CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT
Though
we believe the Bible as the very Word of God, there are many difficult issues about
which we cannot have an absolute conclusion according to the Bible. Especially
when we come to the issues related to human life, we could not make conclusions
which we all can agree on. Different people see the issues from different
perspectives. Many Bible believing
Christians think capital punishment is not biblical and should be abolished in
our society. Amnesty International mentions their view on capital punishment
saying,
“Amnesty International opposes the death
penalty in all cases without exception. The death penalty is the ultimate
denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human
being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as
proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the ultimate
cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification
for torture or for cruel treatment. Like torture, an execution constitutes an
extreme physical and mental assault on an individual.”[1]
However,
other Christians see capital punishment as God’s mandate to human society and
this is the requirement of God’s nature. As God created human beings to rule the world,
human beings have responsibility to take care of the world – including fellow
human beings, animals, other living beings and nature. In order to display
God’s justice in the world, it is a God-given responsibility to the human
beings.
Capital punishment has
been an issue for Christian churches because it relates to how we understand
the Bible and how we view the meaning of life. This paper talks about
definition of capital punishment, different views on capital punishment, the
purpose of capital punishment, biblical perspectives on capital punishment and
how should a Christian see the issue of capital punishment in life.
Capital Punishment
Capital
punishment, also called the Death Penalty, is the death sentence on the person
by the government as a punishment for a crime. It is handed down for capital
offences like planned murder, multiple murders, repeated crimes, rape and
murder where, according to New Catholic Encyclopedia, the criminal provisions
consider such persons as a gross danger to the existence of the society and
provide death punishment.[2] The word “capital”
comes directly from the Latin capitalis, “of the head.” Different methods of capital punishment are beheading,
burning, hanging, electrocution, decapitation, crucifixion and lethal
injection. Therefore, the most
appropriate definition of capital punishment is “the execution
of a criminal under death sentence imposed by competent public authority.”[3] Across human history, beheading has
been the most frequent method of for crimes.
Capital Punishment in History
When we read historical books
regarding capital punishment, we see that it was practiced even in ancient
society. The earliest recorded death sentence could be found in Egypt. In this
case a criminal was found guilty of “magic” but was left to inflict the
punishment upon himself as his own executioner.[4]
Ancient Chinese also gave capital punishment to those guilty of murder, piracy,
highway robbery, rebellion, counterfeiting, forgery, arson, rape of girls under
twelve, fraud at public examination, and smuggling salt.[5]
In the 5th Century BC,
the Roman law of the Twelve Tablets codified the death penalty which, for them, was different for nobility, freemen
and slaves and was punishment for crimes such as the publication of libels and
insulting songs, the cutting or grazing of crops planted by a farmer, the
burning of a house or a stack of corn near a house, cheating by a patron of his
client, perjury, making disturbances at night in the city, willful murder of a
freeman or a parent, or theft by a slave.[6]
Death was often cruel and included crucifixion, drowning, burial alive, beating
to death, and impalement. The Romans had a curious punishment for parricides:
the condemned was submersed in water in a sack, which also contained a dog, a
rooster, a viper and an ape.[7]
The most notorious death execution in BC was about 399 BC when the Greek
philosopher Socrates was required to drink poison for heresy and corruption of
youth.[8]
There is evidence that Jews also used
many different techniques for the death penalty including stoning, hanging,
beheading, crucifixion, and sawing asunder. The most infamous execution of
history occurred with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ outside Jerusalem. About
300 years later, the Emperor Constantine, after converting to Christianity,
abolished crucifixion and other cruel death penalties in the Roman Empire. In
438, the Code of Theodosius made more than eighty crimes punishable by death.[9]
The early church fathers also
struggled with the issue of the death penalty although their teachings are not
clear. Their lives were under a pagan government and they were always under persecution.
The most prominent theologian, Augustine, quoted Romans 13:4 and defended
capital punishment for the sake of social order. According to Romans 13:4, God
allows the government to rule the people and the sword is not in vain. Thomas
Aquinas also says, “It is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is
directed to the welfare of the whole community so that it belongs to him alone
who has charge of the community’s welfare. … Now the care of the common good is
entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and
not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”[10]
According to these two church fathers, killing a human being is a really
serious sin and punishing a murderer is strongly recommended. Capital punishment,
however, should be done only by the authority of the government. Early church
fathers believed in God’s control over the worldly government though they were
pagans or not.
