Like Button

Friday, April 18, 2008

Capital Punishment

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court on Capital Punishment has started the conversation anew. Should Christians favor the death penalty or should they oppose it? Most people state their position with finality, as if "I have arrived and anyone who disagrees with me isn't thinking." I suppose that's generally the case in most subjects. I find this one a bit more sticky.

A lot of people on the Christian side of the question will argue against the death penalty. They do so on a variety of biblical passages. (Anyone who suggests that "those who oppose the death penalty do so apart from the Bible" aren't paying attention.) The most common approach is the "turn the other cheek" and "forgive" arguments. "Jesus never executed anyone," they might say. "We are commanded to 'turn the other cheek' and 'forgive your enemies'. How can you execute someone and obey those commands?" This argument, to me, is problematic. If this interpretation of "turn the other cheek" is accurate, then there are many ramifications. Christians cannot be concerned about justice of any sort. They can't call for jail time for felonies or tickets to speeders. They cannot lock their doors at night or defend themselves when attacked. In fact, it seems as if those who make such arguments are violating their own position because they are defending their views when they should be simply turning the other cheek. In other words, if "turn the other cheek" is an absolute command to not respond to any sort of insult or attack, then there should be zero response from Christians when insulted or attacked, even if it's to defend such a view.

The second problem with this argument is the sense of "forgive" that is offered here. It appears that "forgive" has two components here. First, it means "no consequences." It is not possible to forgive if there are consequences to one's transgressions. If God, for instance, forgives a repentant drug addict, He would be obligated by the term "forgive" to prevent or repair any damages that the drug use might inflict. Those would be unjust consequences for a forgiven person. A murderer who truly repents should not be arrested or jailed because forgiveness should include "no consequences." I don't think anyone would actually argue this, but it's the only logical conclusion from the argument that "forgive" precludes Capital Punishment. The other component is the problem of who can forgive whom. It appears, from this "forgive" argument, that all Christians are required to forgive all offenses. The problem is that the right to forgive doesn't fall on all Christians; it only falls on the wronged parties. A child rapist doesn't wrong everyone. He wrongs the child and God and, to be fair, the family, but not everyone. A Christian in California doesn't have the right to forgive a murderer in New York if their only connection is that they are fellow human beings because the murderer in New York didn't do anything to the Christian in California. Only wronged parties have the right to forgive.

There are other arguments by Christians who oppose the death penalty. One is the argument that Jesus would forgive. This seems odd since Jesus clearly only forgives the repentant at any time, yet the argument suggests that Jesus would forgive everyone all the time. That doesn't work unless we are going to embrace Universalism. Some argue that the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill." This one often comes from a "pro-life" approach. "How can you be in favor of Capital Punishment and oppose abortion? If you're pro-life, you must oppose both." However, the "Thou shalt not kill" blanket statement seems to say more than it intends. No Christian could be a police officer because they may be called on to shoot a criminal. No Christian could serve in the military for obvious reasons. However, when you examine the command, it turns out that it references murder, not general "killing", and requires malice rather than simply death. And if you can't see a fundamental difference between a convicted murderer and an innocent newborn, you have bigger problems than "Is the death penalty biblical?" So these arguments are problematic.

One of the really popular arguments is not from Scripture, but from compassion. "If you put someone to death, you will end their opportunities to come to Christ." It's a funny thing. This is not a biblical argument, but it seems one of the most difficult to answer. The problem, of course, is that it ignores the sovereignty of God. It assumes that God wants to save everyone and knew that this one would come to Him, but, somehow, got cheated because the government agencies put the poor guy to death before God could reach him. Poor God! Nice try; no prize for you. Sarcasm aside, I think you can see the problem here. It's just that we don't often take God's sovereignty into account when we make these types of arguments.

