I read this yesterday through a tweet and find the wisdom of law enforcement folks from the USA and Europe to be spot-on: we need to repeal the death penalty. With the tragedy of this weekend’s shootings we are driven to think about the death penalty, and I suggest we do so with an eye on those victims. I’ll tell you why I like this article: not just because I agree but because of its sanity and measured judgment.
Do you think the death penalty should be repealed? Do you think it helps deter crime? What do you think?
Over the past decade, executions have dropped by more than 50 percent and the number of death sentences has steadily declined, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. As police and law enforcement officers with decades of experience in fighting crime in the United States and Europe, we believe that societies are better off without the death penalty. We recently came together in Washington, D.C., for the first international dialogue among law enforcement professionals about the death penalty and found important areas of agreement.
Europe has abandoned the death penalty, but European countries have lower murder rates and higher rates of solving homicides than the United States. In the United States, states with the death penalty generally have higher murder rates than states without it. For example, southern states have the highest murder rates and account for 82 percent of all U.S. executions. The deterrence argument is weak and it goes against our experience investigating serious crimes: the majority of offenders do not think through the consequences of their actions. In fact, they do not think they will ever be caught.
The death penalty, as it is applied, is too random to effectively deter potential offenders. If you execute a contract killer, for example, it would not deter a terrorist. If you execute a terrorist, it would not deter a young man who breaks into a house, gets startled, and shoots the owner.
U.S. politicians sometimes argue that the death penalty is needed to deter the killing of police officers. But if one of us were murdered, we would not want the perpetrator to receive the death penalty. The most important thing would be taking care of our families and helping them heal. We have seen how painful it is for families to go through years of death penalty trials and appeals and that would be the last thing we would want for our own families. The idea that the death penalty provides “closure” for victims’ families is a myth.
Another myth is that only the guilty are executed. We can tell stories about times experienced officers were certain they had the right guy, only to find out later they were wrong. Even when police do their jobs professionally and in good faith, mistakes will be made and innocent people will be convicted. It is hard to imagine a greater tragedy. At least with life without parole, there is a chance to reopen cases if new evidence becomes available. Death is irreversible.
Especially as budgets tighten in the United States and around the world, the death penalty may be a system governments can no longer afford. The death penalty costs far more than the alternatives. In California, for example, the death penalty costs $125 million more — every year — than life without parole, which also takes the offender off the streets permanently. All of the money that states spend on the death penalty could be used to hire more police officers, train them better, solve cold cases, and prevent crimes from occurring in the first place. We should spend our limited resources on programs that work.
Europe has the same violent offenses that the United States has, but has found ways to protect its citizens without capital punishment. For example, Portugal abolished the death penalty in 1864 and has never seriously considered reinstating it. Even when the country experienced political violence and organized terrorism during a revolution in 1974, the death penalty was not brought back. Had the terrorists been sentenced to death, they might have become martyrs and the violence might have continued.
Do some murderers deserve the death penalty? Maybe so, but that is an emotional reaction. It is not the basis for creating public policy or finding the best ways to keep citizens safe. More states should follow New Jersey’s lead, and the example of 15 U.S. states, repeal the death penalty, and adopt life without parole in its place. As a growing number of Americans recognize, life without parole is a harsh punishment, protects the public, and eliminates the risk of an irreversible mistake, while freeing up funds for more effective crime-fighting programs. This is a better way to serve victims’ families and prevent violence.
James Abbott is the police chief of West Orange, N.J., and served on the state’s Death Penalty Study Commission. António Cluny is the senior attorney general and public prosecutor in Portugal. Bob Denmark is a 30-year veteran of the British police force and a former detective superintendent of Lancashire Constabulary, England. Ronald Hampton is the executive director of the National Black Police Association International Leadership Institute and a 23-year veteran of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.
Excellent article. About 5 or 6 years ago, it was well reasoned arguments very near these ones that also changed my mind about the death penalty. Thanks for sharing, Scot!
I just could not agree more. We need to clean up our violence in the US and the death penalty is just one more way we seek to solve problems through violence. Violence perpetuates violence. Now that I’ve lived in Sweden, a country with strict anti-gun laws and no death penalty, I cannot see why people in the US are so opposed to reigning the gun issues in. For me, the Death Penalty gives permission for people to kill in the name of whatever they feel is just. We have to stop the killing, no matter how “deserving.”
The death penalty is absolutely necessary. The punishment must fit the crime and it is not an emotional response. It is required because of the actions of the crime and individual. I do not want to see people put to death, but their own actions demand it.
Here’s a question, and I’m not saying it totally justifies my position, but how much money does it cost to keep someone in prison for life? Let’s say… from ages 20-80?
Jay…if it is so necessary, why then is the US the only developed nation that still has it? Countries without it have lower crime rates. How do you explain that?
Also, I have no idea how accurate this link is, but I have consistently heard that Death Row with all of the appeals and continuances costs much more than life sentences.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
Mr.McKnight
Respectfully
It matters not what men say but what God says.
When Noah disembarked from the Ark.
God told Noah that because man had been made in the image of God-even though Man had fallen from his original sinless
state. Nonetheless if a man shed mans blood, he was to be put to death. I will remind you this is not “OLD Covenant” law it predates it by many centuries. Why have Demonic religions around the world consistently practiced human sacrifice because they cannot harm God himself so the next best thing is to attack man who was made in his image.
The Canaanites practiced child sacrifice and God ordered them exterminated. I had a dream back in 2005, in the dream God said he was soon going to destroy the world again because mankind had broken the covenant he had made with Noah. Doing away with capital punishment. On April 27 of last year a video made a year earlier by a group of 50 or so explorers, scientist, and believers climbed to 12,000 to 13,000 ft up the side of Mount Ararat and filmed what they found frozen into the side of a glacier. It appeared on national news for two days then “disappeared” off the media radar screen. You can find it on YouTube professor Kline even commented that they had found something of importance but he mocked the idea of Noah’s ark. Japanese scientist doing deep crust drilling discovered that there was five times as much water in the crust of the Earth as scientist had estimated (Source NAT Geo News).
