Who Needs Capital Punishment in the First Place?
This nation should join the impressive number of others that have entirely done away with capital punishment.
On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Commonwealth of Kentucky may continue using three drugs when executing criminals by lethal injection. Chief Justice John G. Roberts announced the judgment and offered the opinion that carried the day. Six of the associate justices concurred, sometimes also writing their own opinions. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg dissented in a written opinion that Associate Justice David Hackett Souter joined.
The first of the three drugs, which Kentucky applies intravenously, is sodium thiopental. It causes unconsciousness. The second and third, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride, cause paralysis and then cardiac arrest. The federal government and at least thirty of the thirty-six states that execute criminals with lethal injections use these three drugs in this sequence.
Ralph Baze and Thomas C. Bowling, who were scheduled for execution in Kentucky because each was convicted of murdering two people, had contended in lower courts that the commonwealth “could switch from a three-drug protocol to a one-drug protocol by using a single dose of sodium thiopental or other barbiturate.” Both parties—the convicts and the commonwealth—agreed that a painless death occurs when the executioners use the three drugs properly; however, if they don’t, pain so excruciating that it amounts to the “cruel and unusual punishments” forbidden by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution takes place. Neither the constitutionality of capital punishment as such nor of the intensity of this pain was debated. Its likelihood was.
After a trial that lasted seven days, which involved “the testimony of approximately twenty witnesses, including numerous experts,” the federal circuit court for the Commonwealth of Kentucky had found “there to be minimal risk of various claims of improper administration of the protocol.” The Kentucky Supreme Court had agreed, stating that “a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment only when it ‘creates a substantial risk of wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, torture or lingering death.’” The key words were “substantial risk,” an expression with established legal precedence that the lawyers for Baze and Bowling had attempted to replace with “unnecessary risk.” They had been unsuccessful.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed “to determine whether Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol satisfies the Eighth Amendment.” “We hold that it does,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts. Although it discusses other things, too, his opinion also focused on the distinction between “substantial risk” and “unnecessary risk.” He wrote that “simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual.”
Roberts cited a case from the year 1947 in which the Supreme Court had “upheld a second attempt at executing a prisoner by electrocution after a mechanical malfunction had interfered with the first attempt.” The principal opinion in that trial had stated that “[a]ccidents happen for which no man is to blame” and that such mishaps do “not give rise to an Eight Amendment violation.”
Another opinion in that earlier trial had noted that “’a hypothetical situation’ involving a series of abortive attempts at electrocution would present a different case.” From these previous opinions Chief Justice Roberts inferred that “an isolated mishap alone does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation, precisely because such an event, while regrettable, does not suggest cruelty, or that the procedure at issue gives rise to a ‘substantial risk of serious harm’” (emphasis supplied).
It is not as obvious to me as it evidently is to Chief Justice Roberts that there is a material difference between a single misfortune and a line of them when the issue pivots on whether what happens suggests cruelty. With everyone agreeing that what occurs is “regrettable” but not “intolerable,” an entire series of failed attempts at electrocution can be viewed as an “isolated mishap” just as surely as one instance.
Mechanical malfunctions that cause such failures can happen once, twice, and three and more times in a row without necessarily suggesting the infliction of pain for the sake of pain, something that is unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court, because even executioners have bad days. In such cases, the reasoning of the current Supreme Court implies to me, executioners should keep on flipping the electrical switch with no legal jeopardy until they finally get it right. Accidents “happen for which no man is to blame.”
One important difference between using electricity and sodium thiopental is that it might be easier for untrained eyes to see if the first is working. Chief Justice Roberts stated as much, citing a paper in the April 2005 issue of the highly respected British medical journal Lancet. It reported that the blood of most of forty-nine executed prisoners had concentrations of this drug “that would not be expected to produce a surgical plan of anesthesia” and that twenty-one of them “had concentrations consistent with consciousness.” He also noted that in September of that year Lancet published responses by seven other medical researchers that “criticized the methodology supporting the original conclusions.”
