Posted by Dave on 10/22/05 at 11:25:15 am
Categories: Capital Punishment

I have something better. A church that would rather die than kill.

--Stanley Hauerwas - Theologian, Duke University

As I have already mentioned, in taking a look at opposition to the death penalty it really needs to be looked at from two different directions. First, one must examine how the death penalty, in practice, fails in its quest for "justice". It simply is biased, arbitrary, and unfair. The discussion on the practice of capital punishment is located here.

But the second point is even more important, and that is discussing the death penalty in theory. The reason why this is more important is because it is possible that each of the practical problems involving the death penalty could be solved. I highly doubt that this will ever occur, but one must be able to form an argument based on the assumption that a system, in theory, works. Much of the discussion that is used to support the use of death as a punishment is based on theoretical arguments of "justice", "fairness", "vengeance", or "deterrence". So the question becomes this: if the death penalty did not have any of the serious flaws, biases, and other problems, would it be an acceptable form of punishment? And the answer is a resounding no.

[More:]

The first issue that many death penalty proponents talk about is that you need a severe punishment for a sever crime. Often times this argument is based on the idea that severe punishments will deter a person from committing a severe crime. The argument would say that because a person knows that they would be killed if they kill someone else, then they are less likely to commit that act of killing. The problem with this argument is that there is little, if any, support for this line of argumentation. Instead, most data points the opposite direction, showing that those states that use the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those without the death penalty. Amnesty gives a chart comparing the murder rates in death penalty states and non-death penalty states:

To be fair, this is very possibly a spurious relationship where there are outside factors that may be impacting the murder rate to a greater extent than the use of capital punishment. But this is starting point showing that it does not appear that the use of the death penalty is have a great impact on the murder rates, and if anything the murder rates are higher among states that use capital punishment.

But the studies do not stop there. Here are a few examples:

• Researchers did a comparison of murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder in Oklahoma between 1989 and 1991, and found a significant increase in murders (both felony and non-felony) after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium.
• Researchers Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides in 293-paired counties. Pairings were based on: geographic location and demographic and economic variables; a shared contiguous border; differing use of capital punishment. The authors found higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties.
• The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In 1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which accounts for less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate.

Most criminologists agree with the assessment that capital punishment does little, if anything, to deter one from killing:

A survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association showed that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect. (M. Radelet and R. Akers, Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts, 1995)

And one more study has found that the use of the death penalty may increase the likelihood for murders:

As you can tell, the percentage increase in the murder rate was significantly higher during the period where the death penalty was used:

Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2, May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona, consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma.

Put simply, there is no evidence that shows that killing someone as a punishment for a crime acts as a deterrent effect. If anything, the data appears to point in the opposite direction, showing an increase in murder rates once the death penalty has been instituted.

One argument in support of the death penalty is that of so called "justice". Many people believe that people must receive a sever punishment for a severe crime. They believe that this is what justice is, and that this is how the "punishment fits the crime". I have had people say with complete sincerity that they believe if a person rapes and murders someone, then they in turn should be raped and murdered. But to follow this logic once must really examine what the point of the whole thing is. What does one desire to accomplish through killing someone?

Too often you hear the argument that when you are in opposition to killing someone as a punishment you are for the guilty (and therefore against the innocent). But if one truly looked at the situation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a reason why killing the perpetrator benefits the family of the victim. What good does it do? There is little reason to believe the killing the convicted person will help the family of the victim. All too often family members look toward the execution as some form of therapeutic means to help them recover. But rarely does this actually occur. Killing a person does bring back the life of the person that they killed. All it does is create another dead person.

In reality, most proponents of the death penalty support it because they desire vengeance. They believe that a person must suffer because they made someone else suffer. But should we really be supporting a policy based on vengeance? Again...what good does it do? Does it really make us feel better because we caused another person to suffer and die? This goes back to the old cliché: "two wrongs don't make a right". So this then begs the question: "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution states the following:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The last part of this amendment has been somewhat entrenched in controversy for years. What exactly does it mean to be cruel and unusual? I do not have the capabilities to argue Constitutional law on this issue, but I will quickly address this issue.

Let's be honest. It is relatively simple. Is it "kind" to kill someone? And it is "usual" to kill someone? All I did was take the opposite of each word. While I admit that this is quite simplistic, I think that it gives a pretty clear picture. There is do doubt in my mind that it is both cruel and unusual to end the life of another person against their will. And this is exactly what capital punishment does. No where is there a clause in the 8th Amendment that states that you can be cruel and unusual if the convicted person was cruel and/or unusual. I think one would have an extremely difficult time asserting that the use of death as punishment is anything but cruel and unusual.

While all of the above arguments are valid, they hold limited weight in comparison to my faith. My Christian beliefs say that we serve a loving, graceful God. My belief in grace and redemption makes it impossible for me to support a system that erases any possibility for those things. I will give a brief look at just a few of the Biblical reasons that we should be opposed to the death penalty.

I have seen some attempt to make the claim that "guilty" life has less value than "innocent" life. This is how those who are "pro-life" justify their opposition to abortion along with their support with capital punishment. The problem with this argument is that it simply does match with Biblical teachings. Romans 3:23 has this to say:

all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

This verse makes it perfectly clear that there is no such thing as "innocent life". In turn, we look at look at Romans 5:23:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Clearly you see two things from these passages. All have sinned, and we all deserve death. One can make the argument that sin lessens the value of one’s life. But one simply cannot make the argument that certain sins have a greater "lessening" effect than other sins.

Another of the "Biblical" arguments that is often used is the passage in Romans 13 referring to the "sword":

For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

The problem with using this verse is that it completely takes this out of context. John Howard Yoder, Politics of Jesus, paraphrases like this:

whatever government does, it is serving God and therefore what it is doing is a ministry the Christian may rightly share."

According to Yoder, the “sword” does not refer to the state killing either in war or capital punishment. It was a dagger (not a weapon of war) that symbolized judicial authority.

Matthew 5 makes is clear that we are too love our enemies:

43 You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

This reminds me of my bumper sticker - "When Jesus said love your enemies, I don't think he meant to kill them." It is impossible to love your enemy and seek their death. It cannot happen.

We as Christians are called to something different.

We are not called to vengeance, we are called to love.

And in turn we cannot support a system that is built around vengeance.

[Cross posted at Street Prophets]

16 comments | Permalink