There are a vast number of “Flood Stories” I have found quotes ranging from 300-2500 depending upon whom you talk to. The point being these stories come from all over the world. My Brother was murdered, I have had several friends murdered. One of the men who murdered a friend of mine was not executed and guess what? He escaped and is at large.
I pray he does not kill again ,but the only way to make sure that he does not kill you and your loved ones or me and my loved ones is to send him back to his maker.
I hope actually think about it what you are saying Mr.Mcknight even Paul the Apostle acknowledged the fairness of the death penalty when he said said “if I have done anything worthy of Death”
Jay – From the article: $125m a year less in California alone.
And your justification makes no sense – Nothing is “demanded” by their actions aside from justice. Justice does not “demand” death in the case of murder. You’re claiming “not an emotional response,” but I’m failing to see any rational explanation for capital punishment as a “must.” If anything, justice “demands” that we stop executing people as we’ve had way too many false convictions lately (25 full exonerations in the last 6 years alone).
Jay, I’d be interested in your take on this, and I paraphrase from Jesus:
You have heard that it was said, “Punishment must fit the crime,” but I say to you… [No it doesn't. Start a cycle of forgiving grace and love.]
Jay,
Why exactly is it necessary?
This article is spot on. The DP neither deters crime nor provides justice. It is reserved almost exclusively for the poor and the mentally ill. The only argument in favor of it is the ethical intuition that somebody has to pay, that fair is fair, eye for an eye, and so forth. I can’t argue logically against that, except that as Christians it has no place in our ethical thinking. At the very least, it is wasteful, error-prone, and encourages vengeance.
There are now many reasons that I’m opposed to the death penalty but I wasn’t always so. To illustrate how I started to change my position let me ask this:
For the sake of argument lets assume that Jay is correct that “the punishment must fit the crime”. How can we be really sure that the we are really punishing the guilty. The sheer number of death row inmates who have had their sentence overturned should give us cause pause and think long and hard about doing something that cannot be reversed.
Yes, grace and love play a huge role in forgiveness. But nowhere did Jesus say that we are free from the repercussions of our sin while on this earth, only in our eternal bodies.
In my opinion, the opposite stance does not require people to be held accountable for their actions. Throwing them in jail for life does not fit the crime.
Jeremy, you responded, “Justice does not demand death…” Is it demanded? No. Is it required? In my opinion, yes. The rules are black and white. If a person commits so and so crime, they will live with this penalty. If I speed, I will get a ticket. If I commit murder, I will be held accountable for my actions as well.
Jodi, you asked why we are the one of the only countries left who still has the death penalty. Not to sound crass, but who cares? I don’t live in those countries. I live in the US and therefore live by its rules.
I personally feel that not having a death penalty is a cop-out.
Jay, I think Jesus does say we are not to exact repercussions: that’s what Matthew 5 is all about, and you have to admit that is clearly the case with the woman caught in adultery — that’s death penalty stuff.
Sure, some don’t think it is authentic to the Gospel but I know of very few who don’t think it was said by Jesus.
Jay says: ” If a person commits so and so crime, they will live with this penalty.”
But that’s one of the problems you haven’t addressed. As an earlier commenter noted, many people on death row don’t deserve to be there. They were wrongly convicted and exonerated (in many cases) by DNA evidence. A consistent theology of life leaves ultimate judgment with God, not fallible human beings.
Yes, the death penalty does not help us balance our budgets. It is expensive, but so is all incarceration. If we really care about budgets, why even require life without parole? Gangbangers probably don’t pose a real risk to society once they turn 50, so we could save lots of money by just having an “imprisonment until 50″ for some categories of violent offenders.
To be more concrete, Tookie Williams, co-founder of the Crips was executed in 2005 for a multiple homicide even though he had some kind of anti-violence prison conversion and began writing anti-violence children’s books. He ceased being a threat to society (allegedly) when he made his anti-violence conversion, so why didn’t we just let him out then. For that matter, why don’t we let all violent offenders out when they have a religious conversion and cease to be threats to society?
We need some kind of consistent logic for sentencing and I haven’t seen it yet. Hammurabi’s code is consistent, even if it is expensive.
And the only reason I am hammering this is the statement above “Nothing is ‘demanded’ by their actions aside from justice”…give me a consistent, practically applicable definition of justice. Hammurabi’s justice is easy to understand. What is the alternative? When a person is gunned down premeditatively justice = ?. If it isn’t the DP, why is it life without parole? Give me some principle.
We could use the woman caught in adultery, but that would just give us justice=go and sin no more, and I don’t think anyone is advocating letting violent criminals off with repentance.
So, if someone who is anti-dp could just give me a consistent, preferably biblical, formula for determining what justice should look like in the criminal justice system.
A little more…
for one of our lawyers…I always hear about the expensive appeals involved in the DP process, and how they jack up the cost of executions. Do people imprisoned for life not have access to the same appeals? (I really do not know)
Also…you might not have to worry about the DP, practically, much longer because the 3-drug cocktail approved in most states as a humane means of execution is no longer available because it is no longer cost-effective for pharmaceutical companies to produce (some of the drugs in it are no longer prescribed for whatever they used to be prescribed for) so states that use those cocktails are losing/have lost the ability to execute people because of unavailability. I recently overheard one of our high-ranking officials say that if the state supreme court refused to allow an alternative to that cocktail, we literally did not have a large enough supply to perform another execution and our only hope of getting additional supplies was buying them from other states that had a surplus.
Robin,
Your language opened up a bit cheeky … but I get your point.
So, let me try: no one to my knowledge is against justice or against punitive/retributive justice. (Some think the word “retributive” means just punishment, but that’s not careful thinking.)
I know very few who are against incarceration and know of none who say “Well, if they say they feel bad or apologize, let’s let them off the hook.”
No, incarceration is justifiable as a way of protecting society and preventing crime.
The issue here is the extent: the death penalty is not necessary or effective. We can get into the hermeneutics of OT capital punishment and cities of refuge etc, but once we go there we entangle ourselves in the simple fact that rebellion against one’s parents entailed capital punishment. Once we let up there, we begin the hermeneutical process.