In situations where there is this much scientific uncertainty, I think it wise for the courts to err on the side of caution. Chief Justice Roberts sees this differently. “We do not purport to take sides in this dispute,” he wrote. Doing so “would involve the courts in debatable matters far exceeding their expertise.” He is right about this; however, I do not see why the courts cannot note these scientific debates and take them into account without trying to settle them in either direction.
Chief Justice Roberts concludes his opinion with evident pleasure that the United States has “steadily moved to more humane methods of carrying out capital punishment. The firing squad, hanging, the electric chair, and the gas chamber have each in turn given way to more humane methods, culminating in today’s consensus on lethal injection.” Although this is progress, it is not good enough. This nation should join the impressive number of others that have entirely done away with capital punishment. Who needs it in the first place?
David Larson teaches in the School of Religion at Loma Linda University.
Search
- arlyn on The Son of God Among Us
- arlyn on The Son of God Among Us
- Carrol Grady on The Son of God Among Us
- davidrlarson on Raping Children, Executing Criminals, and Second Guessing the U.S. Supreme Court
- Elaine Nelson on Weimar Academy and College Get a “New Start”
- Abner Hernández on Columna: Unidad en la diversidad: ¿puede ser?
- LLA on Satire | 3ABN to Add Three New Shows
- laercio on The Son of God Among Us
- A. Way on Weimar Academy and College Get a “New Start”
- Elaine Nelson on Raping Children, Executing Criminals, and Second Guessing the U.S. Supreme Court
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Thank you Professor Larson.
One of the most troubling aspects of capital punishment is that overall racism that drives judgments.
I recently attended a documentary screening and discussion at SF State.
Did you know that in studies, the likelihood of a black man being given death grows from 30% to 70% when the jury composition goes from 5 or less white males to 6 or more?
In addition to the cruel punishment argument, until we can be sure that our unconscious prejudices aren't leading to the death of innocent humans, I just don't see the moral warrant for the death penalty.
In addition, the many victims of egregious convictions that were thrown out thanks to the Innocence Project; some of these wrongfully incarcerted people have been in prison more than 20 years due to faulty and even lying witnesses (anyone remember the Tulia, Tx mass convictions based on ONE sheriff?) Most of these were overwhelmingly black, and a great majority were in Texas, the state with the highest rate of incarcerations.
And even if our justice system were perfect and every individual executed was guilty... it still often costs more to execute someone than just give them life without possibility of parole.
There's no down side except the victim's family doesn't get their reven--closure.
Dr. Larson,
How would you relate an absolute rejection of capital punishment to ones view of just war if at all?
There seems to be a strong corrolation between religious beliefs and capital punishment. In the Western world, only the US--the most religious country by far--is the only country to practice capital punishment.
The holy scriptures of the three monotheistic religions originating from the Middle East, often present God as an executioner. In conservative Christian thinking, God, at the end of the world, is going to execute all those who did not "buy" protection, as if he were some sort of celestial mobster. The Hebrew scriptures likewise see God as a celestial executioner, who on one occasion eradicated humanity for getting out of hand, leaving only eight people behind.
It seems as if it is easier for secular nations to be "civilized" since they are not beholden to such dismal examples of behavior.
Well,
How about Gen.9:6? Numbers 35:33?
“And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.” Gen.9:5,6.
“‘Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. 34 Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites.’” Numbers 35:33.
A God of Mercy without Justice is not a God of Mercy.
pat
Capital punishment is necessary to right the wrongs of killers. Ask the families of the victims whether they think the killer should die. Only a couple of months ago, the video clip of the killer being brought into court and the mother shouting “you killed my baby,” which started a brawl in court, shows the impact the death has on the family; If the courts will not execute the person the family and friends will.
Capital punishment, like friendly fire during a war, always has some unintended victims. No one has ever solved the riddle how to prevent wars. The more people speak opposing views the more resistant, hardened, and determine the opposing sides becomes, until some spark ignites the killing. When enough people are dead, both the innocent and the guilty, both humanly and cruelly, the fighting stops until the next cycle begins. Capital punishment is an attempt to control this cycle.
Sending people to prison for life has its own set of problems, as is said,” the worse part about going to prison is you have to live with criminals.” Why should society support a criminal? Last week the D.C. Madam said she would never go to prison so she committed suicide. She understood what prison life and its aftermath meant.
