Interestingly, capital punishment is one issue where religious believers make some of the most ardent and passionate arguments from either side of the debate. It was in 1972 that brought a landmark judgement where the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty of two states violated the Eight Amendment based on the fact that there was no clear standard used to punish those selected for the death penalty.
In this day, capital punishment is still practiced in African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. And while many other countries still have capital punishment as law, there are those that have not used it for many years and yet others that will apply it to crimes other than murder. The majority of countries in Europe have disallowed it, yet, the U.S. is still one of the few developed countries that still uses capital punishment in it’s system of law. Until 1972, every state allowed the death penalty, from which now only thirty-one states employ the penalty while another nineteen have prohibited it. There have been three significant cases, all brought forward in Georgia to the U.S. Supreme Court starting in 1972 and since then support continues to decline. According to Feinberg, in 2005, only sixty-four percent of the American public now support the sentence.
The main form of punishment for Western countries is imprisonment. During incarceration, the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment, the proportion of the punishment with the crime and from punishment without due process of law.
Retentionists are those that favor the death penalty, though they are more likely to not agree to the particular circumstances of their arguments or the position that they hold, they do often point out support from the Old Testament. Abolitionist, who although may disagree with some of their own arguments, they will always agree that the death penalty is morally unjustified and often allude to the New Testament. The issue at hand, whether Retentionist, Abolishinist, or somewhere’s in between, is the disagreement which stems from the primary goal of retribution, deterrence, or rehabilitation. The biblical view of man’s nature is “total depravity”, and therefore, a deterrent is necessary for people to obey the law.
Feinberg states that capital punishment involves several key issues, and therefore, asks the following questions. 1) Is capital punishment permissible, 2) is capital punishment mandatory, 3) if permissible and/or mandatory, then which crimes are punishable, and 4) if punishable, what methods are to be used?
Capital punishment is permissible and mandatory in cases of premeditated murder. However, the number of crimes punishable are very limited and laws for convicting a person for a capital crime should be very rigorous and many legislative revisions are needed before applying such a sentence. Both law and punishment should reflect morality and the breaking of the moral law is punishable resulting in the practice of retributive justice by the state.
Although there is legitimate debate on this issue, the problem comes from a lack of wisdom by the public as well as those in government. This demand for justice is God’s alone and while we are to have compassion for all those involved, God has always taught that we will be judged by our deeds.
Feinberg shows the consistency of capital punishment as being a pro-life ethic on at least three grounds:
… a sanctity-of-life ethic, a demand to treat all persons justly, and a commitment to non-consequentialist ethics. Given a sanctity-of-life ethic, human life is sacred and must be protected. Hence, abortion and euthanasia are ruled out. Execution of murderers underscores the sanctity of life and the seriousness of taking the innocent life of others. As to justice, the unborn, the aged, and the infirm have done nothing deserving of death. The convicted murderer has. Justice demands rejecting abortion and euthanasia and executing murderers. Finally, on a non-consequentialist theory of ethics such as ours, God prescribes the protection of the innocent and the punishment of those who take innocent life. If one follows those divine commands, he must reject abortion and euthanasia and favor capital punishment.
Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. 2010. Ethics For A Brave New World. Wheaton, Illinois. Crossway.
At the heart of the issue in capital punishment is justice where penal and judicial systems play the central role in it’s distribution. The latter requires that we understand that we are not morally responsible for an act unless we are free to do the act. Therefore, retribution cannot be unjust if the criminal freely committed the crime. Romans 13:1-7 gives authority to these state systems to discipline those in a non-vengeful way who break the law. Retribution is meant for the unjust and is very different from vengeance which God is clearly opposed to. Since upholding justice is the purpose of the state, retribution must be used.
Feinberg argues from Rev. 20:11-15 that no one would suffer eternal punishment for rejecting Christ if God Himself did not use retribution. As is apparent, Feinberg’s view that abortion and euthanasia are not contradictory to capital punishment rely on the accuracy of exegetical biblical interpretation.
Genesis 9:6 confirms the sanctity of life with respect to the death penalty:
Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind.
New English Translation, Genesis 9:6
This command was given before the Mosaic law. The truth of this principle is that man and woman were created in the image of God. Rae makes a statement in support of this position:
The life-for-life principle and its link to the image of God in human beings seems to support the notion that murder and the consequence for murder — taking the murderer’s life — are not morally the same thing.
Rae, Scott B. 2009. Moral Choices, An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic.
The case for retributive justice is based on a systematic theology where God’s command reveals which acts are prohibited and can be punished.
There are many abuses to capital punishment today which require more exacting measures governing convicted cases. Feinberg gives statistics showing that this practice is disproportionately unfair against minorities and the poor as they will likely have inferior legal council. As taught in Scripture, there was a high degree of certainty about the guilt of someone accused by requiring two eyewitnesses to prevent a person from receiving the death penalty as opposed to circumstantial evidence alone. This is stronger than newer technologies which can be falsified. Even witnesses can falsely testify which is why perjury in a capital case is also a capital crime. The degree to the amount of certainty required by biblical standards exceeds that of the “reasonable doubt” standard used in our legal system here in the U.S. As humans, we do make errors, and both sides of this debate agree that individuals that did not commit the crime have received the death penalty.
Biblical Studies 