Missing so far in this discussion, I believe, is that the statutory elements of capital offenses in the states and federal government do not include murders committed in the heat of passion. Most entities have alternative felony provision from Murder 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, Reckless Homicide and so on. They may have life sentences, with or without parole, as aggravated sanctions. Capital offenses typically include murders for hire, lying in wait (assassination), exceptionally cruel and egregious homicides. Also, Julie had it right; the most accurate translation of the commandment is, "Thou shalt not murder."

Kevin, One cause of the lower murder rate in the US is probably the fact that we are so much better at treating gunshot wounds now. For instance the county hospital in Chicago is not where I would go for cancer treatment or a heart attack, but if I were the victim of a shooting, I probably couldn't get better care elsewhere.

@Redeemed Certainly, guns make a significant difference in the ability to kill. Still, with a homicide rate around 1.3/100,000 for the first few years of the 20th century, U.S. citizens were far better at avoiding extreme violence than they are now. Also, if guns from the U.S. are simply the "cause" of Canada's increasing murder rate, how can it be that the murder rate in the U.S. has come down so much since 1993? It seems there's more that's involved than just weaponry. As for assuming that you were a violent criminal, I don't believe that I did so. I took it, from your description, that you started to act like one--not that you had been so previously. (If I were sitting on a jury, I would not support the execution of anyone fitting the description that you gave.) Finally, I'm wondering just what it is that you and many others are assuming is the explanation for the tremendous reduction in homicide rates in the U.S., since 1993. We still have plenty of firearms and broken families--and also plenty of young men at the peak age for murderous actions. Why are the potential killers not actualizing themselves at the rates of the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s? There may be some plausible answer--such as they've grown too sedentary (or perhaps sensitivity training has actually worked). Unless I've missed it, no other respondent has yet suggested an answer.

"The death penalty is not a deterrent...I know!" Really? You're wrong - it deters the murderer from ever killing again. And so just b/c you were not deterred from attempting to kill someone at 17, does that mean it doesn't deter others? I think you have much too high an opinion of yourself as "Everyman". And just b/c you attempted murder doesn't mean you're suddenly an expert. " Most Christians who favour the death penalty want vengeance, not justice..." And what's your evidence, or are you just giving your much vaulted opinion again? "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay." Yes, and it says in Rom. 13:3,4 "3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Oh, and thanks for sharing that you are a PhD who teaches at a cemetar... I mean, seminary. That in and of itself surely proves you are right. And even your dean's opinion of you - why, I am impressed.

@Leslie: Glad to be of encouragement. @Kevin: I agree thoroughly that one must not generalize from a single experience. I know of others, both those who were prevented from murdering and those who did, who agree with me. There is also an assumption you have made about me which is not correct. I was not a "violent criminal" but a very typical "middle class" kid who just got in a dreadful situation...I was "anyone" in your average evangelical congregation. Ponder that. Further, on the point of not generalizing from a single sample, you are basing your argument on the United States alone. In Canada, we have a far lower murder rate, despite having refused to hang anyone in almost half a century. True, that murder rate has been rising, but the cause is quite clear cut: guns bought legally in the United States that are smuggled into Canada. If your country would get sidearms under proper control, our murder rate would drop overnight! If you include places like Great Britain and Japan, you will find markedly lower rates than in your country. In Britain, the police do not routinely carry firearms!

It is truly marvelous when a violent criminal reforms. But it is wrong to generalize from one kind of circumstance to all the others. Murders committed in the heat of passion may well be the toughest kind to deter with any kind of legal threat (at least under modern conditions in which executions have not actually been witnessed by the most violent members of society). Other kinds of murders, however, such as those committed in the commission of another felony or simply because of an argument, may involve potential murderers who are more inclined to calculate the possible consequences of their actions. In at least two categories, murder rates were far higher without the Death Penalty than they have been since its heavier use (since 1993): 1) "Felony murders" topped 5000 in 1991 and 1992. By 2004, they'd fallen to fewer than 2400. 2) "Argument"-based murders averaged over 8000 for each year from 1976-1993. By 1999, they'd fallen under 5000--and have stayed under. Now, should we just assume that, after 1993, fatal armed robberies somehow fell out of style or that arguments somehow became less heated? Or could it be that persons considering deadly force in these sorts of circumstances starting counting the costs in modified terms, after 1993? My point is not that I know that the death penalty deters. My point is that we cannot responsibly generalize from one situation to all the others. Christianity is the ultimate "long-shot" faith. We trust that God has come to the utterly undeserving--and that God's redemptive power is not helpless before the depths to which the sinner has fallen. But the terrible issue of the death penalty is not settled by this belief. For, if the death penalty could deter some populations of potential killers, then its NON-USE may buy time for a relatively small number of murderers while, at the same time, depriving innocent persons of their further opportunities to hear and respond to the God's good news. Short of trying to confront every aspect of this issue, there is no magic bullet that rightly lays the death penalty to rest.

June 1st will mark the 28th year since my ordination as a pastor. In that time I have led 14 or 15 people to the Lord, baptized many more who had believed but never publicly identified with Christ through water and mentored four people whom God called from my congregations to go into ministry. God called me back to graduate studies, where I earned a PhD. Then God lead me to teach in a large theological seminary where I have impacted the lives of over one thousand different students. Many, as my Dean is quick to note, give me glowing reports about how I not only have passion for my topic, but how I relate it to helping them be more biblical in their ministry? What has this got to do with the death penalty? When I was almost 17, just two weeks before I received Christ as Lord and Saviour, I tried to murder someone. The details are not necessary, except to note that in Canada at the time, we still had the death penalty on the books, although no one had been executed for some time. As I tried to knife someone, what ran through my mind was PRECISELY: "I don't care if I hang...I will have the last laugh because he will be dead first." Thankfully, a "useless punk street kid" intervened and prevented me from doing so. The death penalty is not a deterrent...I KNOW. Most Christians who favour the death penalty want vengeance, not justice: "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay."

Are we going to say that we shouldn't have a death penalty but it is okay to imprison someone until natural death? If we do away with the one for fear of errors in prosecution, shouldn't we, to be fair, do away with the whole concept of imprisonment? Aren't there flaws in every level of criminal prosecution? To digress a tad, it should be noted that scripturally, a person was to be executed because his/her deed lead to forfeiture of the right to live. it was not intended to be a form of brutality.

Keith, You claim that there is an inconsistency in seeking to protect the unborn while executing a murderer. There is no inconsistency, here. In both cases, the acceptable principle of justice is to protect the innocent from wrongful death. A just society should protect the unborn from abortionists and, at the same time, protect other innocent persons through the deterrent effects of justly exercised executions. Christ's call to be salt and light are not calls for us to march to the beat of current moral sentiments. Nietzsche suggested that moderns would probably end up feeling more pity for condemned murderers than for their already dead victims. He in no way thought that this was because modernity would become more "Christian." Rather, he didn't expect much of anyone really to be Christian--he thought we'd just drift along with the pieces of the old Christian value system that we found to be most comfortable and soothing. He was wrong about the death of Christian belief, but he was right about much of the direction of social sentiments. Christians, now, must not take their cues from those whose morality is more concerned with their own feelings than with justice and the common good of society. When we seek--at the level of social policy--to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us, righteous respect for life requires that we give definite priority to the protection of the lives and rights of the innocent.

There will always be a death penalty as long as abortion is legal. And that's in spite of the fact that unborn babies commit exactly 0% of all crime and never get trials.