I'm sorry. I misjudged you JB. I thought you were a troll but now I realize you're just being good satire.
Pat. Your scriptures selections are just that "selections". Considering the biblical punishment for everything from idolatry to being an insubordinate child is stoning (capital punishment). I would say the bible wholeheartedly embraced a little blood shed... but only when it's been ordained by God as the correct course of action.
Just 10 chapters earlier than your quote (Numbers 15:35) God himself tells Moses to kill someone for gathering firewood on the Sabbath! Oh yes a just and caring God right there who frowns upon capital punishment! It takes a very liberal interpretation of the bible (which I'm not opposed to) to suggest that the old testament opposed the death penalty. And by liberal I mean complete disregard for almost its entirety.
Gavin,
How do you read Rom.13:3-6. Would God consider them "gentiles" to be unjust if they choose to agree with Gen.9:6 on ethical grounds?
pat
Also, Romans 13:1-8 speaks about punishment. As Christians, we should obey out of conscience; however, the responsibility of the state to exercise force remains constant, whether we're living in Rome or the US.
This is a question of the responsibilities of Christians to and with the secular civil government. Is this a racism/social justice issue? Or a question of the state's prerogative to protect everyone?
This calls for serious prayer and study on our end.
Pat I think the french underground would take exception to the notion that whatever the government does is just and permissable.
Was Sadaam ordained by God as Ruler? Should every law be followed even if it is unjust? I would say an unjust law shouldn't be followed... but that you should also be prepared to face the consequences.
I would say read at face value without any interpretation it's completely incorrect. Violence against the state may not be the most positive mechanism and non-violences may be preferable... but to simply accept the status quo?
It sounds to me like the author was more fearful that his young and powerless religion might get the "terrorist" label and extinguished than concerned with long term doctrine.
Gavin,
The position that resisted Hitler was that the state is to be resisted if it violates explicitly the law of God...otherwise it is to be obeyed in civil matters. The "Confessing church" went "conservative" and left the "liberal" German church that had combined church and state for the social-economic prosperity of the nation.
That's my take.
pat
PS. Those that took the "pacifist" Lutheran position went along with the state.
David Larson: If your 5-year-old daughter had been brutally raped, sodomized and then strangled and left to rot in a field somewhere by a total stranger, I bet your opinion would be VERY, VERY different.
Capital punishment is a God-given right to societies to deal with their most demonic elements and it should be adopted by most countries in the world, not abandoned. What should be abolished is the painless process to terminate their lives; anesthetics to kill a killer?? Come on!!!
God's standard on the sanctity of life is clear: he who takes a life should give his own life. Period.
Andre,
I don't see how the experience of rage justifies capital punishment. If a woman found her husband sleeping with his mistress, and killed them both out of rage, her action would still be unwarranted. If a family is outraged over the death of a loved one, this doesn't justify murder.
Moreover, God's stance on the sanctity of life isn't as clear-cut as you make it out. After all, when David essentially raped Bethsheba and then directly caused the death of her husband, Uriah, God did not call for David's death--instead, God forgave David.
Ultimately, the use of capital punishment is something that we have to approach as humans, without any divine imperative. And, the fact of the matter is that aren't many practical benefits that accompany the use of capital punishment, hence its fall into disfavor in Europe and other parts of the world.
Furthermore, if free will exists, then the possibility of reform has to be considered--why should a tragedy cost two lives instead of one when a murderer may eventually become some sort of asset to society (even if this involves activity limited to a jail cell)? If the free will is non-existant, however, then capital punishment would be nonsensical and cruel--why kill people not responsible for their own actions.
If someone killed someone I loved I would want to slit their throat myself. That doesn't mean my urge would be good or I should be allowed.
Revenge is revenge even if it's state sponsored.
Use your free will if you've got it and choose to not be a hateful vengeful human being.
Wow... Jeffrey.. Ummm... Read my mind? I guess you hit submit first... I must have read your mind... I guess telepathy is real.
I swear I'm not posting under two names now. :D
Andre,
I support your view of capital punishment.
