Editor’s note: The death penalty is a controversial but important topic, especially given the situation of violence in our country, so that you think about the subject we offer you two articles, one for and one against, written in the American context but the arguments seek to be rooted in the scriptures. Whatever your position, it’s always good to look at the argument on the other side. We hope the reading builds or challenges you.
Dylann Roof, a follower of the ideology of “white supremacy” who murdered nine African-Americans participating in a Bible study in the church, was sentenced to death by a federal court in early January 2017. Roof’s crime must have been a monstrous evil. You’ll find few who think he doesn’t deserve it. To be honest, I also share that feeling. And yet, when I look deeper, beyond my anger at him, I must admit that executing him does not solve things; it simply seems to solve it, and that is where the heart of the problem lies: in the Christian concept, justice in capital punishment does not consist of feelings of satisfaction obtained by retaliation or revenge, but correctly defining what needs to be properly defined.
- Christians are not obliged to support the death penalty and should not.
- In fact.
- Support it.
- My reasons for opposing the death penalty are philosophical and theological.
- Let me begin with the philosophical objections.
- Which I divide into theoretical and practical aspects.
- And then conclude.
- With theological objections.
Advocates of capital punishment often appeal to the importance of criminals getting what they deserve or pay for the crime committed. This exchange is supposed to follow the old legal principle of the “Talion Act”. Eye for an eye? a criminal debt incurred by the offender. But do you think punishment is an eye-by-eye exchange?It’s a mistake. Punishment is best conceived as a symbolic representation. If one person murders another, killing the offender does not restore the situation before the murder. The pre-crime situation is unrecoverable.
Punishment cannot definitively and by itself restore the balance of society, a necessary but not sufficient condition of the social order, the death penalty, as a form of punishment, can only be applied to violent crimes, as in Roof’s case, symbolically punishes, bringing the accused to justice and, in turn, informing the public of what has happened and what is being done to correct it. The death penalty cannot restore justice even if it is about respecting it.
This is by no means a desire in relation to what happened, but rather a deep feeling that criminals should receive compensation. For “retributivist,” the purpose of punishment is simply to punish. That’s literally what the word “punishment” means, and in many ways the punishment has its rightful place in our penal code. However, when applied to capital punishment, the theory begins to collapse.
Punishment can, at best, be only part of the purpose of punishment; it is also essential that, at the time of the sanction, the actual conditions under which the crime was committed are demonstrated and that the penalty is applied for educational purposes. it is Augustine’s position. He argues that the punishment must be ”to tell the truth about crime” and discipline the accused in a proportionate and educational manner. The death penalty is unique among sentences, as it cannot exactly apply this educational objective. The dead do not learn from their mistakes or the discipline imposed. The suggestion that capital punishment somehow expresses our sincere respect for human life?The image of God is, in fact, too paradoxical to be accepted. For this and other reasons outlined below, I do not believe that in Genesis 9. 6 “Shed Blood for Spilled Blood” is morally applicable. The fact that we are co-executors of Christ must be reason enough to adjust our hermeneutics at this point.
Evidence also suggests that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent against death crimes. Some murder crimes are accused of not being premeditated or committed in the heat of passion and therefore never entered the criminal’s mind before the commission. In addition, homicide rates in 14 states with no death penalty are in or below the national average. Evidence of the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring violent crimes is unconvincing.
Let me now briefly move on to the practical aspect, starting with some suggestive statistics:
This is just a small example of the practical problems that are endemic to the criminal justice system, I would like to highlight, in particular, the problems of representation of lawyers and racial prejudices, given the current tension on public defenders, both because of the heavy burden of business and lack of funds, is it difficult to see how violent offenders who cannot afford their own lawyers are comparatively represented by publicly appointed lawyers?It doesn’t matter how intentional or talented these lawyers are. suggest that people of color receive a disproportionate percentage of death sentences. Together, these are sufficient reasons to implement a temporary suspension of the death penalty.
Finally, consider theological objections to the death penalty
First, if one wishes to justify the death penalty by observing the principle of the “eye for an eye” of the Old Testament, then one must demonstrate that death as a punitive measure is morally correct, since the civil and ceremonial elements of the law have been fulfilled. In Cristo. Al, Christian defenders of capital punishment will also have to rely on Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 5:38-41, where he makes it clear that this interpretation of retaliation of the law was incorrect. If someone is subjected to transgressions or injustices, Jesus asks for benevolence and charity, dispensing with any reading that justifies vengeance. In practice, it is particularly difficult to separate revenge from punishment in the death penalty. Government officials are sometimes required to use force to uphold the law and ensure peace, of course, but there is nothing to force them to kill offenders to do so. The same idea is assumed in the logic of Romans 13: political authority can, but is not obligated, impose the death penalty. Nor will the Christian be insubordinate or disrespectful in asking for mercy.
A second theological point, long proposed by Augustine, is this: once the condemned is condemned to death, he is no longer fit for evangelization and conversion; Clemency allows the possibility of being reborn in Christ, which obviously does not guarantee conversion, but execution certainly reduces the possibilities. I think the early church brought this special opportunity to the heart.
Thirdly, is the Christian faith totally and totally in favor of life?From start to finish. This commitment is broad enough even for convicts. Every human being has dignity and no one, not even the monstrous murderer, can completely lose his dignity. I think Oliver O’Donovan is instructive precisely at this point. If Christians take human dignity seriously. , we must criticize any punishment that promotes derogatory attitudes towards the condemned. The deuteromic code, for example, limits the number of times the culprit can be whipped so that, “Isn’t your brother humiliated before your eyes?”(Deuteronomy 25 1?3). Viling here is different from shame, which may simply be part of the punishment, but execution is humiliating by definition. What does O say? Donovan: “When the suffering of punishment becomes the object of vulgar curiosity and fascination, even experimentation, the condemned person ceases to count among us as a human being who deserves the love of others and common human respect. Does it seem to disappear?.
These are my objections and my explanations. I ask you frankly knowing that many will vehemently reject my arguments. I understand the feeling. I simply ask you to ask yourself whether the death penalty actually gives the convict what he deserves, or whether it simply calms the anger, however justified, of those closest to the murder victim, who then pondered justice. done with the one who killed the one he loved.
Many of the so-called Christian defenses against the death penalty are, I’m afraid, more pragmatic than theological.
?
[i] N. E. : This text was published by the author considering the American context and current events, but we, from Let’s Go to the Gospel, believe that his general teaching is important to our context.