My contention: Jesus’ teachings in Matt 5, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the power of grace etc sets the Christian into the world where he or she ought to work instead at restorative justice. Once that position is taken out the window goes the death penalty.
Scot,
Do you have some principle in mind for what length and kind of incarceration Jesus would have wanted for violent crimes or non-violent crimes? I don’t think you really want us to apply Matthew 5 (go and sin no more) to murderers and rapists, but is there anything concrete you could say about what Jesus would want?
Outside of specific guidance from Jesus on violent crimes is there some theological (leaving aside budgetary costs and the possibility of false conviction) reason that the OT law isn’t our next-best approximation of what “justice” looks like.
It is easy when talking about adultery, but what about Loughner? The OT would clearly condemn him to death for murdering 6 people in broad daylight. Do you have a firm theological answer for what type of punishment Jesus would prefer over the DP?
The death penalty is just one cog in America’s “culture of death”. The Bible does not require a death for a death, so why should we? The death penalty a sinless savior Jesus endured shows just how unjust and cruel we humans can be if given the chance. Let’s leave room for God to be God and execute real justice.
#12 and #13 (and others),
Why is it wrong to use the death penalty to exact repercussions/pass judgment, but not wrong to lock someone in prison for years and years and years – which is exacting repercussions and passing judgment?
It seems most of the arguments above against the death penalty have to do with repercussions/judgment, or with wrongful convictions, or with money. All of these sets of arguments could apply to life in prison as well.
I strongly think that long-term prison sentences are cruel and unusual punishment. I would rather be killed than to be locked up for 50 years, in a small cell, with very limited freedom (although the 2nd is reversible if I’m proved innocent! – though the years could never be given back).
BTW, I’m against the death penalty as it is used in the U.S., but not for the normal bad arguments against the death penalty. I’m against it because it is used inequitably depending on social class and/or race.
Scot, in comment (16) you are dealing with principles that I am unfamiliar with, so I will try my best, with the help of wikipedia.
You assert that Matthew 5 ends the reign of retributive justice and now life, including the criminal justice system, is to be lived through the lens of restorative justice.
It appears that if the goal is restoration, and according to restorative justice that can be done through victims telling their stories, for them receiving financial compensation, etc. , then you could literally have a situation in which a woman confronts her rapist, expresses her hurt, a plan for rehabilitation is agreed upon, and the rapist pays the woman an agreed upon sum and walks free.
I don’t know how this would apply to more violent crimes like murder where restoration with the injured party is impossible…but at least “restorative justice” as an ideal is a consistent framework that could be applied consistently across society.
Jay, I think the adulterous woman was set free from some of the repercussions of her sin (specifically, the death penalty) while on the earth. Mercy is certainly not meant for heaven alone according to Jesus. Scot’s question was good. Jesus said, “You’ve heard it said, ‘Eye for an eye,’ but I say . . .”
Further, Ezekiel tells us plainly that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he prefers (and so often delays judgment to allow for) repentance and life for the wicked. If God prefers that, why should Christians argue for the opposite?
Paul wrote: “If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.” (Acts 25:11 ESV)
He continued in Romans: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:1-4 ESV)
How are we to respond to that? I think that we are to live by the laws that our government has set above us. I am thankful to live in a democratic nation where laws can be changed: slavery, suffrage, etc. But I am also thankful for the process which leads us to changing those laws. They were established for a reason and should not be changed lightly or in a knee-jerk fashion.
In all things, as Christians we should demonstrate Christ’s love. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
(Romans 5:8 ESV) We are called to love because he first loved us: “We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4:19-21 ESV)
No matter where we land on this topic, it must come back to love. How are we demonstrating it? How are we living it? How are we showing it?
Scot,
Under a restorative justice framework, if Representative Giffords, and her entire family, and all of the families of the other victims, and all of the people close to the victims that had a legitimate claim of harm, the people who would need “restoring” under that framework…if all of those people were moved by the spirit to truly forgive the murderer and “restoration” was accomplished with all of the victims, then why, under a restorative justice framework, couldn’t Loughner walk free?
If all Jesus demands is restorative justice, their forgiveness should be sufficient; if additional incarceration is necessary once restoration has been achieved, it looks like it would imply restorative justice is not sufficient.
It just seems that while restorative justice might be good for some types of crimes, it is insufficient for more violent crimes. It seems to me that the very concept of “life without parole” implies that restorative justice is either unattainable or insufficient within the normal human lifespan.
I really like the idea of restorative justice. Once again though, I think it is as strong (or stronger) of an argument against life/long prison sentences. There is no restoration that happens with long sentences. There is no ‘debt to society’ that gets paid. Rather, society pays further, and even short sentences can create hardened recidivist criminals who are further of a burden on society.
Our prison/jail system is already retributive system, so the death penalty fits the system (if it were used consistently and justly). I don’t think the argument that a life sentence is more restorative than the death penalty can possibly be made – except perhaps that the person has a chance to place their faith in Christ during that time.
So, either there needs to be a massive overhaul of the entire justice system to make it restorative, or the death penalty fits the current system.
Robin,
You’ve asked so many questions I don’t even know where to begin.
Somehow there’s an assumption of how restorative justice works out practically, and my use of that expression only means that the justice system has the aim of restoring that person to society justly but only if (big if) and when that person is capable of living properly in society.
On violent crimes … somewhere between incarceration to life without parole.
Yes, I do think the words of Jesus are the way his followers are to live. That means we would want to see laws that reflect those teachings.
Jay,
Yes, to a degree. I want to be a good citizen but only if it is consistent with being a good disciple.
I completely agree that we seek a justice that is loving.
Sorry for the many questions Scot. I agree with Calebite that “life without parole” is no more restorative than the death penalty, indeed, it implies that restoration is impossible. I can see how any punishment short of that could be an example of restoration.
Sorry Scot, one last question. Do you have anything besides Matthew 5 to suggest that Jesus wasn’t just addressing an isolated incident, but instead calling for a dramatic shift in the way his followers approach criminal justice? How can I be sure that this isn’t just a progressive professor reading progressive criminal justice policy back into scripture? If there is a primer you can think of that gives an exegetical case for why restorative justice is now the standard for Christians feel free to just point me to that.
