Never will the
time be more opportune than now for serious reflection
and discussion of capital punishment and Christian
ethics. 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.
According to a Senate Judiciary Committee report
recently released, it has been projected that
more than 23,220 people will be murdered in 1990--about
2,000 more than in 1989 and higher than the national
record of 23,040 murders in 1980. (Murder Rate
Surges…..1990) Senator Joseph R. Biden,
Jr. (D-Del.), the Committee chairman, commented
during the hearing: "The nation is faced
with an immediate peril and the situation is doomed
to get worse unless we take action today."
He called for an "all-fronts assault on
the drug epidemic" as well as swift House
passage of a Senate-passed crime bill that would
ban domestically manufactured assault weapons
and impose the death penalty for thirty-four federal
offenses. (Murder Rate Surges…..1990)
Franz Bockle and Jacques Pohier, in their book
The Death Penalty and Torture, (Bockle & Pohier,
1979) identify two major factors that affect the
public's current assessment of capital punishment.
First, they point out the extraordinary emphasis
placed upon crimes by the media and particularly
the audiovisual media. Under the section entitled
"The Part Played By the Media," they
state:
“It is particularly striking how many newspapers,
for example, nowadays regard it as their special
responsibility to give a full account of the facts
of a crime, to conduct an inquiry in parallel
with that of the police and in this way to involve
their readers in their pursuit of the criminal.
These newspapers reached perhaps several hundred
thousand people. Information on the television,
on the other hand, reaches millions, even tens
of millions.
The crime that is in the limelight at any given
time is repeated in the newspapers and on the
screen again and again, described in all its details
and subjected to a great deal of comments, so
that the readers, viewers and listeners' attention
is captured and retained.
Oftentimes, the media almost always fastens
onto what is of secondary importance and neglect
the essential aspects of a case; the reader is
often given thrilling publications and revelations
and information which has often the ability to
broadcast the seeds of fear in the minds and hearts
of many of the viewers and listeners.” (Bockle
& Pohier, 1979)
Second, it is suggested that many public officials
take a less than honest approach to the question
of capital punishment. The authors boldly assert
that
“Unscrupulous politicians have a stake
in exploiting uninformed public opinion while
conscientious legislators are threatened with
loss of election for being permissive and soft
on crime if they do not join in the enactment
of the death penalty statutes.” (Bockle
& Pohier, 1979)
Undoubtedly, then, there are few issues in American
justice that spark passion like the death penalty.
In fact, many would deny that the death penalty
is a criminal justice issue at all, but instead
is one of basic human rights.
Indeed, there are emotional arguments both in
support of and against the death penalty. It is
of little consequence that the thirty-seven states
that execute criminals differ in the various methods
of execution. Whether the approach is by shooting,
hanging, electrocution, gassing, or lethal injection,
personal feelings are not affected.
On the one hand, there are those who argue that
capital punishment is wrong on the theory that
life is too sacred to be taken by anyone, even
by the State for what would appear to be good
reason. On the other hand, those who favor the
death penalty will shake their heads, wondering
why they should value the murderer's life when
one did not value that of his victim.
As with many of life's most fundamental moral
questions, there seems to be no middle ground
for compromise concerning the death penalty. Similar
to the abortion debate, each side engages in politics
of confrontation rather than reconciliation.
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, 1951) they 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 them (Christians) who profess
to subscribe to the ideals of Christ. (Niebuhr,
1951)
Arguments Against Capital Punishment
Championed by the likes of recently retired
Justice William Brennan of the United States Supreme
Court, the opponents of capital punishment raise
equally forceful arguments. They first argue that
the death penalty serves no legitimate utility,
and, in fact, they assert, it has demonstrably
failed to accomplish its stated objectives.
Modern scholars and theologians commencing with
the eighteenth century have long rejected retribution
as a valid aim of the criminal justice system.
They have seriously challenged the right of the
State to execute.
With respect to deterrence, they claim that
with over 20,000 homicides committed each year,
and only 300 convicted murders receiving the death
penalty, it is clear that the death penalty does
not deter. In fact, they suggest that drug dealers
are more aware of the death penalty on the streets
(for selling bad drugs, or not paying for drugs,
or invading another's territory) than the State's
imposed capital punishment.
Consequently, they posit, when you successfully
assail the only two purposes advanced as support
for capital punishment (retribution and deterrence),
any other purposes can be achieved by other punitive
measures.
For example, protection of society can be achieved
by incarcerating dangerous individuals for the
rest of their lives. Moreover, a life without
parole sentence can also serve to deter and can
address rehabilitation as a goal, which capital
punishment cannot. (Kiefer & Munitz, 1968)
Second, they argue that notwithstanding the
Supreme Court's opinion in Gregg v. Georgia, (1976)
the evolving standards of decency have not reached
a point where society as a whole condones State
executions.
They reject the notion of the majority on the
theory that the majority has frequently been wrong
throughout history. They argue that capital punishment
is barbaric and very cruel and unusual in the
sense that if we don't abuse the rapist, don't
burn down the house of the arsonist, don't beat
up the robber or the one who assaults, and don't
cut off the hand of the thief, why should we kill
the killer?
Third, the opponents argue that capital punishment
is arbitrarily and capriciously inflicted as a
punishment. It is beyond real debate that the
underclass, the poor, and the black in the country
disproportionately are the hardest hit and most
often the target of capital punishment.
Those without money to hire private attorneys
and those not the favorite of police, prosecutors,
judges, and governors are seen as the victims
of discriminatory application of the death penalty.
While no effort is being made to cast aspersions
on public defender agencies, the reality is that
inadequate funding and staffing problems give
rise to shortcomings in the quality of representation
with respect to the resources of the government.