One of the more disturbing biblical arguments is "Jesus came to abolish the Law." It is absolutely undeniable that Capital Punishment is an Old Testament concept. God Himself passed laws that demanded the death penalty for certain crimes. Before the covenant with Israel, there was the Noahic covenant where God told Noah that murder was punishable by death "by man" (Gen. 9:6). The argument, then, suggests that Jesus changed all that and all of the Old Testament Laws are out the window. This is seriously problematic. First, Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, until all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). The Law in some form must continue until the New Heaven and the New Earth. Second, if we argue that the Old Testament Laws are out the window, then we remove the Old Testament Laws. "Yes," you might say, "that is what we're saying." So ... how is it that you wish to retain the Ten Commandments then? You see, if you toss them all, you toss them all. If not, then some remain. If some remain, which ones? On what basis would you toss the Gen. 9:6 rule? You see, this argument becomes a real problem.

Other arguments are farther from Christianity. "Capital punishment is not a deterrent." This may or may not be true. I would agree that today's version (where the convicted criminal stays on death row for decades) is likely not a deterrent. The Bible agrees. "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil" (Eccl. 8:11). And in our current system I'm not entirely sure we can change that fact since it is absolutely imperative that the condemned be given every right to prove innocence. But I'd like to point out something that isn't considered in this argument: Capital Punishment isn't intended as a deterrent. If it would provide deterrent, that would be good. However, the intent is not to deter others, but to correct a wrong. It is not intended to deter others, but to provide justice for an evil committed. And in one very real sense, it cannot be denied that a murder who is executed will certainly be deterred from committing the crime again.

The other argument is the Roman Catholic argument. It was hinted at in my last paragraph. "What if you execute an innocent man?" This is a valid concern. We've seen lately several examples of wrongly-convicted people being sent to prison. There may have even been wrongly-convicted people who were executed. And this, I think we all agree, is a bad thing. Still, it begs the question. Do we fail to act at all on the possibility that we make a mistake?

I want to point out that I have made no arguments here for the other side. I haven't argued for Capital Punishment. I think there are arguments on that side to be considered, but this isn't the intent here. I don't, in fact, have all the answers. (Surprise, surprise!) It's just that I have to wonder about the Christianity that these arguments will leave us with. We cannot defend ourselves. Forgiveness requires "no consequences". Christians forgive all sin (which, according to Jesus, is a right reserved by God). God is not actually sovereign if someone gets put to death before they were going to come to Him. There is no law for Christians, no rules, no moral code. You're on your own. Be good ... whatever that means. There are real concerns for Capital Punishment that need to be addressed, but I'm afraid that the "Christianity" we're left with when we actually consider most of these arguments is not a Christianity we're familiar with. It's certainly not a biblical Christianity.

7 comments:

DagoodS said...

Stan: Do we fail to act at all on the possibility that we make a mistake?

Or do we act, but with the greatest room to correct any possible errors which could be made? There is a certain finality about capital punishment. While it is terrible enough to spend years in prison for a crime one did not commit, it is of greater tragedy to eliminate a life.

Further, we recognize the human error which occurs in the judicial system (reverses on appeals, and new evidence cases are demonstrations enough.) Can we shrug those away or do our best to recognize human limitation and take it into account as best we can?

(I am and have been for a long, long time, against the death penalty. I have seen far too many instances of human error, and human motivation within the system to trust its accuracy.)

What Biblical or Christian doctrine mandates capital punishment? We do not expect our taxation to follow Tanakh decrees. Nor the tax decrees of First Century Judea. We do not require our civil laws to follow those of Mosaic law or First Century Rome.

Why is it, just because capital punishment was part of Canaan (and instituted long before by other cultures, by the way) and continued to exist through the First Century and beyond, we must continue to employ it today?

The closest I can come to a Christian mandate would be the Noahide laws of Gen. 9:5. Of course the problem with that, is the consistent methodology would be to demand the complete elimination of all birth-control (Gen. 9:1). Further, vs 6 goes on to say blood for blood. If I give a person a black eye, are Christians demanding I get a black eye in return? Wouldn’t that be consistent if they say Noahide law requires capital punishment?