Gavin,
Sorry to disappoint you but you read me correctly the first time. Your reaction against murder of a love one is appropriate; anger has its proper time and place. We place retribution in the hand of the state to try to prevent indiscriminate killing that can arise as a result of anger. Criminal procedure is our best attempt to insure the accused is the perpetrator, he receives a fair trial, and the punishment fits the crime. There is a solution to the ongoing dispute concerning capital punishment-don’t commit the crime. Thou shall not murder is the only way to peace.
As a fairly conservative person when it comes to social and political matters, I cringe each time the capital punishment debate comes up. If we (conservatives) are truly concerned with the sanctity of life (which we should be), we should be against capital punishment just as much as we tend to be against abortion.
On the flip side, social liberals tend to oppose capital punishment while at the same time supporting abortion. Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? It's as if they're saying, "I'm in favor of supporting life for a convicted criminal, but I'm not willing to support life for an innocent baby." I know, I know, that has been debated ad nauseum—I'm not trying to pull this conversation around to abortion.
I think both social conservatives and liberals tend to be a bit hypocritical on the issue of supporting life.
On the biblical front, simply because a practice was allowed in biblical times does not place it within the boundaries of God's will for humanity. I think that point has been made several times.
SAR,
In your "conservative and liberal" analysis and idea of "hypocrisy" where does "justice" fit? No mention is made. How would that play in? It is as if there is nothing but a concept of "mercy."
Biblical examples actually do show and teach "destroying life" at times to preserve order and justice in the OT and NT.
pat
Pat,
You're assuming that to have justice there must be death. I believe justice can be served without killing the offender. Ultimately, justice is meted out by God. Our attempts at justice, while important, will always be flawed and deficient. Also, justice and revenge are not the same.
As for the biblical examples, what was God attempting to accomplish? Was He prescribing punishment, or was He giving laws to limit and guide the meting out of punishment? Also, in the Old Testament, there existed a theocracy with God taking an active role in the governance of the Israelites. Do we have the same divine intervention today?
God bless,
Sean
I am always suspicious of the argument that back in the day "there existed a theocracy with God taking an active role". While there is truth to it, it is also likely a very good line for the leaders to maintain to support their decisions.
"social liberals tend to oppose capital punishment while at the same time supporting abortion."
And conservatives are equally hypocritical in being opposed to abortion while supporting capital punishment. Hypocrisy is not limited to any one group.
The Bible can be, and has been used to promote or oppose all sorts of positions; and truth is, there are texts that are used in that manner.
All this use of the Bible for one's own aggrandizement trivializes the Bible and weakens its use for salvific matters. Much of the OT is descriptive, demonstrating how the Israelites believed and justified their actions as being directed by their god. It was man who wrote the Bible, not God, but to make it sacrosanct, they declared it to be "God's Word" and untouchable.
The laws and rules given to them were not meant to be prescriptive for all time. Surely, no one today desires to return to executing those who pick up sticks on Sabbath, commit adultery, or children who disobey parents. And yet, there are many who hold the Bible as the ultimate answer and prescription for all that ails humans.
Thankfully, the Bible no longer has the power over men's lives that it once had. We now have rational minds who have struggled with the rules that civilized people should strive to live by and no longer turn to the Bible for its outmoded laws and punishments. We in the U.S. no longer live by the religious rules that even flourished in the beginning settlement of this nation. Bible "justice" has no place in our civil government today. While we are dependent on many great minds before us, we still are recognized as having one of the best forms of government in the world. However, on capital punishment, we are one of the only countries that still practices this and very disparately, by state.
On what exactly do you base your faith then, Elaine? On your personal achievements, on your philoshophical prowess, on your inteligence or social status?
The results of the belief that man is self-actualized by progress are clearly seen in the holocaust, when man thinks he can self-improve by trying to wipe out a whole race of 'inferior' people and invading countries who need "improvement". Those methods are solely reliant on man's capabilities to solve our own problems and dilemmas, without God.
Capital punishment was God-ordained and therefore is part of His principles of government. Even He can't rehabilitate man forever and one day he will inflict the ultimate capital punishment on all who have rejected His government. So, to say that God is all for rehabilitation and against capital punishment is far from revealed truth.