There has also been statistical evidence established
with reference to the discrimination of African
Americans. The opponents of capital punishment
cite the Baldus study (1990) presented by a black
defendant who was convicted and sentenced to die
in Georgia for the robbery and murder of a white
police officer.
In the majority opinion by Supreme Court Justice
Powell, which held that the Baldus study did not
establish that Georgia's capital punishment scheme
violated the Equal Protection clause, the Court,
nevertheless, referenced the study in detail:
In support of his claim, McCleskey proffered
a statistical study performed by Professors David
C. Baldus, George Woodworth, and Charles Pulaski
[the Baldus study] that purports to show a disparity
in the imposition of the death sentence in Georgia
based on the race of the murder victim and, to
a lesser extent, the race of the defendant.
The Baldus study is actually two sophisticated
statistical studies that examine over 2,000 murder
cases that occurred in Georgia during the 1970's.
The raw numbers collected by Professor Baldus
indicate that defendants charged with killing
white persons received the death penalty in 11%
of the cases, but defendants charged with killing
blacks received the death penalty in only 1% of
the cases.
The raw numbers also indicate a reverse racial
disparity according to the race of the defendant:
4% of the black defendants received the death
penalty, as opposed to 7% of the white defendants.
(Baldus et al, 1990)
Fourth, capital punishment, as a punitive measure,
is final and irreversible, which the opponents
advance as the strongest reason for rejecting
the death penalty.
There have been mistakes in convictions throughout
history, and the death penalty precludes the opportunity
to rectify a miscarriage of justice. Hugo Bedau,
in his treatise The Death Penalty in America,
emphatically asserts that the innocent have been
executed and that there is no system of criminal
jurisprudence that has on the whole provided safeguards
against the conviction and possible execution
of an innocent man. (Bedau, 1964)
Fifth, similar to assertions by the proponents,
there is ample authority in the scripture replete
with suggestion for compassion, condonation, and
remorse as well as for retribution, which the
opponents dismiss as primitive and animalistic.
Sixth, the opponents stress the fiscal impact
and argue that the $1,000,000 amount per execution
(which includes the entire legal process) is too
costly and the sum should be placed elsewhere
to meet the State's pressing demands on the treasury
from its citizens.
Last, the death penalty, many observers have
claimed, has made securing convictions more difficult
and has often resulted in the acquittal of obviously
guilty defendants. In other words, unpunished
criminals are walking the streets because juries
won't convict them of capital crimes knowing that
they would get mandatory death.
In short, many are satisfied that mandatory
capital punishment does indeed have a deterrent
effect: It deters jurors from convicting probably
guilty men. (Bedau, 1975) To recap, it is the
sacredness of life, the criminal as a victim,
and the discriminatory application of the death
penalty that undergird the basic position of the
opponents to capital punishment.
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,
1985) 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, 1993)
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, 1996)
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, 1989)
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, 1966)
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, 1979)
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, 1964)
What do the Churches say on Death Penalty?
Generally, with the exception of African American
Protestants, the religious community (McHugh,
1978) (a part of the American majority who favor
capital punishment) has taken a position of support
for capital punishment. (Conuse, 1982) There are
some who disagree and argue that the Christian
position should be against capital punishment.
The general African American religious and church
community (although there are signs this may be
changing) pretty much still adhere to its pre-Gregg
v. Georgia (1976) position.
The traditional and lingering statement of the
American Baptist Convention serves as today's
protocol for many churches and denominations:
1. Because the Christian believes in the inherent
worth of human personality and in the unceasing
availability of God's mercy, forgiveness, and
redemptive power, and
2. Because the Christian wholeheartedly supports
the emphasis in modern penology upon the process
of creative, redemptive rehabilitation, rather
than on punitive and primitive retribution, and
3. Because the deterrent effects of capital punishment
are not supported by available evidence, and
4. Because the death penalty tends to brutalize
the human spirit and the society which condones
it, and
5. Because human agencies of legal justice are
fallible, permitting the possibility of the executing
of the innocent.
We, therefore, recommend the abolition of capital
punishment and the reevaluation of the parole
system relative to such cases. (American Baptist
Convention…1960)
The time has now come for the church to enter
the debate and address the theological and ethical
arguments raised by the proponents and opponents
of capital punishment. Anything less is a disservice
of great magnitude. (Hutchinson, 1984)
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 :
1. "Murder Rate Surges Toward U.S. Record,"
Washington Post, August 1, 1990
2. Franz Bockle and Jacques Pohier, The Death
Penalty and Torture (New York: The Seabury Press,
1979).
3. H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New
York: Harper & Row, 1951).
4. Michael E. Endres, The Morality of Capital
Punishment: Equal Justice Under the Law? (Mystic,
Conn.: Twenty-Third Publications, 1985), 103.
5. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
6. D. Baldus, C. Pulaski, and G. Woodworth, Equal
Justice and the Death Penalty (Boston: Northeastern
University Press 1990).
7. Hugo Adam Bedau, The Death Penalty in America
(Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1964), 189.
8. Hugo Adam Bedau, Capital Punishment in the
United States (New York: AMS Press, 1975), 49.
9. Howard E. Kiefer and Milton K. Munitz, Ethics
and Social Justice (Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1968), 53.
10. Robert Conuse, "The Bible and Capital
Punishment," Blueprint For Social Justice
(December 1982): 3.
11. Gerald Austin McHugh, Christian Faith and
Criminal Justice. Toward a Christian Response
to Crime and Punishment (New York: Paulist Press,
1978), 91.
12. Bob Hutchinson, "Should Christians Trumpet
the Resurrection of the Death Penalty?" Salt
(4 June 1984): 9.
13. American Baptist Convention, Statement on
Capital Punishment. Adopted Rochester, New York,
June 7, 1960.
|