Martin Luther said that he would
not oppose the government even though the government oppressed Christians. They
have the right to punish the criminals and that authority is given by God. Luther
argued, “I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the
Gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without offering to submit the
case to judgment. For he is within his rights, … it is their duty to punish
them, for it is just for this purpose that they bear the sword, and are ‘the
ministers of God upon him that doeth evil.’”[11]
John Calvin’s view is similar to Martin Luther’s. Calvin commented, “Yet if we
understand that the magistrate in administering punishments does nothing by
himself, but carries out the very judgments of God, we shall not be hampered by
this scruple. The law of the Lord forbids killing; but, that murderers may not
go unpunished, the Lawgiver himself puts into the hand of his ministers a sword
to be drawn against all murderers. It is not for the pious to afflict and hurt,
yet to avenge, at the Lord’s command, the afflictions of the pious is not to
hurt or to afflict.”[12]
The early church fathers and theologians used the Bible to support capital
punishment. They all reminded that the punishment should be done by the authority
of the government alone whether they were pagans or not.
There were some early church
fathers who opposed capital punishment. Tertullian mentioned in his book De
idolatria (On idolatry) that “Christians could not conscientiously inflict the
death penalty. This treatise considers the dangers of contributing to sin
inherent in certain professions and trades. One of these was the Roman
military, partly because the higher ranks participated in capital punishments.”[13]
For Tertullian, killing of any sort is not allowed for Christians, even if there
is strong evidence that he or she should be punished with the death penalty. According
to Origen, if Jews were free from Roman control and established their own
state, they would practice stoning and burning of criminals as Moses had
commanded them. Origen argued that God’s purpose in destroying the nation of Israel
was partly to end capital punishment and other bloodshed by the people of God.
The
Bible and Capital Punishment
Old
Testament Perspectives
In
the Old Testament, God commanded Noah right after they were saved from the
flood, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God
made man in his own image (Gen. 9:6).” Murder is wrong because it is “in effect
an outrage against God.”[14] Before the flood, the world was full of
violence and murder, but God punished them with the flood. This shows that God
is the God of justice and punishment. In this passage, there is no specific
reference to civil government and how to manage the law. It is said that God
would require the punishment of the murderer at the hands of another man. God
delegates the death penalty for murder into the hands of man.
Opponents
argue whether Genesis 9:6 is to be understood merely as a divine prediction of
the future consequences of murder, or rather as a divine command concerning society’s
proper punishment of the murderer.[15] This
is because in Hebrew verb “yis sa pek”,
shall be shed, can be interpreted either way. If we take this passage is still
valid for Christians today, then how about the laws of killing of animals,
witches, adulterers and disobedient children? Our interpretation of the Old
Testament will be inconsistent. Moreover, the Old Testament talks about refuge
cities for those who killed unintentional. John Yoder argued, “The whole
context of social and ethical thought has so changed that a simple
transposition of Old Testament laws is both impossible and illegitimate.”[16] Moreover,
Yoder interprets Genesis 9 that capital punishment is not defense of society
but expiation of a sin against the image of God. Therefore, as Jesus’ blood
expiated our sins, there is no more sacrifice.[17]
According
to the context of Genesis and the whole Torah, in this passage, a divine
command is intended. In verse 5, God requires a reckoning for the lifeblood of
man, whether that blood has been shed by man or beast. According to Davis, the
language of requirement implies an imperative rather than a mere description.[18]
The image of God in man is emphasized in this context[19]
that it is really a command. At the same time, in other passages of the Torah,
the murderer is required to be punished by death penalty. Feinberg also argues,
“according to the passage, one must require life because the murderer has
killed someone made in the image of God.”[20]
According
to Norman L. Geisler, God ordained social order and peace, and gave the
government the authority over life including punishment.[21]
Moses also confirmed the concept of capital punishment in the law. The idea of
“life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Ex. 21:25) was the key principle
of Mosaic Law. In Mosaic Law, there are eighteen different offenses which
deserved to capital punishment: Murder (Exo. 21:12-14), Causing the death of a
pregnant woman (Exo. 21:22-25), killing a person by a dangerous animal (Exo.
21:28-30), kidnapping (Exo. 21:16), rape of a married woman (Deut. 22:25-29),
fornication (Deut. 22:13-21), adultery (Lev. 20:10), incest (Lev. 20:11-12,
14), homosexuality (Lev. 20:13), sexual intercourse with an animal (Lev.
20:15-16), beating a parent (Exo. 21:15), cursing a parent (Lev. 21:17),
rebelling against parents (Deut. 21:18-21), sorcery and witchcraft (Exo.
22:18), cursing God (Lev. 24:10-16), attempting to lead people to worship other
gods (Deut. 13:1-16), avenging a death despite acquittal by the law (Deut.