Maybe I should ask Elaine the same question: If your 5-year-old daughter had been brutally raped, sodomized and then strangled and left to rot in a field somewhere by a total stranger, I bet your opinion would be VERY, VERY different.
Gavin said:
"I don't see how the experience of rage justifies capital punishment."
Have you had a child raped and murdered? Or a family member tortured and murdered?
Gavin said: "Moreover, God's stance on the sanctity of life isn't as clear-cut as you make it out. After all, when David essentially raped Bethsheba and then directly caused the death of her husband, Uriah, God did not call for David's death--instead, God forgave David."
God transferred his punishment to David's own son, a punishment greater than to David himself. I would rather suffer in lieu of any of my daughters any day and to see them suffer is worse than my own suffering. Also, Bathsheba wasn't raped, their sex was consensual since she was exposing herself anyway and Uriah was a workaholic who probably neglected her sexually. Bathsheba wouldn't have come to live with David had she been raped. She would have abhorred him.
God still used capital punishment in David's case so his eternal principle of the sanctity of life still stands.
The death penalty should be carried out on cruel and heinous crimes.
AND
The death penalty will be God's punishment of choice to hardened sinners and Satan himself at the end of times.
Hi SAR,
Actually Gen.9:6 was prior to the theocracy and was part of the Noetic Covenant and stipulations. The promises last until the seasons no longer exist.
The Mosaic Covenant reconfirmed the death penalty. The state "bearing the sword" (NT)legitimizes the "gentiles" use of force for order. (obviously within "opposing evil" terms.)
You are correct, I believe, that death is not necessarily reqired for justice in all death cases. However, I do not see where it violates the principle God himself established for "atoning" (kophar) for the death by the shedder of blood so that the land be not defiled. Yes, it is vengence and justice against the deliberate pre-meditated slayer of mankind. I don't see that "collective vengence" is wrong in the carrying out of "justice."
I won't think less of you for disagreeing (hope you won't of me) but I simply don't see what has changed the scriptural "continuity" of the death sentence in the present age of sin.
regards,
pat
I don't see any hypocrisy between the liberal stance of pro-choice and anti-death penalty. It's a question of 'life'. At which point is a human being a human being? The israelites determined it to be over a week after birth. The catholics determined it to be at conception. Liberals recognize it's a fuzzy area where each individual can decide up until a breath.
I certainly don't believe a single celled blastocyst should be recognized as a human. First breath seems like a safe and convenient place to put it. But it raises all kinds of questions. Is a grown monkey with a higher reasoning than a baby more 'valuable' than a human baby? The legal answer is no of course due to the 'potential' for human achievement. But what about severely mentally retarded individuals? If a person only ever reaches a 1 year old reasoning and a chimpanzee can reach a 2 year old reasoning which is more "human"? I would say the chimpanzee is more "human". You could argue then that we should euthanize retards. I would take the opposite approach and say we *shouldn't* euthanize chimpanzees.
However you measure it, once a human has been convicted a violent crime there can be no question to their sapience and MUST be protected even if from the pragmatic approach that man is fallible therefore ALL convictions are suspect.
It also demonstrates that we're a culture who embraces revenge killings. Which I find inherently disgusting to my sense of morality. I won't descend to barbarism simply because of an animal need to exact pain upon those who have hurt me. (I might want to. But I should be restrained.)
There is a *strong* global correlation between ending the death penalty and a reduction in violence. Why? Who knows. But if it makes us safer it's worth a try.
---
Well Andrei if you're right and God is a vindictive cruel being then he's welcome to smite me I would rather be smited than worship such reprehensible being.
Whether or not someone close to me is beside the point. Wanting to do something and it being the right thing to do are very different. That's why we have society. I may very very much want to exact pain and suffering upon someone else in response to their actions against me. But it doesn't mean everything I desire to do is morally sound.
If you killed a murderer's son as retribution against someone killing your son... I would feel a burning desire to see you impaled on a stick as well.
FYI I you attributed a few quotes which I agree with but did not write.
---
So since the holocaust's objective was to better mankind... we shouldn't attempt to better mankind?