For every democratic Congressperson that tries to initiate a new government program we have here a government program that they can abolish in order to pay for the new program.
Scot, I’ve been reading through the Didache and love the insight that such an early Christian community took Matthew 5 so literally. It gives us cause to do the same. Let us love our enemies.
Actually, the forgiveness project has some interesting stories about restoration of murderers.
Here are two such stories:
http://theforgivenessproject.com/stories/joan-van-blerk-collin-ketshabile-south-africa/
http://theforgivenessproject.com/stories/linda-biehl-easy-nofemela-south-africa/
These are really beautiful.
I will add that I think Calebite is right (regarding many long sentences), and further, that right now many states, including Florida, are seriously considering how we can move from a retributive to more restorative model, but the straw breaking the camel’s back is more the cost(s) of retribution relative to restoration, especially as it applies to drug charges than a desire for more mercy or justice.
@ 29 Robin,
One piece of scripture you might turn to is Paul’s conversion and commissioning. When formerly he stood by and approved of slayings, after his conversion he became a great church leader.
Matthew 5 though, is hardly an isolated incident, as it isn’t addressing an isolated community. He is speaking to his disciples in the presence of a large crowd gathered from all over the land. He is speaking about a way of living that points to the Kingdom of God. This way stands in direct opposition to the way that human’s normally behave.
Robin,
I think your question is good and large. In response to it, I think we can ask what we think God would prefer, based not on this or that passage, but all of them: Does God, in general, want to put wrongdoers to death, or give them additional time to repent? Does God prefer punishing or restoring sinners?
I think God’s preference is clear from the Scriptures, and I think all people (whether Christians or not, whether governors or parents) do well to heed it and seek to do likewise.
Robin, did you discount John 7? This isn’t the rambling of a “progressive” professor but an Anabaptist perspective. I also think Revelation, of all texts, shows that those who are established as the righteous are those who followed the Lamb.
Yes, the death penalty is absolutely necessary. Of course, exceptional prosecutorial care must be exercised in trying these and all cases. But once the legal standard has been carefully met and a murderer is proven guilty, then death is a necessary punishment.
Frankly, it is tiresome to use Matthew 5 as a repudiation of the death penalty. Jesus was not addressing the jurisdiction of governments to punish evil doers. The Bible clearly forbids the exercise of personal vengeance as addressed in Matthew 5 and Romans 12:9. But 1 Peter 2:13-14 along with Romans 13 give governments the right to punish evil doers. And based upon Genesis 9 (among other texts) it would seem capital punishment is a just means of exacting this punishment.
The man in the article wrote: “Do some murderers deserve the death penalty? Maybe so, but that is an emotional reaction.” Really? My emotions have nothing to do with it. Faithfulness to the wisdom of God is my motive.
This article links the statistics of murder rates and death penalty by state, but it does nothing to address the huge gun ownership in the USA, which must factor into our high murder rate. I doubt if any civilized country in the world has the per capita gun ownership of the USA.
Part of the problem no matter which side of the debate you’re on is that the time between the crime and the punishment is usually so great that there is little connection between the two in peoples minds.
“When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong.” – Ecclesiastes 8:11
Dale Brueggemann (#36),
Please. Why must guns be factored into this? The issue isn’t with guns but with the human heart. How naive to think we will just lock up all the guns and simultaneously tromp on our freedom (not to mention the Second Ammendment) and miraculously all our problems will be solved.
Cars kill vastly more people every year than guns do. Would you like us to get rid of them too? Kitchen knives? Baseball bats? Hammers? Rocks? Where does it end?
The problem is with fallen, wicked, sinful human hearts – not guns.
Scott,
Wait a minute. Is there anything in Matt 5 that indicates “this is only for personal” but not for “public”? Isn’t this the kingdom ethic of Jesus now brought forward into this time and space?
If so, then it does say something about what Christians are to desire and to do.
And when it comes to Romans and 1 Peter, wouldn’t we at least have to consider the pragmatics of a Roman world where the Christians had no voice whatsoever and how to relate to that government? Which is precisely Peter’s strategy in 1 Pet 2:11-12.
Scott, I would also say guns do have something to do with this, but that’s for another day — and I agree that’s for another day.
I think the death penalty should be repealed, for the reasons cited above — too many people executed who were later found to be innocent, and it does not seem to me to something supported by Christian ethics.
Funny, reading this post on this particular blog, my mind kept turning to the fact that Jesus of course suffered the death penalty . . .
Scot,
I would love to hear your specific thoughts on Romans 13, particularly the first 5 verses. That passage seems to authorize the death penalty as one of many tools to be used by governments that are “ordained by God.”
Specifically, when Paul says that rulers do not “bear the sword in vain” does it not seem that he is implying that this is a natural thing for governments to do?
I would really like to hear your thoughts because I do not like the death penalty. The notion of an innocent person being executed by mistake is almost too much to stomach.
Thanks
Scot,
Well, you have me thinking.
Are you saying that in 1 Peter 2:13-14 that Peter is telling us that God uses the government to punish evil done against Christians as an act of protection for them? In other words, if I could paraphrase Peter, “You Christians keep on doing good by submitting yourselves to God and human institutions because God will care for you even if that means he will punish those who treat you with evil through the government.” Is this the idea of what he’s saying or at least what you think he is saying? If the text is read in context it seems to be saying this. Or am I missing it?
As for Matthew 5 I will give this some more reflection.
Good discussion.
Scott,
We have to read this in the context of 1st Century Roman empire and an incredibly small Christian movement. The first thing that stands out is that they were sometimes fighting for their lives … or doing what they could to stay alive.
One of Peter’s strategies, in a world where he could do nothing but submit or die, was to be good citizens. He saw God at work in the Roman system — and they were to live with that.
But we live in a completely different world where we can do something about it. We are called to live out the gospel — Jesus as Lord over all — and that would involved doing what we can to establish laws that are commensurable with the ethic of Jesus, and I take Sermon on the Mount to be that ethic.
No the Christians were told by Peter not to do wrong because they would be punished. If they were being punished as Christians, they were in the footprints of Christ; if as evildoers they were wrong.
IN other words, his view of the God and Rome is shaped by “there’s no other option for us.”