17:12), intentionally giving false testimony against someone in jeopardy of the
death penalty. However, it is very serious to prove the victims by two or three
witnesses (Deut 19:15). Circumstantial evidence alone would not be sufficient
for capital punishment. This means God recommends the importance of human life
though it is allowed to punish the criminals. God requires strong evidence to
prove that he or she really commits the sin which deserves capital punishment.
Although it seems that Genesis 9:6 talks about personal revenge, the image of God limits the “infliction of
punishment so that it was not left to the whim of individuals but belonged to
those who sought for justice and who therefore represent the authority and
majesty of God.”[22]
Men of God in the Old Testament such as Cain, David and Moses murdered
intentionally, not accidently but God forgave them and used them for his
purpose. By looking at these examples, though God allowed capital punishment, for
opponents, it is not mandatory.
One
of the prominent examples of capital punishment in the Old Testament is the
death of Achan and his family (Josh 7:1). As soon as they committed sin, they
were put to death in front of the people. Moreover, pagan kings were given the
authority and ordained to display God’s justice in their governance. For
example, Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus were given the authority to resist evil in
the world. Martin Luther also states, “God shares His power with man and grants
him power over life and death among men, provided that a person is guilty of
shedding blood.”[23]
Therefore,
the Old Testament concept of capital punishment is clear because God requires
punishment of murder from another human being. Since God is the God of justice,
God requires justice from human beings in order to establish a just society.
God himself punished many people in the Old Testament such as Sodom and
Gomorrah, killing the first born sons in Egypt, killing the Egyptian army in
the Red Sea. These show that God is the one who wants criminals to be punished
according to their own sins. Whenever Israel committed sin, they were punished
by God. It is clear that God wants his people to punish those who commit crimes
in society. Capital punishment was not invented by man in history, but God did
it in the very beginning of society.
The
New Testament Perspectives
The opponents say that capital punishment is not
applicable to the New Testament because Genesis 9:6 is talking to the people
who are under the law. They emphasize that fact that the Law of Christ is love.
Christians not allowed to kill and not to participate in revenge but to love
neighbors and even their enemies (Matt. 22:37-40, Rom. 12:17-19). The most
prominent example is in John 8:1-11. The adulterous woman was brought to Jesus.
But Jesus asked the crowded to cast stone her by the one who is without sin.
Jesus told her that he did not condemn her and not to sin any more. Actually,
according to Moses Law, she deserved to die but Jesus forgave her. Jesus did
not condemn her. This means, according to the opponents, Jesus opposed the
death penalty.
Moreover,
in his teaching, Jesus said to turn the other cheek[24]
and to love even our enemies. Jesus always tells his disciples to forgive
sinners and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
In addition, Jesus himself was the victim of capital punishment. He
himself died as a result of capital punishment. The Old Testament ideas of
punishment, abolitionists insist, became secondary to Jesus’ message of love
and redemption. In Romans 13, for opponents of death penalty, Paul says that
“it does not bear the sword in vain.” They argued that while the sword refers
to the authority of the rulers to punish criminals, it does not demand to
punish by killing.
In
the New Testament, however, many passages express the same idea as the Old Testament
of capital punishment and the role of rulers. Government is ordained by God to
rule and to display justice in the society.
In the midst of disagreements among scholars, Geisler states that Jesus
affirmed the concept of capital punishment in his Sermon on the Mount. In
Jesus’ preaching, he said that he did not come to abolish the law but to
fulfill it. Jesus was saying that he fulfilled all the Law and now Christians
need to live in a perfect law. Under the Law, it is an “eye for an eye”
principle but now under the new covenant, if someone hates a brother, he is
already a criminal. Christians live
under a better and perfect law. This means it is really important to keep the
sacred life of human beings, so capital punishment is a must if someone commits
capital crimes. Norman Anderson also comments, “There are clear references in
the New Testament to the fact that a ruler or government has a divinely imposed
responsibility for the maintenance of justice, the encouragement of virtue and
the punishment of vice.”[25]
According
to Anderson, Romans 13:4 can be interpreted that the government has the right
to give capital punishment including capital punishment. Even in the apostolic
period, capital punishment was supported by apostles in the church. When
Ananias and Sapphira told lies to the people, Apostle Peter said they lied to
the Holy Spirit. Later they were killed because lying is a serious sin and they
lied to God. They died suddenly because some particular sins are really
deserved to be punished by capital punishment.
Therefore, it is quite clear that God is the God of
justice and he allowed certain crimes to be punished by human authority. God
does not allow people to do injustice like dictators today to use their power
to persecute people. God’s purpose is to make known to the world that he is the
God of righteousness and justice.
