should have said could serve as a hangman. Sorry for the mistake.

Comment by Rev. Richard Mittelstadt on January 29, 2013 at 8:55pm

Thank you for being a voice for those who can't speak for themselves.

Comment by Rev. Richard Mittelstadt on January 29, 2013 at 8:53pm

Carolyn,
It's more an issue of vocation than being premeditated. For instance, Luther talks of how a Christian can be a henchman and still be a christian because of vocation. He acts as a representative of the government, so killing, taking a life is part of his vocation. But to take the life of an unborn child is murder, it is taking a life against God's command, it is one acting for ones own interest. A mother's vocation is to preserve, nurture and care for life, not destroy it. Luther also wrote a piece about how too a soldier could be saved. As a soldier, killing is a part of his vocation, he represents government and government is God's agent of enforcing the law, curbing evil and protecting its citizens. Hope that helps.