The correct conclusion from the holocaust is that it's morally reprehensible to execute your undesirables. The argument against the Jews was less about eugenics and more about the fact that they were traitorous snakes who were stealing every body's money, starving the people and destroying society. They didn't kill the Jews because they were black haired. They were killing the Jews because they were being portrayed as CRIMINALS! The sorts of people you yourself would want to execute. They were killing the good and peaceful people of Germany and they had to be stopped before they killed them all!
Read Mien Kampf. It'll be very enlightening to actually read the arguments being made. Now if you empirically look at the Jewish history you of course can safely conclude that Hitler was wrong about his accusations. But if he was right (and the Germans believed he was) then they were simply purging an eminent and dangerous threat living in their midst.
The Holocaust is proof that it's dangerous to give the government the authority to execute people it deems a clear and present danger to public safety.
"Bathsheba wasn't raped, their sex was consensual since she was exposing herself anyway and Uriah was a workaholic who probably neglected her sexually. Bathsheba wouldn't have come to live with David had she been raped. She would have abhorred him."
This sounds so old and familiar: the girl was clearly asking to be raped because: of her dress; the time of night; her naivete or failure to fight (as was illustrated from the OT). Imagine Bathsheba crying out against David? Who would come to her aid closeted with the king? The king had power of life and death then.
That's a fine piece of rationalization-interpretation also shows ignorance of the culture where a king had ultimate authority over his people. You are blaming both Bathsheba & Uriah as deserving of their fates. No one in that culture dared defy the king; and to suppose that Uriah had neglected her is to totally misread the story. He had taken a solemn vow NOT to sleep with his wife until the battle had been won.
In your most unique interpretation, David comes out as the hero while the unfortunate couple had caused their fate.
As for the question of my daughter being raped, I don't remember stating I was against capital punishment in all cases, but I do believe, knowing the results of The Innocence Project that there are far too many wrongfully incarcerated, which would not make it merely hypothetical to believe that there likely have been unjust executions.
Our U.S. justice system is not the same in all states; Texas having far more on death row and in prison percentage-wise.
I probably could condemn the Austrian father-grandfather who imprisoned his daughter, raped her & fathered seven children over a period of more than 20 years. Some crimes are so heinuous they deserve the death penalty. However, before that sentence, there should be absolute evidence of guilt. As we know, there have been lying witnesses, both by private individuals and law enforcement personnel.
A very good friend is the DA for the county in which I live and has defended some very high-profile cases; Marcus Wesson was one. The latest case was an unquestioned murderer, but his mental capacity and psychophrenic behavior was an essential part of the defense. Jurors could not render a verdict and a mistrial was declared.
Elaine: The David-Bathsheba was an aside to Gavin's point, not really important to this question. Who knows what really went on between the two, but my interpretation is based on what many a scholar concluded. The point is, God still killed David's son so death as punishment is God's mean of justice. Wouldn't we all die because we sinned, were it not for Jesus?
Gavin: the Holocaust discussion was also an aside to the question of death penalty: it shows that trying to maintain society without respect for God's principles will result in ruin and disaster.
The death of Jesus is proof that the death penalty is God's ultimate punishment for our actions and society has all the right to advance it to its most demonic elements, such as the Austrian monster. The government is God's arm in maintaining equilibrium in this crazy world.
Again... you're citing the Bethesda story to the wrong person.
Which of God's principles were violated by the Holocaust? Sounded like a little Counter-Canaan action if you ask me. Land of Milk and Honey(TM) as soon as the indigenous people are dispensed with.
And isn't Jesus an example of an improper use of execution? That the death penalty is so faulty even the most perfect human being in history was condemned and executed falsely?
Perhaps we should wantonly execute people that are good in case they're the messiah. Thank goodness Rome had the death penalty otherwise Jesus would have had to have been murdered!
Andre,
The point of bringing up David and Bathsheba was to point out that there wasn't a clear divine precedent for punishment. As you say, David wasn't killed, it was his son. Should we then execute the children of murderers because that would be an even greater punishment for the accused? If that account isn't convincing enough for you, let's go back to the first murder. God spared Cain, who essentially invented murder, and if he was spared, who's to say who should be killed?