When we read
arguments of Christians on capital punishment, we interpret the Bible out of
context or acontextually. Whenever we want to justify capital punishment, we
quote “an eye for an eye” or “let he who is without sin, let him cast the first
stone.” Both pro-capital punishment and opponents use the same passage to
justify their view. However, this is just misuse of the Bible. In Matt. 5:38ff,
Jesus’ commands to turn the other cheek and love our enemies speak about
interpersonal relationship. If this passage will apply to criminal justice,
there would be no punishment at all.[26] The
whole theological meaning of God’s punishment to the evildoers and it also
contradicts the natural law of the world. Rather we should handle the Bible
correctly. The New Testament does not argue about capital punishment but it is
clear that the teachings of the New Testament are not contradictory to the Old
Testament. Therefore, the basic understanding of the Bible is God requires
justice in the society as he is the God of justice.
Different
Views on Punishment
There
are two kinds of punishment – utilitarian theory and retributive theory.[27]
The utilitarian theory justifies punishment solely in terms of its good
consequences. The utilitarian regards every kind of suffering as bad in itself,
and to be justified only if it prevents even greater suffering or if it brings
about greater good. The chief function of punishment is to reduce crime.[28]
Another theory is the retributive theory. Punishment is justified because the
offender has voluntarily committed a wrong act. Wrong doers deserve to suffer
for what they have done, whether or not the suffering produces any good
consequences. This paper now talks about different views on punishment
especially capital punishment – reconstruction, rehabilitation and retribution.
Reconstruction
This
view of reconstruction is committed to a strict following of the Mosaic Law in
today’s civil government.[29]
In the Law of Moses the death
penalty was prescribed for many different offenses. According to this view, God’s
law reflects his unchanging character and therefore must be applied today. God
is not only the God of Israel, but also of all people including the New
Testament church. This tells us that the Law does not change though Jesus came
to the world and fulfilled it. This view understands that Jesus fulfilled the
law but he did not abolish all the requirements of the Law.
Reconstructionists
argue that the Bible is to be the ruling text for all areas of life –
government, education, law, and the arts, including social and moral issues
like euthanasia, homosexuality, abortion, death penalty.[30]
Reconstructionists always attempt to examine contemporary matters by biblical
worldview. According to this view, there are three main areas of governance:
family government, church government, and civil government.[31]
Under God’s covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the
head of the family, and wife and children are “in submission” to him. In turn,
the husband “submits” to Jesus and to God’s laws as detailed in the Old
Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance.
Civil government exists to implement God’s laws.[32] Christians
are the people of God chosen to do what Adam, and God’s own people failed to do
in the past. Christians are called to implement God’s law in their daily life.
They understand that by obeying the law of God, God’s kingdom will be established
in this world.
Rehabilitation
According to this view, there is no
capital punishment for any crime. The Biblical concept of justice is to reform,
not to punish. God is also not happy when someone is punished bitterly even
though he or she is cruel. The
criminal is not just a reprobate to be merely punished as he deserves with no
interests of his own to be preserved, but a person in need of re-education and
rehabilitation.[33]
Instead of being punished for his or her crime, the criminal should be
corrected, re-socialized along the right path and taught to acquire suitable
skills for profitable livelihood. We cannot cure him by killing him. Just as
patients need a doctor, socially ill people need a psychiatrist, not an
executioner.[34]
God is not happy when people are punished especially when wicked people are
killed. God wants everyone, including the wicked, to repent from their sins and
to be saved.
God’s
commandment about capital punishment in Genesis 9:6 was prior to Mosaic Law. When
Moses received the Law, God did not repeat the concept of capital punishment. In
the New Testament, Christ fulfilled the Law and capital punishment was
abolished with Mosaic Law. Moreover, several sins in the Bible were not
punished such as Cain, David and the adulterous woman. The New Testament
teaching about love rules out capital punishment.
Morally,
capital punishment is not fair because many minorities and poor people are
unjustly punished and abused. For example, in history, rather kids were given
capital punishment because they took away a pair of shoes. Actually, we should
give them chance to repent and to perform good things in the world because all
people want to become good.