Worse, the Christian God did not abide by this law in dealing with Cain. If our system chooses to ostracize someone by life in prison, wouldn’t we be following the principles established before Noahide law? What trumps what?

1) God with Cain (and David);
2) Noahide law;
3) Mosaic law;
4) New covenant

Or is this a discretionary choice? Like taxes?

I agree arguments that Christianity prohibits capital punishment fail. As you aptly point out. But does Christianity require capital punishment? Or is this a choice completely outside Christianity?

Stan said...

You ask the right question, I suppose. Does Christianity mandate Capital Punishment? The truth is that Christianity does not. I think you would have to concur that the Noahic Covenant would allow for it, but it cannot be said to mandate it. The truth is, however, that Christianity would put the death penalty in the hands of the government, not in the hands of Christianity.

I'm curious, however, on what basis you would oppose the death penalty? The standard argument would be the value of human life, but in a world where humans are simply the latest fashion of Evolution, the most recent biochemical bags on the evolutionary chain, what would make human life more valuable than, say, your local chicken (who could be tonight's meal)? (It's a serious question, not intended to be sarcastic or leading.)

DagoodS said...

Bwahahaha. Actually I had sweet & sour chicken for lunch. You were close with your guess of a meal! *grin*

You ask two questions which I consider very different. I will answer them the best I can.

On what basis do I oppose Capital Punishment? (And I should note, I opposed it back when I was a Christian too. I don’t see it as a “Christian” issue; but understand some do.) First, we have an alternative—life in prison without parole. It is not as if we have a dichotomy of either capital punishment OR we let the person free. There are alternatives. And life in prison is no picnic. It is as adequate a punishment we can devise within our human limitations.

Secondly, because of our great concern of making a mistake. Last I knew there was no documented case of a person being put to death wrongfully under the American judicial system. Unfortunately, part of the problem in that statement is how few times we stopped looking for alternatives after the person died.

I have seen people who were beaten by police. If, after such a beating, they confessed and were eventually executed, it would be a mistake. I have seen people railroaded by police. I have seen juries come up with fantastic verdicts in which both the prosecutor and I look at each other and wonder where that possibly came up from. (In my own state Jack Kevorkian was convicted of Second-Degree Murder. He pushed a button which injected a lethal substance killing a person. The difference between First and Second degree is premeditation. How do you push a button in that situation and NOT premeditate it? Whatever one thinks of the state of the law, either Kevorkian committed First-Degree murder or no murder, but the one thing he most certainly did NOT do is commit Second-Degree murder!)

In fact this is played out by the unusually large number of African-Americans and impoverished persons on death row. Either rich Caucasians are just as guilty but are being let off, or jurors are more prejudiced toward a certain ethnic and social group. Either way, it demonstrates the human error in the system.

Understand, I love our judicial system. I am not complaining about it—I think it is the best we can do. But it is far from perfect. And the finality of death is just too high a cost, when I can put them in prison for life.

Imagine if the Duke team could have been punished with capital punishment? And they didn’t have rich fathers who could afford very expensive lawyers? How many poor African-Americans has that happened to?

What is so great about Capital Punishment that it necessarily must be imposed over life in prison?

Now your second question is far more difficult. And equally far more interesting. How does one determine “value”?

Simply put: Value is in the eye of the beholder. What makes diamonds worth more than rubies? Both are lovely stones. What makes my sweet & sour chicken more expensive (hence more valuable) than a can of soup?

Part of what we (as humans) “value” are things more similar to us. We “value” our own species over others. Sadly, we see Americans “value” American lives over others. (When is the last time you saw a report on the monthly killings of Iraqi soldiers? Or Iraqi civilians?) True, at times we recognize that the elimination of another species may come at our own cost, and increase that species “value” over our own discomfort.

Do other species “value” their own? We certainly see it in packs of wolves, for example, who don’t attack each other, but kill and eat other species. We see it in ants working together for the betterment of their own species, even to their own detriment. Perhaps to a chicken, another chicken would have more “value” than a human being! If they could eat sweet & sour human; they would.

