On Capital Punishment

Nobody likes to talk about punishment. It’s icky. We know that justice has to be served, but it sometimes feels hurtful – and any kind-hearted soul will feel uncomfortable about that. But, by its very nature, punishment is not meant to be enjoyable. All punishment entails a person undergoing a loss of something otherwise good and which they otherwise have a right to have. As a punishment, it will probably act contrary to the will of the person undergoing it. But if justice is a virtue, and punishment is a means of enacting justice, then punishment is a virtue – being that it is proportionate to the offense.

Is there ever a time for the death penalty?

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a legal practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as punishment for a crime. Immediately, one might oppose this practice by stating that it is far too extreme. But can you really say that there’s nothing a person could do to merit the death penalty? Is there no crime a person could commit where the loss of their life would be a proportional punishment? Surely, the fact that Hitler orchestrated the Holocaust, murdering millions, would merit him the death penalty. What about Ted Bundy? He didn’t murder millions, but he did directly murder at least 20 women. Did he deserve the punishment he received?

In such cases, most would agree that the death penalty is not so extreme. Most who defend capital punishment would reserve it for detestable crimes such as these. Dr William Petit has stated, “when people wilfully, wantingly, without any remorse take someone else's life they forfeit their right to be among us.” This might sound harsh but consider the following. On July 23, 2007, two men invaded the residence of the Petit family. Dr Petit was beat and restrained in the basement. His wife was robbed, raped, and strangled to death. One of his daughters was raped, before both daughters were tied to their beds and doused with gasoline. The house was then set on fire.

Do they deserve the death penalty? Well, those who think “yes” are in luck, because both criminals were sentenced to death. However, their sentences were later reduced to life imprisonment, due to new legislation abolishing the death penalty. Grieved, Dr Petit responded that the death penalty “is really the only true just punishment for certain heinous and depraved murders.” Is it vengeful and irrational for him to say this? Is he somehow being “too emotional” about the gruesome deaths of his family? Surely not! Let’s not downplay the reality of moral evil. A person cannot serve more than one life sentence. At some point, the depravity of the crime will merit capital punishment.

The value of life

Others will argue that life has inherent value. All people have an inherent worth simply because they are human – including murderers. Therefore, any act that destroys life is intrinsically evil. Human suffering is still suffering, no matter the past actions of the person in pain. In addition, those who perform the death penalty are defiled by it. The final claim is this: If we don’t preserve the human dignity of the criminal, we cheapen life.

The other side of the debate begins with the same premise – life does have inherent value. However, what the opponent of the death penalty ignores is that we are talking about punishment. As already stated, punishment is a form of justice – insofar as the intention is the restoration of justice (as it should be), the death penalty is an act of justice, distinct from murder. The criminal has willed contrary to the common good and merits a proportional punishment. In the case of murder, the punishment plays a role in preserving the human dignity of the victim, otherwise we cheapen life and belittle murder.

So, whose life should we preserve the dignity of? The criminal or the victim?

Defence and the role of the state

Another common argument is that modern technology and prison systems have made capital punishment unnecessary. The community can effectively defend itself via the imprisonment of dangerous people. But people are not imprisoned simply because they pose a threat. The argument for capital punishment is not the same as the argument for self-defence. Defence and punishment are not the same. If someone is killed in self-defence, it is due to the defender trying to reduce/prevent harm – not restore order or deal out justice. The one who kills in self-defence is not punishing the attacker but trying to disable the attack.

Others argue that capital punishment does not reduce crime. Society teaches how bad an action is by the punishment it deals out. However, most studies show that death penalty laws do not lower crime or murder rates – it has no deterrent effect, and thus is useless. But people are not punished just to show a disapproval of the crime. Deterrence is a secondary end of punishment. Retribution (that is, justice) is the primary end.

Governments exist not merely to deliver criminal justice, but to protect and defend the lives and rights of everyone. Some will argue that the death penalty permits the government to become its dictator rather than its protector. It is also worried that an innocent person may be executed, so the death penalty is dangerous. This is taken sincerely but dishonestly, because even when there is absolute proof of the murderer’s guilt, they will still oppose the death penalty. Additionally, by keeping every murderer alive, many more people are murdered – such as other prisoners, guards, and others (in case of early release) – than the minute number of people who might be wrongly executed. But beside all this, we must keep in mind that the debate at hand is not about judicial effectiveness, but about moral value of capital punishment.

The Christian approach

Immediately, some Christians will assert that only God has the right to take human life – but no scripture has ever made that claim. As creator, God certainly has a right to give and take life. But that does not preclude Him from bestowing similar rights upon creatures He has made.