Retribution
According
to this view, justice requires us to punish the criminals. “An eye for an eye”
concept is applied. If a murderer is not punished by capital punishment, the
society succumbs to a rule of violence. When
someone takes a life, the balance of justice is interrupted. The idea is that
crime inherently deserves punishment.[35]
Many opponents today argue that retribution is an
outmoded and morally repugnant concept. It is a kind of revenge. According to
the Bible, the difference is retributive justice and revenge. Retribution is a
satisfaction of the requirements of justice, a restoration of a disturbed moral
balance. [36]
Davis says that scripture clearly distinguishes between retributive justice and
personal hatred. The Bible never encourages us to torture the criminals, but it
condemns excessive punishment. The fact that a criminal is viewed as deserving
his punishment does not mean that he or she deserves inhumane treatment. Many times, people oppose capital punishment
because many criminals are treated badly and wrongly.
Purpose
of Capital Punishment
Retributive
Justice
In
the Bible there are several words used for the concept of retribution. In the
New Testament, the Greek words ekdikeo,
ekdikesis, and ekdikos, translated “to avenge,” “vengeance,” and “avenger” respectively,
contains no concept of spiteful retaliation.[37] Romans 13:4 uses the word ekdikos means the civil magistrate who carries out the just
retribution of the law. These words speak of the natural consequences of sin,
not vengeful retaliation or an evil sort.[38] In
the Old Testament, we can see the concept of avenging but personal or private
revenge is prohibited to Israel (Lev. 19:18). The Lord’s vengeance is seen as
retribution not as retaliation.[39]
Baker explains, “Scripture makes a clear line of distinction between this
doctrine (retribution) and feelings of personal hatred by forbidding such
feelings and the actions to which they would lead. Capital punishment as a form
of retribution is a dictate of the moral nature, which demands that there
should be a just portion between the offense and the penalty.”[40] According
to John and Paul Feinberg, for the sake of society, there are times we need to
obey the laws which we do not like. They said retributive justice must operate
in societies.
It
is clear that God delegates his divine authority of life over death to human
government. If justice is the divinely ordained purpose of human government,
and capital punishment is a divine mandate, then the function of government is
weakened by the abolition of capital punishment. This is true in many societies today because many
Christians see their government as a secular organization and they think
Christians have nothing to do with it. Whether they are good or bad government,
God is in control of everything including the governments of the world. God
appoints the government to display his justice in the society and the standard
for justice is the Word of God, not the speculative regulations or
philosophical assumptions of the world. Hence, biblical justice is retributive
justice. If justice is what the society understands, many people are punished
for their situation and misfortunes rather than their guilt and faults. John
and Paul Feinberg also remind us that “unless retributive justice is grounded
in religion and theology, there is no ultimate hope of justifying it.”[41]
Unless
there is no punishment, there would be no justice. Justice makes human beings authentic
humans because man was created in the image of God. This means God created man
to rule the world with justice. Justice does not negate the value of human
beings. Baker also asserts that when justice is at the basis of penalty, man is
treated in dignity, as a person. However, if the public good is the basis, he
is treated as a means to an end. Man has free choice and responsibility, and
punishment based on this assumption honors man for what he really is.[42]
John and Paul Feinberg also say that “requiring the death penalty for murder
upholds rather than denigrates the importance of life.”[43]
According
to the Bible, every human being including children knows the difference between
right and wrong because they bear the image of God. At the same time, God gives
the mandate to rule the world. Any man, apart from some abnormal and insane
people, is able to choose to do whether right or wrong. As they are human
beings, if they choose wrong, they must be punished by the government for their
wrong doings. Robert Gerstein states, “Punishment serves not only as a
justification for punishment but also as a guide to appropriate kind of
punishment and a limit on the severity of punishment.”[44] Gerstein
argues that the punishment should fit the crime based on its weight and
severity and it should not be more than what he or she deserves. However,
sometimes it might difficult to measure the crimes, but we must be very careful
in punishing the criminals.
Norman
Geisler says “in a biblical perspective the main reason for capital punishment
is that justice demands it.”[45] A
just order is disturbed by killing and only the death of the murderer can
restore that justice. The doctrine of salvation also reveals us that our salvation
depends on the retributive justice of God. Jesus died for all sins to
demonstrate God’s justice and Davis also states, “the cross proved God to be
simultaneously just in punishing sin, and merciful in forgiving those who have
faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25-26).”[46]
Opponents
of the death penalty believe that the demand for retributive justice is not
compatible with the idea of Christian love.