Jim,
Essentially, I see Romans 13 along the same line: it’s from the angle of an apostle who sees Rome as so vast nothing can be done about it. So, let’s be good citizens and work at kingdom living as people who don’t get into trouble.
Robin,
I’m not sure if anyone answered yr question about appeals, but the short answer is that people on death row get many more appeals than those sentenced to life.
Just on the matter of deterrence, I think the death penalty could deter crime but not as it’s currently implemented in the US. As things stand, committing a capital crime is more like playing Russian roulette. By the time you factor in plea deals, sentencing discretion on the part of judges and/or juries, appeals, pardons, and possible future moratoriums on or abolition of executions depending on political winds, how many people who commit (or are found guilty of, which is not the same thing) capital crimes in death penalty states are actually executed? If you’re looking to deter crimes, I bet consistent penalties are much more important than severe ones.
In a place such as Singapore, on the other hand, the death penalty is probably much more of a deterrent because it is applied consistently (even for trafficking drugs or firearms).
dale (36):
Gun access explains a lot, but it doesn’t fully account for the high US murder rate. Even after you control for guns, the US still has a significantly higher murder rate than any industrialized nation (see data and figures in the book CRIME AND THE AMERICAN DREAM by Messner and Rosenfeld).
There are a lot of theories as to why the US is the world leader in murder. Drug deals gone wrong in the 90s (amid high crack market activities in US cities) is probably the biggest factor.
After reading that the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crime I decided to do a quick internet search to see if I could find some numbers. I have no idea how accurate the following is but I find the data listed interesting.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf
I’m sure the data is controversial but the actual number of executions should be accurate. Texas has executed 463 people since 1976, over four times that of any other state. It would be interesting to see if there violent crime rate has gone down. The link reports that the south as a region has the highest number of executions and the highest murder rate. Interesting.
What are the best books on the issue of the death penalty?
I used to be a strong advocate of the death penalty, and thoroughly disqusted with those who opposed it. Now I’m one of the opponents. I qualify my opposition however, because I still know it is reasonable to execute certain murderers. Not emotional – reasonable. In fact those who are against are just as likely to be reacting emotionally as those who are for. When it comes to executions however what is not reasonable is to get it wrong. But we do. Way too much. That’s intolerable. I see that now.
Scott – “the issue isn’t guns but the human heart”. True, so why should sinful people have unfettered access to increasingly destructive tools. Stemming weapons proliferation – whether nuclear or small arms – doesn’t take away the motivation for violence, but it does and can severely limit the means available. The inconsistency of wanting an armed citizenry but disarmed Iran looks bizarre to many outside the US.
I’m not sure I understand why theology and the bible trump financial and social concerns on this issue. Jesus tells us that our response as Christians should not be to demand punitive justice but to love our enemies. So as Christian, I do not think the death penalty is necessary – I also believe I should always pursue restorative justice. The state, however, has other concerns. I can forgive and risk my life and safety, I can turn the other cheek. But the government is instituted to protect its citizens. Life without parole is not restorative justice, but it is an ethical choice for the safety of the citizenry. For me, the cost of the death penalty and risk of wrongful execution are perfectly valid arguments for the state to eradicate a punishment that I as a Christian could not demand if my loved one were murdered.
The above is in response to Robin’s arguments. I believe we can arrive at a consistent system of justice if we focus on ethical means of ensuring safety rather than deserved or undeserved punishment.
By logical necessity, it seems to me that those who argue against the death penalty on the basis that innocent people are sometimes killed should oppose almost all types of modern warfare because innocent people get killed through the latter also. Based on the preponderance of guerrilla warfare and so-called terrorist tactics in the world today that threaten civilian populations, civilians are (in my opinion) surely killed in warfare at a greater rate than innocent people killed through the US judicial systems.
I am a pacifist and oppose all warfare.
not that it really matters. I think you would agree that if we have two choices in combat that will likely have the same outcomes, but one is cheaper and will result in fewer innocent deaths, the choice is obvious.
I lean toward Scot’s position on this issue, but for the people who wrote the piece to imply that the death penalty is the reason for the difference in murder rates between the US and Europe is pretty silly, and undermines their credibility.
Not that there might not be some correlation, but there are so many cultural factors that must be more important. And yes, among the cultural factors is that it is much easier for humans with sinful hearts to get handguns in the US.
I’d also speculate that the US favoring the death penalty, the US murder rate, and US gun-friendly laws all reflect something deep in our culture that prioritizes violence as a way to deal with things to a greater degree than in some other cultures.
Abolish it. The prosecuting attorney, judge and jury that condemn an innocent person to death are likewise murderers and by their own logic (an eye for an eye) should be executed. They are not cogs in a machine called the “law” but humans with free will who exercised it and did evil.
First, the death penalty is unbelief. It requires shutting our eyes to the theology of the New Testament.
Second, I’ve never even so much as fired a gun with the exception of a squirt gun or playing paintball so I’m no 2nd Amendment obsessive, but civilized Switzerland requires all its males age 20 to 30 to have a military weapon and ammunition in their homes and the presence of these weapons doesn’t make these guys drop their fondue and murder one another. Guns in the US are simply a symbol and/or symptom of something else. What exactly that something else is I’m not sure. Perhaps someone on this thread has a good suggestion.
Alan K,
I’m in your corner brother, but “unbelief.” A little too severe for me.
Never heard that about Switzerland.
I would not argue categorically against killing in war, lethal force by the police, or the death penalty. However, the former two generally lack the same alternatives, motives, degree of control possible, or time for deliberation as the latter, thus the moral culpability for getting it wrong, and the responsibility to get it right, are not the same.
I know the topic of this conversation is not guns in particular but, I think this is somewhat relevant.
I had a great conversation yesterday with a friend from Cyprus about all of this. I did not have a world perspective, and I realize that the right condemns even having such a perspective, but he was talking about how all the other nations that we feel are hotbeds for violence all go to the US to get guns and then ship them to those areas where we all look at in the news and think, boy are they violent. Others in the world really have a difficult time understanding the level of violence we support without knowing it.
