Never will the
time be more opportune than now for serious reflection
and discussion of capital punishment. The United
States of America now holds the dubious distinction
of being the world's leader in the area of homicides.
General interest in the death penalty has never
been greater than it is today as we witness the
vicious killings of individuals by fellow human
beings in almost every urban community in America.
The religious community is clearly obligated
to enter this great moral issue of our time. As
indicated by Richard Niebuhr in his book Christ
and Culture, (Niebuhr, p. 92-108) we as Christians
are not isolated from civilization but are part
and parcel of society and everything included
in society.
Christ, according to Niebuhr's fifth motif, converts
and transforms culture, and as such all human
issues must get direction and invigoration from
Christ and those of us (Christians) who profess
to subscribe to the ideals of Christ. (Niebuhr,
p. 67-85)
Some of the biblical references in both the Old
Testaments will be set forth in order to review
the basis upon which many Christians and many
churches cite authority for their position. (Hoose,
p. 199-209)
Arguments in Favor of Capital Punishment
It has been said that "The right of administering
punishment is the right of the sovereign as the
supreme power to inflict pain upon a subject on
account of a crime committed by him." (Endres,
p. 103) This statement is at the foundation of
all arguments favoring capital punishment.
The proponents of capital punishment vigorously
support the imposition of death as a punishment
for heinous offenses. First, they raise the question
as to why law-abiding citizens have to suffer
at the hands of law breakers.
Inasmuch as the public is outraged and disgusted
with violence perpetrated against innocent victims
and citizens, it is perfectly legitimate for the
State to express this anger and vent this outrage
by imposing capital punishment. (Langan, p. 111-24)
Second, it logically follows that retribution
and vengeance should be, and have long been, valid
purposes of the criminal justice system. If private
acts of vengeance (recent trends in New York suggest
that private citizens are now seeking vengeance
on their own) and vigilante groups are to be suppressed,
citizens must have some assurance that the State
will seek retribution on behalf of its citizens.
(Yoder, p. 60-65)
Third, capital punishment serves as a general
deterrent to others who will come to realize what
will happen to them if they engage in this kind
of violent behavior. The argument here is that
although there is no empirical data to verify
the role of deterrence, those who claim that it
does not deter have the burden to prove their
position.
It is further insisted that those with that
burden cannot themselves prove that it does not
deter. Moreover, as the proponents posit, the
death penalty serves as a special deterrent. It
is beyond dispute that the execution of the offender
is the most effective and certain method by which
the offender is incapacitated or prevented from
perpetrating additional crimes against society.
(Tushnet, p. 21-31)
Fourth, the proponents of the death penalty
argue that the majority of people in this country
support capital punishment and America have always
followed the democratic notion of the majority
and consensus as a principle of operation.
In support of this argument they point out that
approximately thirty-seven state legislatures,
representing most of the people in this country,
have enacted legislation to impose capital punishment.
Candidates for political office campaign on that
issue and are elected over those who do not so
favor. (Armstrong, p. 111)
Fifth, proponents insist that biblical text
supports capital punishment, and, in fact, during
the medieval period even the Church recognized
the right of the State to execute for the common
good. Lex talionis, the Law of Retribution, they
claim, has long been the basis upon which the
State is authorized to protect and defend the
common good by using violent means to repel the
vicious. (Bockle & Pohier, p. 112)
The retributive aspect of the proponents' position
has been often repeated by any number of authors.
The proponents believe that most of these murderers
never express regret for the heinous crimes they
commit, nor do they feel the slightest sympathy
for the victim or their families. The proponents
approve of the Supreme Court's recent attempts
to streamline, curtail, and quicken the appeal
mechanisms in order that the criminal justice
system can become better balanced toward providing
more justice to victims rather than always focusing
on expanding the rights for criminal defendants.
(Bedau, p. 189)
Capital Punishment should be Reintroduced
because….
Justice There are crimes of
such gravity -- brutal malicious killing, the
rape and murder of children, treason, terrorism,
the murder of police -- to which no other response
seems adequate. To fail to apply the death penalty
in such cases is to leave justice undone.
Mass murderers frequently turn their gun on
themselves in implicit recognition of the horror
of their actions and the need to atone for their
guilt. We should insist that this natural sense
of retributive justice is reflected in the law.
(Kiefer & Munitz, p. 53-98)
Threat to the Social Order
Brutal crimes are a violation of the moral order
and a threat to the social order. Retributive
justice functions to repair the social fabric.