However, God showed his love because of his justice – sending his son to
die on the cross. Baker also says that “the relationship of retributive justice
to love is best indicated in the crucifixion itself. The death of Christ was necessary in terms of
retribution for the sins of the world before God could demonstrate His grace in
saving who by faith accept Christ’s death as the just retribution for their own
sins. The death of Christ is therefore the basis for the manifestation of the
love of God.”[47]
Abolitionists deny the concept of retribution. Therefore, they deny the whole
biblical concept of retributive justice. The reason behind abolition of capital
punishment hits the heart of the gospel – the atonement of Christ on the cross.[48]
The
death of Christ on the cross is grounded on the basic fact that particular sins
are inherently wrong and deserved to be punished in front of God. It is true
when Davis says the concept of retributive justice is rooted in the very heart
of God’s character and the gospel itself.
Deterrence
Human
organizations have always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from
doing evil. Since society has the highest interest in preventing killing one
another, it should use the appropriate punishment available to deter murder.
Deterrence is used to support capital punishment. At the same time
abolitionists also use deterrence as a proof against capital punishment because
they say that capital punishment does not really deter people from committing
crimes. Walter Berns also quotes William Bailey who says that many social
studies proved the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to
murder has been demonstrated convincingly.[49]
The abolitionists say that to execute some criminals will not make our lives
more secure. There is no credible evidence that proves capital punishment
deters crime more efficiently than long-term imprisonment. Crimes such as
robbery and assault put our lives at risk, but these crimes do not warrant the
death penalty. To deter crime, for abolitionists, the punishment must be
administered swiftly so that potential criminals will see a clear
cause-and-effect relationship between the crime and punishment. Moreover, it
would also seem death sentences are imposed in a criminal justice system that
treats someone better if he is rich and guilty than if he is poor and innocent.[50]
Deterrence
is an effect where a threat of punishment “causes individuals who would have
committed the threatened behavior to refrain from doing so”.[51] A
distinction is made between absolute deterrence and marginal deterrence.[52]
Absolute deterrence compares the effect of one form or level of
punishment with the effect of no punishment, while marginal deterrence compares
the effect of one form or level of punishment against another. Hence the
question is that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent than an
alternative option such as life imprisonment.
Zimring
and Hawkins have argued that deterrence may work in one or more of the
following ways:
1. Simple
deterrence – the threat of punishment can cause a “change
of heart” in a person who is about to commit a crime. This change of heart is
the result of weighing up the “pleasure” of committing the crime with the risk
of the pain of punishment.
2. Punishment
as a moralizing force – the threat of punishment conveys the
degree of disapproval that society has placed on the crime; this disapproval
has an effect on the moral attitudes of people and their behaviours.
3. Punishment
as a habit builder – the threat of punishment can induce and
reinforce compliant behaviors to the point that people observe the law as a
matter of habit.
4. Punishment
builds respect for the law – the fact that people cannot break
the law with impunity builds respect for the law and the legal system and
therefore reduces law-breaking.
5. Punishment
as a rationale for conformity – the existence of the threat
of punishment can provide a reason for conformity, especially when a person is
subject to group pressure.[53]
According to Baker, there are evidences both from within
Scripture and other sources that capital punishment deters murder. In the Old
Testament, there are several passages and examples which shows us that the
purpose of capital punishment deters people from committing crimes (Ecce 8:11;
Deut. 17:12-13; 19:15-21; 21:18-21). The concept is that the wrong doers are to
be punished openly so that many people will hear and fear. Otherwise, “the
hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.” Capital
punishment clears the evil from the society and people will not do such kind of
sin in the society. In the New Testament too, the government is established to
punish the evil that we do not need to fear unless we do wrong. The evil will
be punished according to the law by the government. Hence, the biblical concept
of deterrence is based upon the principle of human responsibility.[54] Life imprisonment is accepted by the
opponents to the penalty as a more attractive form of punishment because it is
less brutal, carries the possibility for rehabilitation. It can also reverse if further investigations
prove the victim’s innocence.
However,
options like life imprisonment do not meet the biblical requirements for
justice.[55]
Life imprisonment may not be conducive to repentance in all cases. Unless a
punishment is just, the criminal may not be as likely to recognize the
seriousness of his crime and repent. John and Paul Feinberg also argue that
almost all the criminals do not think the consequences of what they are doing. Therefore,
there is no way one can tell firmly whether the death penalty deters murderers
from killing. The argument goes on that advocate of capital punishments should
not have to bear the burden of proving deterrence by a reasonable doubt.