Sorry for the bad sentences….just read slowly
The emotive side of me is angered when I hear of a person being murdered, especially when it involves children and/or sexual assault. That side of me wants the death penalty because it wants vengeance. But I cannot consciously and objectively support the death penalty. I not only think it is unethical but also way to costly when a sentence of natural life in prison without parole would sufficiently keep those who commit such violent murder from ever doing it again in public.
Grace and Peace,
K. Rex Butts
I think R.C. Sproul said it best:
What should be the Christian stand on the death penalty?
I’m convinced that our whole criminal justice system is in serious need of reformation and restructuring because it is not working and many inequities exist within it. Christians are divided about the issue of capital punishment. First, there is the basic question of whether or not capital punishment in and of itself is a good or bad thing. I think the majority opinion of the Christian church throughout its history has been that capital punishment is a good thing. This position has been taken, not because Christians are particularly bloodthirsty, but because Christians read the Scriptures. The Word of God institutes, ordains, and commands capital punishment in Genesis 9:6.
When the state legislature of Pennsylvania voted to reintroduce capital punishment, the then governor of the state vetoed it on the grounds that the Bible said, “Thou shalt not kill.” He was aware that the Bible said, “Thou shalt not kill,” and he was quoting from the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. Yet if you go to Exodus 21, 22, and 23 (the holiness code), God sets forth the provisions for those who break that commandment. For those who murder, God commands that they be executed.
Fine distinctions are made between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, malice of forethought, and the various kinds of situations that fall within the complexity of our jurisprudence. So I’m answering this question in its broad principle.
Usually, the great objection to capital punishment is that human life is so precious and so valuable that we ought never to lift our hands to snuff it out. Also, every human being is redeemable. Another argument is that capital punishment is not a deterrent. But the institution of capital punishment was not given as a deterrent but as an act of justice. What is the biblical rationale? Capital punishment is instituted very early in the Old Testament—before Moses, before Sinai, before the Ten Commandments, back in the days of Noah, where God says, “If by man, man’s blood is shed, by man shall his blood be shed.” That’s not a prediction. The structure of the language there is an imperative; it is a command. The reason is given: “Because man is made in the image of God.” In other words, the Bible says that human life is so sacred, so precious, so holy—human life has so much dignity—that if with malice of forethought you wantonly destroy another human being, you thereby forfeit your own right to life. God doesn’t merely allow the execution of murderers; he commands it.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/what-should-be-christian-stand-death-penalty/
Piper makes a good distinction between the principle of capital punishment – that it is biblical and right – and the practice of capital punishment which is a difficult one.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/do-you-believe-in-capital-punishment
I am not advocating for no punishment, just not death punishment. My main point is that we create a culture of violence by advocating the death penalty. We give people permission to solve problems through violence and death when as a nation we say that we too will do that in certain cases. The Death Penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. I only mention this because many people don’t think that. And Jay, you inability to understand how the globe fits together by saying that you don’t care what other countries do is precisely one of the major causes of conflict in our world. As Christians we are called to care about the whole of creation, not just our little backyard. What the US does affects the entire world, often in negative ways, and then the US wonders why the rest of the world has so much contempt for us. As for restorative justice…even incarcerated individuals can grow. The can learn that they are loved and cared for by God, that their sins are forgiven, that they can change and develop. If someone has committed a crime that deems it necessary for them to remain locked up for life, so be it, but one can always grow through any circumstance. Death ends all chance of any growth or redemption taking place. For me, the main point is that violence begets violence and if you don’t think the US has a terrible problem with violence, then you are not paying attention to the headlines. We need to model a more humane and sane way to deal with the violent crimes that humanity continues to commit.
When I tell my European friends about the opinion most evangelicals hold regarding the death penalty, they can’t believe their ears. Nowhere on earth are christians perceived as so violent as are in the US !!
I realize this is only anecdotal evidence but I’ve worked in a Category B prison (high security – small fry to lifers) and our frank discussions all ended with the conclusion that the threat of a death penalty wouldn’t have kept any of them out of prison or out of a life of crime.
A life sentence certainly can be served with restoration to society in mind because a prison is a society and lifers have the chance to serve in many useful ways. I think of a particular man who had committed a dreadful crime but is now acting as a “Listener”, helping those at risk for suicide in prison.
Re: Guns and the human heart. No one mentions the missing ingredient of individualism – a defining American trait.
Most police here in the UK don’t carry guns because they believe in the concept of “policing by consent”. That means that the community as a whole (including criminals) accepts the role of law enforcement as good for society. In the 16 years that I’ve lived here, people have become more self-centred and materialistic.(More American in lifestyle and attitude,dare I say?) In that same period, the instances of gun crime and the number of armed officers have both increased dramatically.
Re: Switzerland. They have guns in their houses but most ammunition is kept at the army bases. According to this: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Parliament_rejects_tougher_gun_laws.html?cid=9126536 some Swiss are looking for tougher gun control too.
Alan K (58):
The Swiss don’t have near the crime-generating problems the USA has. America has a lot of the following:
-income inequality (if they’re getting theirs, I gotta get mine)
-racial and socioeconomic residential segregation (this concentrates problems)
-decline in stable low-skilled work (if there are no decent jobs…crime pays)
-high single-parent household rates (think ineffectual youth supervision)
-and as some have suggested, some sort of crime-generating cultural component (e.g., a “getting rich at any cost (including murder) mentality,” an violent masculine honor code in the South, etc…).
So it’s that these other social ills create the conditions for gun access to have it’s deleterious effects. Another society may have some of the same social ills as the US, but the lack of gun access keeps their murder rate at bay. So it’s likely combinatorial … see?
If we emancipated (from Rome), empowered (democratic) NC followers of Jesus are to throw off the death penalty, can we ask why God Himself doesn’t?
It seems that Christ’s death notwithstanding, God’s death penalty still awaits some (whether annihilation or eternal life in fire).
Of course we should fix the horrible injustices and delays and cost abuses with administration. But if God authorized/commanded human, fallible Israel to administer the death penalty and He maintains it Himself, is He still OK with it, in principle?