Without application of the death penalty in cases
of extreme attack on the social order (which heinous
crimes are) social solidarity would be weakened.
(Torok, p. 125-38)
Deterrence While some criminologists
and sociologists have argued against the deterrence
value of capital punishment, recent econometric
research provides statistical support for the
view that the death penalty reduces the incidence
of murder (Mishan, p. 86-90). Commonsense, moreover,
backs this view. Death is the ultimate dread and
the threat of execution, as Samuel Johnson said,
concentrates the mind wonderfully.
Criminal Violence Without the
death penalty criminals become more brazen in
their use of violent weapons. If the criminal
has already embarked on a crime such as armed
robbery which would earn him a long term in prison,
there is little disincentive to resist the murder
of a policeman who threatens to apprehend him
unless the penalty for such an action is the loss
of the criminal's own life. The absence of such
a disincentive also makes police more reluctant
in their apprehension of potentially dangerous
criminals. (Kiefer & Munitz, p. 53-98)
Vigilantes If public justice
is seen to be inadequate, it will give rise to
private revenge. The common perception that the
legal system is too liberal is reflected in the
popularity of the Dirty Harry, and Death Wish
series of films. The United States has experienced
a marked increase in the incidence of violent
crime over the last two decades. This has taken
place against the background of a softening of
penalties. (Torok, p. 125-38)
Recidivism Imprisonment is
no guarantee that on his release (or escape) a
violent criminal will not re-offend. Only when
a convicted murderer is executed can it be certain
that he will commit no further murders.
Waste of Money Keeping an evil
felon in prison for a life sentence is a waste
of taxpayers' money which could be better spent
on crime prevention. (Kiefer & Munitz, p.
53-98)
Strict Test of Guilt The application
of a test for the death penalty more stringent
than "beyond reasonable doubt" would
eliminate the risk of executing the wrong man.
(The Old Testament stipulates a minimum of (two
independent witnesses.)
Terrorism In the case of terrorism
capital punishment not only serves justice but
eliminates the incentive for further terrorist
action by the terrorist's cohorts to free him
from incarceration. (Torok, p. 125-38)
The Old Testament
The proponents of capital punishment vigorously
advance the various passages of the Old Testament
to support their position favoring capital punishment.
To cite a few examples:
Leviticus 24:17--"He who kills a man shall
be put to death."
Genesis 4:15--"Then the Lord said to him,
"Not so! If any one slays
Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold."
Exodus 21:12--"Whoever strikes a man so
that he dies shall be put to death. "
Genesis 9:6--"Whoever sheds the blood of
man, by man shall his blood be shed."
Exodus 21:23-24--"If any harm follows, then
you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn
for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Numbers 35:30--"If any one kills a person,
the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence
of witnesses."
Deuteronomy 19:21--"Your eye shall not pity,
it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Isaiah 59: 18--"According to their deeds,
so will he repay, wrath to his adversaries, requital
to his enemies."
In citing such Old Testament passages as authority
for the imposition of capital punishment, these
proponents appear to overlook other seemingly
contradictory Old Testament text. They fail to
explain or resolve conflicting passages such as
Exodus 20:13--"Thou (you) shall not kill."
Deuteronomy 5:17--"Thou (you) shall not kill."
Ezekiel 33: 11--"Say to them, As I live,
says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death
of the wicked, but that the wicked turn back from
your evil ways; for why will you die, O house
of Israel."
There is a serious problem with taking particular
passages from the Old Testament as authority for
contemporary applications. For one thing, too
many people view much of the Old Testament as
mandating retributive punishment. The other point
is that the historical Israel frequently invoked
capital punishment because, as a primitive society,
it had no prisons, no incarceration, no concept
of rehabilitation, and hence no alternative to
execution of violent individuals. (Conuse, p.
3) Gerald Austin McHugh, in his book Christian
Faith and Criminal Justice concluded that it is
a common error to regard the God of the Old Testament
as a wrathful God, (McHugh, p. 91) who punishes
for the sake of vengeance.
Aquinas and Capital Punishment
Aquinas argued that it is legitimate to kill
sinners not only because this preserves the common
good but also because sinners, who deviate from
the rational order, lose their human worthiness.