Buddhism
and Capital Punishment
In Asia, capital punishment is widely applied in nations
of Buddhism such as China, Thailand, Myanmar and India. Here, we need to
mention what they teach about capital punishment. Buddhism is basically a
religion of diversity. Though we cannot define exactly what Buddhism teaches on
capital punishment, and many Buddhist countries practiced capital punishment,
capital punishment is totally against Buddha’s teaching. In the first teaching
of panca-sila, taking any form of life is strictly prohibited.[56] Abstaining
from the destruction of life encourages the development of compassion (karuna)
for all beings. Moreover, Buddhism teaches that all sentient beings (sattva)
are fundamentally good.[57]
All sentient beings possess what is known as Buddha-nature (buddhata). Having
Buddha-nature means that all sentient beings can eventually realize
enlightenment (bodhi) and thereby become Buddhas i.e., Awakened Ones.[58]
Everyone has great spiritual potential waiting to be unleashed no matter how
depraved they might look.
Inhumane punishment of an offender
does not solve his wrongdoings or those of humanity in general. The best
treatment of an offender is reformatory but not punitive.[59]
The extent of punishment should be scaled to a limit where an offender’s crime
exerts a bad influence on the general. The punishment should fit the crime.
Punishing an offender with cruelty will not only impair the mind of the
offender, but also the punisher’s mind. This is general understanding of
Buddhists on punishment because Buddhism believes fundamentally
in the cycle of birth and re-birth (Samsara) and teaches that if capital
punishment is administered it will have compromising effects on the souls of
both offender and the punisher in future incarnations.
One Buddhist monk says, “A basic teaching is retribution.
If someone evil does something bad, he has to atone with his own life. If you
take a life, you have to give your own.”[60]
This is another way of interpretation on “an eye for an eye concept.” However
there are some other Buddhists say that everyone has the potential to improve
and correct themselves. Without death penalty, there are some other ways to
solve our human problems. When we look at Buddhism, their teaching is totally
non-violence and totally against death penalty. However, it seems that
non-violence does not against death penalty because most of Buddhist countries
practice capital punishment in one way or another. If we are really followers
of the truth, we cannot deny the fact that evildoers should be punished.
Conclusion
Today,
there is a global trend against capital punishment. Most nations in the
developed world and an increasing number of nations in the developing world
have officially abolished the death penalty. However, capital punishment is
God’s mandate to the people because from the very beginning of the world God is
the God who rules the world with justice. God permits the government to rule
the people with justice. In justice, it requires punishment for the crimes. No
matter whether it deters or not, capital punishment is still valid. This means
we could not find any valid reason to abolish capital punishment because
capital punishment was not rooted in the Old Testament theocracy, but in the
creation order.[61]
The New Testament never talks to abolish death penalty.
Therefore,
we can make some conclusions regarding capital punishment. First, capital
punishment is originated in God’s law – God’s very nature is to display justice
in society. God is the one who created it and only God has the authority to
abolish it. Though we do not understand well, God has certain purpose for
giving his law to the people. Second, capital punishment is required not necessarily
because it deters crimes in the society but it is mentioned in the Bible.
Whether it deters or not, God commanded not to kill people and to punish murderers
with capital punishment. It totally depends on God to take and give life.
Actually, if we say that capital punishment does not deter crimes and we oppose
it, then this means we oppose all kinds of punishment. Third, capital
punishment is not to use for revenge. There must be valid evidences that he or
she deserves capital punishment. Fourth, capital punishment should be done by
the state only – not by any religious groups or social organization. Finally,
capital punishment is not to abolish by human authority.
Bibliography
Anderson, Norman.
Capital Punishment (Downers Grove,
IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1976), 110.
Aquinas, Thomas.
Summa Theologica, translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947),
64:2. (Quoted by William H. Baker, 12)
Baker, William
H. Worthy of Death (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1973), 9.
Berns, Walter. For Capital Punishment (New York: Basic
Books, 1974), 28.
Calvin, John. Institute of the Christian Religion, ed.
John T. McNeill, trans. Ford L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965),
2:1497.
Feinberg, John
S. and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a
Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993.
Geisler, Norman
L. Ethics: Alternatives and Issues
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 241.
Girdlestone,
Robert B. Synonyms of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 255.
Kronenwetter,
Michael. Capital Punishment: A Reference
Handbook (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1993), 71.
Laurence, John. A History of Capital Punishment (New
York: Citadel, 1960), 2.
Luther, Martin.
“Against the Robbing and Murdering Peasants,” in The Works of Martin Luther
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1931), 4:251.
Luther, Martin.
“Lectures on Genesis,” in The Works of
Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1031): 2:140-41.
New Catholic
Encyclopedia, s.v. “Capital Punishment.”
Robert S.
Gerstein, “Capital Punishment – ‘Cruel and Unusual’?: A Retributivist
Response,” Ethics 85 (1974-75): 77;
Quoted by John Jefferson Davis, 203.
Ryrie, Charles
C. “The Doctrine of Capital Punishment,” Bibliotheca
Sacra 129 (1972): 213.