Jason Lee #69,
Thanks for your response. You mention a lot of social phenomena that occurs here. But then the question is “What creates the social phenomena?” What makes certain places more violent than others? How does poverty happen and how is it interpreted? In the end we have to ask what it is that makes people murderous?
Scot #59,
What I mean by “unbelief” is that the death penalty requires human agency that is entirely non-Christological and therefore operating apart from God.
Why is it that people invoke OT law to justify it, but completely ignore the laundry list of things you can get killed for under the same?
Refuse to do what your abusive, controlling father tells you when you’re 35? That’s a stoning.
Mow the lawn on Sunday? That’s a stoning too.
Pre-marital sex? Stoning.
We’d have a whole lot of dead people if we thought that Mosaic law was God’s ideal way of doing things.
Nope, Jeremy, pre-marital sex’s punishment was a permanent marriage. Just clarifying.
Doug#65: I listened to Piper in the link you provided and it made my stomach turn.
Doug (& others regarding God requiring the death penalty),
If God requires/commands all nations at all times to execute their murderers, was it God’s will that King David live after murdering Uriah? What about God’s will for Saul/Paul after having Stephen killed? Would it have been Jesus’ will that those who had him killed be put to death?
We need to distinguish b/n what penalty people “deserve” for wrongs according to God’s standards (which condemn us all) and how God would prefer to deal with those who deserve death. Clear guidance to both, especially in the story of God’s son, are in the scriptures.
Alan (#71), you’re asking incredibly sweeping questions that scholars devote their entire lives to picking away at. To take a cursory stab at your sweeping questions, I’ll note a few of the main schools of thinking on what makes people “murderous” and then connect back to a couple of the key social conditions I mentioned. Schools:
1. SOCIAL CONTROL PERSPECTIVE: People are naturally self-serving and deviant and so it is in situations of low social control (e.g., poor supervision of youth) where we see people free to act on these natural impulses and serve themselves through force or fraud.
2. SOCIAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVE: People are kind of blank slates and then through learning and contact with deviant others they develop deviant or violent behavior.
3. SOCIOBIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: Some people are more biologically prone than others to deviance or violence (genes, hormones, etc…) and to be affected by low social control or learning.
It seems that none of these perspectives is totally at odds with a Christian conception of human life (don’t Christians generally believe that people generally self-serving and can learn to be more so from other people).
To get more specific, there are various mechanisms through which the social variables I mentioned produce crime. For example the decline in manufacturing jobs in America in the 1980s (spawned mostly by globalization) led to fewer stable working-class jobs in inner cities. This led to a lot of crime-producing processes… e.g., more young men with few options but to make money illegally (drugs) … and there are no official courts for illegal drug trade disputes, so dealers turn to killing to resolve disputes. Also, with fewer young marriageable men (ie, in stable employment), marriage markets became lopsided and so men had more sexual power over young unmarried women (one eligible man to 3 women = man gets what he wants = unwed mother minus man)… which led to increases in female-headed households (FHHs). When statisticians put variables in models of crime, it is often %FHHs that swamp the models. Neighborhoods with high %FHHs are a sign of a great lack of social control over youth and young men (young men do most murdering). We could also look to cultural variables (eg, the need to deal drugs to have culturally defined status symbols[flashy stuff]), but it seems to make more sense to go to the more mundane economic and social variables first.
So a question for the death penalty advocates:
Since we know that murder rates are patterned by social groups and geographic areas (and not randomly distributed accross the population), we know that social conditions at least partly explain murder. Therefore, should people who contribute to murder-producing social conditions also be put to death?
Of course I’m not being serious, but I am trying to seriously point out that we’re all (or at least a lot of people) are responsible for each murder committed and it becomes difficult to place all of the blame on the individual. This inability to place all of the blame on the individual makes a statement like “people deserve the death penalty” difficult to support. How can we really parcel out the blame? Isn’t it better to focus on what prevents crime and harm? There is scant evidence that the death penalty does so. There’s good evidence that other things do (eg, discipleship, church involvement, healthy families/marriage, decent low skill jobs, education, restorative justice programs, and yes human policing and humane and fair criminal justice system functions too).
Doug, thank you for quoting Sproul. I noticed no one has taken him on since your posting.
One of the most responsibile things we can do is listen to the arguments of people we already respect, weigh them against our convictions, and re-evaluate the validity of both. In other words, apply a little critical thinking!
So far, I haven’t found anything more convincing to me (after reading every post) than Sproul’s assertion that the death penalty is the ultimate affirmation of the value of human life. Any punishment less than the forfeiting of your own life devalues the life of the person you murdered. Do you hear the hue and cry of previous posts where it’s declared the death penalty should be abolished because it’s so heinous when the convicted person is later found to be innocent? Where is the outrage on behalf of innocent people who are murdered? Why is the execution of a murderer convicted by his/her peers MORE intolerable than the crime the murderer was convicted of? Our society makes distinctions between killing and murder, and it should.
Scot, I thought that was the case of rape of an unbetrothed woman? (Again, here we are with talking about the law as God’s ideal?!). D 22:20 only says she isn’t a virgin on her wedding night. (and again, the man accusing her to get rid of her only results in a fine and permanent marriage…if no one can prove he’s wrong, she gets stoned.) I don’t see any requirement for marriage/betrothal beforehand. Am I missing something?
Another question is: what are the roots of death-penalty support in America? Do they really stem from attachment to an interpretive tradition of the Bible, or is invoking scripture really a justification for some other motivation? I think one person mentioned American’s individualism … and this is probably a good place to start looking for the cultural sources of death penalty support among Americans.
Peggy (78): “Where is the outrage on behalf of innocent people who are murdered?” I’m utterly outraged … which is why I’m so concerned that we’re wasting money and attention on an ineffectual deterrent–the death penalty. I’m even more outraged that we’re not employing more effective ways to avoid more murder and associated harm.
Peggy #78,
I think it is telling that Sproul’s argument (which is pretty much a repeat of an argument made a generation early by the Scottish theologian John Murray) makes no mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ. The argument requires reading the Old Testament with no interpretive impact of New Testament theology. I’d like to ask Sproul what he believes a statement like “The law was given through Moses, grace and truth happened through Jesus Christ” actually means for how we read scripture.