"Therefore if any man is dangerous to the
community and is subverting it by some sin, the
treatment to be commended is his execution in
order to preserve the common good .... Therefore
to kill a man who retains his natural worthiness
is intrinsically evil, although it may be justifiable
to kill a sinner just as it is to kill a beast,
for, as Aristotle points out, an evil man is worse
than a beast and more harmful."(Summa theologiae
2-2, q. 64, a. 2.)
For Aquinas, an external act of killing a human
being is morally disordered or a morally evil
act. However, if the circumstances enter into
the principal condition of the object of the act,
then the object can change species to become a
good object. The whole act becomes in this case
the morally good act of justly executing a criminal.
John Finnis expresses Aquinas's argument as follows:
"To argue for the possible justification
of killing in the administration of justice, he
contended (in effect) that such a killing need
involve no choice to destroy a human good either
as end or means, but instead can be done with
a different intentionality, that is, under a different
description; restoring the order of justice violated
by the one killed who, moreover, by his violation
of justice, his fault, had removed himself from
the dignity of the human."(Finnis, p. 56)
For Aquinas it would seem that the argument
centers on circumstances that change the moral
nature of an act (circumstantiae speciem mutantes).
By reason of the circumstances surrounding the
killing of a human being (who has removed himself
from the worthiness of the human) by a public
authority for the good of the community and for
the restoring of the order of justice, (Johnson,
p. 683-99) the act is rendered morally good and
the disorder or evil present in the act, considered
independently of the circumstances, is completely
taken away by these circumstances.
In other words, for Aquinas, circumstances surrounding
an exterior act can at times enter into the principal
condition of the object of the act, that is, the
exterior act is given moral significance by its
specifying object, and in so far as this is the
case, the circumstances give to the act its moral
species. (McCormick, p. 170)
It is concluded at the end that the capital
punishment is the only effective way to teach
the incoming offenders a lesson. The Old Testament
and Aquinas are in favor of capital punishment.
There is a need for the effective reintroduction
of capital punishment because it is the requirement
of justice especially in the cases of such gravity
that require only capital punishment and if the
death penalty is not applied then it would be
undone justice.
There is a chance for the weakening of social
solidarity if the death penalty in extreme cases
is not applied. The death penalty is necessary
for the reduction of the occurrence of murder
cases. More violent weapons will be used as criminals
will become more brazen in the absence of the
death penalty. So, in order to keep the environment
clean from criminals, the death penalty is a must.
Work Cited :
Summa theologiae 2-2, q. 64, a. 2.
John Finnis, Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision
and Truth (Washington: Catholic University of
America, 1991) 56.
Mark Johnson, "Proportionalism and a Text
of the Young Aquinas: Quodlibetum IX, Q. 7, A.
2," Theological Studies 53 (1992) 683-99.
Richard A. McCormick, Notes on Moral Theology,
1981 through 1984 (Washington: University Press
of America, 1984) 170.
Bernard Hoose, "The Punishment of Criminals,"
in Christian Ethics: An Introduction (Collegeville:
Liturgical, 1998) 199-209;
John Langan, "Capital Punishment,"
TS 54 (1993) 111-24;
John Howard Yoder and the Death Penalty Debate,"
Faith and Freedom 5 (1996) 60-65.
Mark Tushnet, "Reflections on Capital Punishment:
One Side of an Uncompleted Discussion," Journal
of Law and Religion 7 (1989) 21-31.
Ross A. Armstrong, Primary and Secondary Precepts
in Thomistic Law Teaching (The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1966) 111.
Franz Bockle and Jacques Pohier, The Death Penalty
and Torture (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979).
H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York:
Harper & Row, 1951).
Michael E. Endres, The Morality of Capital Punishment:
Equal Justice Under the Law? (Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third
Publications, 1985), 103.
Hugo Adam Bedau, The Death Penalty in America
(Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1964), 189.
Hugo Adam Bedau, Capital Punishment in the United
States (New York: AMS Press, 1975), 49.
Howard E. Kiefer and Milton K. Munitz, Ethics
and Social Justice (Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1968), 53-98.
Robert Conuse, "The Bible and Capital Punishment,"
Blueprint For Social Justice (December 1982):
3.
Gerald Austin McHugh, Christian Faith and Criminal
Justice. Toward a Christian Response to Crime
and Punishment (New York: Paulist Press, 1978),
91.
Lou Torok, Straight Talk from Prison. A Convict
Reflects on Youth, Crime and Society (New York:
Human science Press, 1974), 125-138.
Mishan, E. J., "The Lingering Debate on Capital
Punishment", Encounter, March 1988.
|