People will often then refer to the Ten Commandments, pointing at the sixth (or fifth, if you’re Catholic) and reading aloud, “Thou shall not kill!” This commandment, unfortunately, is probably one of the least well understood. The reason being that the Hebrew original does not say, “Do not kill/slay” (harag (הָרַג) in Hebrew). It says, “Do not murder” (ratzach (רָצַח)). The difference is huge. Kill refers to the taking of any life (whether human or animal), the taking human life deliberately or by accident, and the taking a human life legally or illegally, morally, or immorally. Murder can only mean one thing: the illegal or immoral taking of a human life. Intent is critical. There is moral killing in self-defence or against an offender, and there is immoral killing – known as murder.

Some translations use “kill” because, at the time scripture was translated, the English language defined “kill” as identical to “murder.” As a result, people of today think that the Ten Commandments prohibits all killing – even though this assumption makes no sense next to the rest of the Torah, containing the Mosaic Law which specifies 36 transgressions punishable by death (including murder – Genesis 9:6), allows killing in war, prescribes animal sacrifice, and allows eating of meat. God’s law, at least in the past, has allowed for capital punishment.

People of today cite translations, that make the kill/murder error, to justify two positions that have no biblical basis: Opposition to capital punishment and pacifism. Regarding capital punishment, the only law that that appears in the Torah states that murderers be put to death. Any argument against capital punishment that cites the commandment, “Do not kill,” is therefore invalid. Many theologians agree that capital punishment is just and should be supported by the church.

Jesus refocused the people of God on what was important. Jesus could’ve given renewed guidance on the interpretation of the death penalty – he doesn’t. He makes little reference to it. In fact, the right of state to execute for crimes seems to be accepted and acknowledged. When discussing His fate with Pontius Pilate, on the verge of His own execution, He acknowledges that, not only does Pilate have the authority to execute Him, but that that authority was given to him by God (John 19:11).

Some may ask, “but what about not casting the first stone?” (Jn8). This passage was about hypocrisy and dodging the trap the Jewish leaders had set for Jesus, not about punishment. “What about the command to turn the other cheek?” (Mt5). This is a principle for individuals – there are many like it. There's a difference between personal attacks and attacks that harm people I have a responsibility to protect and care for. Capital punishment cannot be carried out by citizens, but by a state or ruling authority. There are restrictions and processes in place – such as the testimony of two witnesses (Deu17:6).

There is no passage in the New Testament that disapproves of the death penalty, and doctrine cannot be determined by omission. Early Christians seem to have endorsed the death penalty, approving of the divine punishment meted out to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). “A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses," writes the author of Hebrews (10:28). Paul writes that the magistrate enjoys the authority to administer the death penalty and, “Does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer," (Romans 13:4).

All doctrine must be consistent with, and demonstrable in, the teachings of Jesus. Jesus, however, did not address all possible issues that might arise - He left the Apostles, particularly Peter, with the authority to deal with issues as He might have (Mt 18:18). This establishes the role of tradition in determining doctrine. St Augustine felt that the death penalty was a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. When dealing with heretics who were seeking reconciliation, Pope Innocent III insisted they accept that "the secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation." Pope Pius XII stated that the Church does not regard the execution of certain criminals as a violation of the right to life: “By his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live” (1952).

The Catholic church, historically, has not been against the death penalty. The Catechism written in 1566 stated that just use of the death penalty was an action of obedience to the commandment which prohibits murder. A change was made in 1992, stating that, assuming the person has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the traditional teaching of the Church does not oppose the death penalty if it is the only way of effectively defending human lives against the aggressor. However, if non-lethal means are sufficient, then the authority will limit itself to such means. Pope John Paul II writes that, given modern technology, “cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” In the current Catechism (1997), Pope Francis argues that while the possibility of judicial error exists, the requirements of the Catechism cannot be met. He also states that “the death penalty is inadmissible” – this, of course, has been highly controversial among theologians.

The churches position on the death penalty may change, but it has to be theologically consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Doctrinal contributions from the past cannot be ignored, and the church can’t just change because the world has changed. It requires a theological position that does not contradict the arguments that have gone before – from scripture and tradition – and scripture points to capital punishment as an act of justice, as well as a power given by God to the state.

Some well-meaning Christians may worry that capital punishment deprives the criminal a chance to repent and make amends. However, capital punishment never meant denying people this opportunity. In a sense, their impending death is motivation to repent. There is no desire to damn someone, only to punish them.

Personal conclusion

I think there are strong logical and theological cases to be made in favour of capital punishment. However, on the practical level, I do worry about the modern state’s ability to implement such a punishment.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-massacre-survivor-william-petit-repeal-connecticut-death/story?id=16072574

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/outreach/awareness-months/victim-of-2-of-11-inmates-who-were-on-state-death-row-opposed-to-death-penalty-ruling/520-19a26fdc-cabf-43b7-8169-5b85c51f2248

https://www.wordsfitlyspoken.org/gospel_guardian/v16/v16n13p5,13a.html https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/featured/capitalpunishment/