It's interesting how many comments, directly contradictory, have resorted to the Bible for affirmation; showing that the Bible not only has contradictions internally, but that each of us interprets differently.
That's why I think this is a question that needs a secular answer, since the Bible is not clear on the matter.
Where does the Christian aspect of forgiveness as Jesus taught come into this picture? I am not talking on a national level of laws of the land but personally. I could never imagine having the blood of another person on my conscience for the want of revenge. Hurt is there and the desire for retribution is very human and strong.
But the christian walk requires us to depend not on our strength and desires but for the strength that faith provides. Punishment is essential but who has authority over "LIFE".
Some of you might be interested in reading my column "Killing Me Softly" published January 15, 2008 - http://ourgeneration.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/killing-me-softly/ related to the same subject.
Let me set a platform from which I would like to asses the capital punishment question.
What about taking God’s revelation as progressive throughout human history, not in a sense that God changes but rather that He speaks to a changing human race defected by sin, cultural and other limitations, biases, hardness of the heart, even stupidity and bound to twist around even the best of God’s intentions. So that throughout the human history we have been having serious problems with understanding His will, except through the most radical revelation demonstrated in His Son, Jesus Christ. In other words, our human history needed a culminating revelation of Jesus, as the Father’s final revelation and reference point to human race, in order to place all the preceding and following revelations in the right perspective. This is why Jesus could claim about every single thing “You were told… but I tell you..”.
This leads me to a conclusion that the entire Old Testament experience, practices etc should be read through Jesus’ spectacles and not the other way round. Therefore we should not interpret Jesus through the incidents and accidents of the Old Testament, but rather the Old Testament should be examined and interpreted through Jesus.
I must admit I have a problem with certain offensive portions of the Old Testament, such as the cases of genocidal behavior of the chosen people, supposedly commissioned by God. But I deal with them by admitting to myself that they are offensive and hard to understand. Then I look at Jesus and say to Him and myself: “Lord, whatever I know about you tells me that there is nothing genocidal about you and the Father.” In short, I do not tend to take everything in the Old Testament at their face value. I am trying to read the OT pages through the eyes of Jesus as their final authority. And there is more than enough about him in the Gospels and the New Testament pages to go around.
So, it is from this perspective that I like to see the issues related to capital punishment. The issues of ethics and morality are much clearer from the perspective of Jesus than from the practices recorded in the Old Testament. And as I behold the character of Jesus I do not see in him anything that would authorize any human being or human system to take a life of another person.
The only POSSIBLE justification I can think of for capital punishment is that it might be more merciful than life imprisonment in solitary confinement without the possibility of parole.
Perhaps we should leave a bottle of pills in each capitial offender's cell that he or she can take at any time to end it all.
I'm not sure that how I would feel if my daughter were violated pertains. I would experience the full range of feelings, I'm certain. Some of them would be worthy and some not.
I think that the desire for revenge or the attempt to even the score are among the least worthy, though I might well succumb to them.
It seems to me, though I can't be sure, that some of these unworthy feelings were driving those in Kentucky who were reluctant to make it easier for criminals to die. Why else would they take the matter all the way to the United States Supreme Court?
It might be a category mistake to equate war-making with police action. The two are very different, especially in our day when armed conflict is so severe on non-combatant citizens.
Having said that, I think if we apply the principles about whether and how to wage war we would end up with a strong ethical presumption against capital punishmnet. Presumptuions can be overturned in very rare cases, however.
Dave
It seems to me that in the question of capital punishment, people of faith are predisposed to favor capital punishment, seeing that this is God's way of solving the problem of evil. All three monotheistic religions feature the Almighty as a celestial, vengeful, middle eastern monarch. In the mind of the Bible writers, he would execute people even for trivial offenses (touching the Ark, collecting firewood on the Sabbath, taunting a bald man who happened to be a prophet, etc).
Protestants have contributed to the problem by positing that God can't or won't forgive unless the offender can offer satisfactory reparation (the sacrifice of Christ, which amounts to forgiveness being a quid pro quo proposition. Whoever can not come up with a ransom, is consigned to perdition.
Post new comment