Bring back the death penalty in this case

[ThisWiseRobin]

AIBU to wish for the death penalty. How a mother can kill her baby with a hairdryer.
I read this to my husband who asked me to stop and was crying.
I'm Christian and am taught that all but one sin is forgivable.
BUT Our Lord also said that to harm one little one , you are better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea.
While some interpretations claim it means misleading them, I think it's much more than this.
Today I feel bereft of love for the human race.
Of course this monster will claim Domestic violence, drugs , mental health etc.
I hope, as there is no death penalty, that she spends the rest of her life begging to die.
Sorry right now, all I can say is "Father forgive them. For they know not what they do".....because right now I Can't.

So who gets to cast the first stone?

Quote "Judges says an eye for an eye .....because its about punishment fitting the crime for law keepers. We are supposed to trust those in this position to carry out the punishment fitting the crime."

An eye for an eye is an interesting one. And please correct me if I am wrong, I am just an atheist. An ex Christian one though. So I do know some of the Bible.

" An eye for an eye" first appears in Exodus 21. The Mosaic slave laws, and it refers to slaves. People other people own. The OT is big on that. Owning people is ok. Indeed, it is ordered.

It is expanded in Lev 24:20 - breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he puts a blemish in a man so it is done in him. (LSV). But it is a bit awkward to use the Leviticus version, because Leviticus is just stuffed full of capital offences. So if religious folk want to use that version, they really should follow all of Leviticus. And no pork allowed. Leviticus is big on that.

Deu 19:21 And your eye does not pity--life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.. Thats about witnesses.

Going back to your quote " "Judges says an eye for an eye...". Nope, it's not in Judges.

Next Jesus mentions it in Mat 5. Sermon on the mount, And that is where he says turn the other cheek. It is one of the few Mosaic laws that Jesus specifically mentions and overrides.

So I reckon Christians should follow the Jesus version.

And as I mentioned above, if people decide to keep a select few of the 635 or so Mosaic laws, then really, they should keep them all. Including the real non fun ones, such as about women on their period , as described in Lev 15. So if anyone wants the OT "eye for an eye", it's off to the shed for a week during periods. No shell fish. And no garments of mixed material as per Lev 19:19. And lots of stoning.

So yup. If a Cristian wants " an eye for an eye", they should be prepared to do all the other stuff that comes with it. In my opinion anyway.

I would prefer to live in a state which has capital punishment rather than one which confines criminals to a situation where they will be tortured and killed by others who will then be criminalised. I think the state is morally responsible either way. Any philosophers here who can help me figure out why I find post this suggestion so morally repugnant?

You are cherry picking also!
I agree, that your hypcrisy is breathtaking....

Don't talk utter shit. Your life is batshit

How about we improve mental health services ?

OP do you even live in the UK?

Exactly. OP is too stupid to see the irony......

Absolutely this!

^Sadly this still goes on, with the justification that reporting abusers brings ‘shame’ on the church. A close friend was told by her pastor that she shouldn’t report her H after he sexually abused her DD. (They still did report him, though her DD couldn’t go through with it.)

That really shocked me. I knew it had happened when my DSis and I were sexually abused by our F as children, but I previously believed that things had changed for the better. (And they have in a lot of churches, but this secrecy still exists quite clearly.)

The CofE just recently had their Arch Bishop of Canturbury over it. And just yesterday an ozzie friend in a grpup chat I am in was saying there is another high profile case there.

Yes, I’ve been following the Church of England scandals concerning Justin Welby. I have hope that the new Archbishop of Canterbury will be more robust in how she deals with abusers in the church. She’s made the right noises, but time will tell.

The churches where I’ve been a member during the last 16 years have had robust safeguarding in place. I wouldn’t have attended otherwise, particularly because I’ve had my DDs to think about.

I will certainly never hesitate to condemn any church that fails to take action to protect children in their congregations.