The witness to the value of human life is not that of the death penalty, but the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
Yeah, Peggy, in line with Alan, the same justification (the holiness of humans generally and Israel especially because of God’s image and call) is the same reason that many of God’s laws required the death penalty. Which sin is not a perversion of the holy call and image which God had given to humans? None of us deserves to bear his image, so we deserve to lose it. It’s not hard to argue from scripture that many sins, not just murder, deserve death on the those grounds. Jesus never argued that the woman caught in adultery didn’t deserve death. He refused to condemn her, however, not because of her innocence, not because she had not violated her body, God’s law and God’s image, but because he (God) would generally rather give time and opportunity for repentance of the sinner than judge the sinner based on the requirements of the law. And his response to the accusing crowd (and their reaction) proves my point: they knew they were just as guilty, just as worthy of death, as she was (the oldest ones most of all). The entirety of Christ’s life bears witness to the fact that God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, but prefers and works very hard for repentance and restoration of the wicked.
I’m honestly asking: If we were to drag a murderer before Jesus and say to him, “This man is a murderer. Noah and Moses tell us that this man deserves death. What do you say?” Do we really think his reply would be different than it was for the adulterous woman?
“With the tragedy of this weekend’s shootings we are driven to think about the death penalty…”
I can’t imagine why, but if you’re going to think about this particular crime and the innocents who were killed, how on earth do you move from there to abolishing the death penalty?
The Bible puts it in terms of the value of human life: Because life is precious, the penalty for taking a life is to forfeit your own (Gen 9:6).
How does making the penalty for murder essentially the same as stealing or selling drugs demonstrate that we value human life above all else?
As currently practiced, however, our death penalty system is a mess. We need to raise the bar for using it (e.g., never with only circumstancial evidence), insist that it be applied to all fairly, and ensure that all the evidence has been carefully and properly examined. Once we’ve done that, we can reduce the number of appeals (automatic and non-), speeding up the process and lowering the cost.
But I just can’t see life imprisoned in a Motel 6 as a fitting punishment for killing a human being.
Jeremy, to what I know that is the only OT text that deals with pre-marriage intercourse.
Jeremy,
I believe that Scot meant that we are “driven to think of the death penalty” because we imagine what type of retribution the offender will receive.
It seems the practical issue needs to be raised: that prosecutors use the death penalty as an important bargaining chip. In some cases, it resulted in saving lives. I am personally repulsed by it, but there’s so many repulsive elements working in the World System, this surely ranks low by comparison.
But I really don’t understand why or how biblical theology pertains to the state, especially a secular government. I do understand how it pertained to Israel’s theocracy, but doesn’t anyone believe anymore that “the whole world belongs to the evil one,” as Paul pointed out?
I don’t have anything to add except a link to the best thing I have ever read on the death penalty: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
It’s a long article—17 pages—but it’s quite a good one.
Were it not for the death penalty, yes even administered to a righteous man, none of us would have been saved.
Mike #89,
That is the wonderful irony–the death penalty as the symbol of ultimate authority in the world gets taken away by Jesus Christ by submitting to it. And since the world has been saved, what is the point in using it? What necessity is there for capital punishment if indeed God has conquered?
“In California, for example, the death penalty costs $125 million more — every year — than life without parole, which also takes the offender off the streets permanently.”
My uncle, a superior court judge in LA, has confirmed this. However, some might argue that it’s not the death penalty but the appeals process that needs to be amended. That said, I’m all in favor of repealing the death penalty.
This is a very difficult and complex issue. There is much I would add, but it would probably be redundant. However, one thing that I feel needs to be said:
To whose who use the poor quality of life of “life in prison” to argue for the death penalty (i.e. those who suggest they would prefer to die than to live in such conditions), I find that logic shocking and somewhat offensive. It is one thing to decide if a person should die for their crimes, but it is another to start making judgments on the quality of life. Where does that logic end?
Jason: “But the institution of capital punishment was not given as a deterrent but as an act of justice.” (Sproul) And your outrage was not, as I asked the question, for the innocent victim of the murderer, but for money?
Alan & T: “I and the Father are one. If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.” (Jesus) As far as I know, Jesus did not vacate any one of the Big Ten (commandments).
T: In response to your “honest question,” do you think Jesus’ reply would be different than it was for the adulterous woman if He had been a judicial magistrate in a court of law (and sworn to uphold it) rather than an example of how individuals are to treat each other?
And still, no one has taken this on: “the Bible says that human life is so sacred, so precious, so holy — human life has so much dignity — that if with malice of forethought you wantonly destroy another human being, you thereby forfeit your own right to life.” (Sproul)
Peggy (93): The fact that Sproul’s thought that “the institution of capital punishment was not given as a deterrent but as an act of justice.” doesn’t make it so.
I’m not sure how you read my mind and erroneously supposed that I’m outraged over money. I’m frustrated that we haven’t invested in better deterrents of murder, including future murder. This is so saddening because the most common victims of murder are young poor men in inner-city neighborhoods, as well as the elderly (as an aside, surveys show that those who fear violent crime the most but are the least likely to be victimized are middle aged white women). Decades of criminological research shows that the death penalty is not an effective stopper of violent crime. The people who tout it are politicians who want to prey on people’s traditional attachment to the death penalty in order to get themselves votes.
Peggy,
If Jesus is the great upholder of the law, then why is he plucking grain on the Sabbath? Does the law bind Jesus Christ or does Jesus Christ bind the law?
Regarding your last paragraph, again that is a statement that is devoid of any meaningful Christology. The center of theological anthropology is not the Old Testament but rather is Jesus Christ. Is the lex talionis the Word of God? Will murders be overcome by consequences? Are hearts transformed by fear? Ask honestly if Sproul’s statement has any relation to gospel. Has not every human being throughout history forfeited his or her life? Am I a privileged sinner because I haven’t committed murder? We all are guilty and we all are judged–by Jesus himself. But did he not take all that judgment on himself? Is not the judgment of everyone, murderers included, transformed? Does the electric chair add justice that was missing to the cross? Did the guillotine witness to the love of God? To take on Sproul’s statement directly, it only makes sense if Jesus Christ is of minimal or no consequence.