Can I clear some things up? Hope this doesn’t come across as being too rude, and it may help if you want to discuss with skeptics. (If not, please ignore the rest…)

Stan: …but in a world where humans are simply the latest fashion of Evolution, the most recent biochemical bags on the evolutionary chain,…

Humans are NOT the latest fashion, nor are we even the most recent. Other creatures, and plants have evolved since homo sapiens appeared on the Earth’s crust. A common misconception either given or taken, is the theory of evolution is some long line, from trilobites to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to humans.

Evolution is not a line: it is a bush. And every creature, fish, bird, plant, tree and yes, human, is on the edge of that bush. And in the past we can look back, into the bush, and see the ancestors form the various branches of what is alive today. Presumably, if the past is any indicator, in the future the bush will continue to grow and living items which are alive today will evolve into new creatures and 100 million years from now will look back. They will be at the edge of the bush. And we will be the ancestors.

Every single living thing today is “the latest fashion of evolution.” Everything. And it is also the “most recent biochemical bags.” Therefore, if we were to correlate “value” with “latest fashion…most recent”—ALL living things would be of equal value. So this is not really a way, nor an argument any person holding to the theory of evolution would use to determine “value” between species.

Perhaps you mean “more evolved” (another common term) and even that is a misnomer. (Note, to all lurkers, Stan did NOT say “more evolved” so I am putting words in his mouth he did not say. This is just a common phrase. Ain’t trying to build strawpeople, just pointing out things I hear, and trying to answer what you are saying.)

We tend to think humans’ self-recognition and intelligence puts us “higher” on the evolution chain. Put us unaided 200 feet below water and a goldfish will laugh at our “higher” evolution. Equally put us unaided 200 feet in the air, and the sparrow will laugh.

We are a selfish species. We think because we can do a thing, it makes us better or greater. Basically we evolved to utilize our minds (but not our bodies) to adapt to environmental changes. Other creatures evolved by physical change to do things we can only “think” our way to doing. (Scuba-diving and parachuting.)

Again, simply because we have evolved different abilities, I am uncertain how to correlate “value” to that. Or if we are comparing shapes to numbers.

In the end, the answer to what makes me more valuable than a chicken is “because I can.” Because I can eat it. The same way, I am less valuable to a shark. It will eat me. Because it can.

Stan said...

Thanks for taking my question(s) in the spirit they were intended, and thanks for the comprehensive and clear answers.

By the way, given Evolution, I can certainly rationalize "all things are of equal value" or "all things are of no value." Both seem rational to me from the premise. "Some things are valuable and some aren't" gets a bit more sticky. Your rationale is "whatever I think is valuable." Is it possible, from that perspective, to pass any judgment on whatever anyone else might think is or isn't valuable? (That is more of an idle question that could be viewed as rhetorical if you so desire.)

And thanks for the clarification on the Evolutionary tree. (Hey, you said it was bush. I thought it was a tree.) (Humor, just humor.) Anyway, I was only speaking in shorthand. Thanks again for the clarification and taking it as it was intended. It really is a pleasure to dialog with you.

DagoodS said...

Sure, it’s possible to pass judgment. Watch:

“You are wrong regarding value.”
“You are really, REALLY wrong regarding value.”
“You are really, double-dog wrong regarding value.”

See how easy that is? The harder question is how to impose one’s view of value on another. As humans we use argument in the hopes of persuading the other.

How do you pass judgment on another’s perception of value?

DagoodS said...

Arggg! I meant to add:

P.S. Thank you for your kind comments. I appreciate our interaction as well. If you find, however, I am becoming irritating, I will be more than happy to back off.

It IS your blog, after all, and I realize it is not intended to be a place for skeptics like me to pounce. *wink*

Stan said...

I haven't been passing judgment on your perception of value. I've been trying to figure out your rationale for your judgment. (By "you" I mean "you plural".)