Singer, Peter.
ed., A Companion to Ethics
(Oxford/Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1993), 366.
Zimring, F. and G. Hawkins, Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime
Control (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), 71.
Online Resources
www.amnestyusa.org, accessed on
January 23, 2012.
www.bibletools.org, accessed on
January 17, 2012.
www.buddhanet.net, accessed on
February 2, 2012.
www.pemptousia.com, accessed on
January 16, 2012. Tertullian, On Idolatry, 19.
www.publiceye.org, Frederick
Clarkson, “Christian Reconstructionism”, accessed on January 16, 2012.
www.quodlibet.net, accessed on
February 2, 2012.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org,
accessed on February 2, 2012.
[2] New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v.
“Capital Punishment.” Opponents define
capital punishment as “non-human act”.
[3] William H.
Baker, Worthy of Death (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1973), 9.
[4] John Laurence, A History of Capital Punishment (New
York: Citadel, 1960), 2.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Michael Kronenwetter, Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook
(Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1993), 71.
[9] Ibid., 72.
[10] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, translated by Fathers
of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947), 64:2.
(Quoted by William H. Baker, 12)
[11] Martin Luther, “Against the
Robbing and Murdering Peasants,” in The
Works of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1931), 4:251.
[12] John Calvin, Institute of the Christian Religion, ed.
John T. McNeill, trans. Ford L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965),
2:1497.
[14] Charles C. Ryrie, “The Doctrine
of Capital Punishment,” Bibliotheca Sacra
129 (1972): 213.
[15] John Jefferson Davis, 197.
[16]
John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics
for a Brace New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 137.
[17]
Ibid., 137.
[18] Ibid.
[19]
When we read the books of Moses’ Law and the whole Bible, it is clear that this
is a command because the Bible nowhere teaches to abolish this.
[20]
John and Paul Feinberg, 141.
[21] Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 241.
[22] Baker, 83.
[23] Martin Luther, “Lectures on
Genesis,” in The Works of Martin Luther
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1031): 2:140-41.
[24]But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If
anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. (Matthew 5:38-39)
[25] Norman Anderson, Capital Punishment (Downers Grove, IL:
Inter Varsity Press, 1976), 110.
[26]
John and Paul Feinsberg, 141.
[27]
Peter Singer, ed., A Companion to Ethics
(Oxford/Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1993), 366.
[28] Ibid.
[29]
www.compellingtruth.org,
accessed on January 16, 2012.
[30]
Ibid.
[31]
www.publiceye.org, Frederick Clarkson,
“Christian Reconstructionism”, accessed on January 16, 2012.
[32]
Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35]
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org,
accessed on January 16, 2012.
[36] John Jefferson Davis, 203.
[38] William H. Baker, On Capital Punishment (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1973), 81.
[39] Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 255.
[40] Ibid., 82.
[41]
John and Paul Feinberg, 134.
[42] Baker,
[43]
John and Paul Feinberg, 134.
[44] Robert S. Gerstein, “Capital
Punishment – ‘Cruel and Unusual’?: A Retributivist Respons,” Ethics 85 (1974-75): 77; Quoted by John
Jefferson Davis, 203.
[45] Norman Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971), 247.
[46] Davis, 203.
[47] Baker, 103. Many Christians are not sure about the
forgiveness of sin through the blood of Christ because they do could not
believe our sins are washed by Jesus death. God is not fair because he sent
Jesus to die on the cross.
[48]
Ibid.
[49] Walter Berns, For Capital Punishment (New York: Basic
Books, 1974), 28.
[50]
John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics
for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993),
[51] F. Zimring, and
G. Hawkins, Deterrence: The Legal
Threat in Crime Control (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1973), 71.
[52] Ibid.
[53]Ibid.
[54]
Kerby Anderson, www.probe.org, There is
some evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent. And even if we are not
absolutely sure of its deterrent effect, the death penalty should be
implemented. If it is a deterrent, then implementing capital punishment
certainly will save lives. If it is not, then we still will have followed
biblical injunctions and put convicted murderers to death.
[55] Baker, On Capital Punishment,117.
[56]
Mya Tin, Dammapada 1:17. See also www.accesstoinsight.org,
accessed on February 2, 2012.
[57]
www.buddhanet.net, accessed on February 2,
2012.
[58] Ibid.
[59]
buddhism.ygoy.com, accessed on February 2, 2012.
[60]
http://deathpenalty.procon.org,
accessed on February 2, 2012.
[61]
www.probe.org, accessed on January 16,
2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment