Capital Punishment

During the course of my study of human nature unchecked — starting with the Nazis and moving to Stalin and the slave trade and culminating with the Decepticons — I’ve come to a certain conclusion: While it is all right and even noble to sacrifice yourself for someone (see John 15:13), it is never ever acceptable to sacrifice someone else unwilling for a or the “greater good”.

With this conclusion, there seemed to be an immediate caveat: What about capital punishment? Isn’t that permanently removing a person — sacrificing them — for the safety and good of those around them? Many people see capital punishment this way — as an ultimately preventative measure, something reserved for those so bad they can’t possibly be trusted not to hurt further lives.

This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of capital punishment. When God institutes, if you will, capital punishment, He says nothing about prevention. He instead says, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). In Leviticus, God says repeatedly of capital criminals, “Their blood shall be upon them.” Capital punishment is not, therefore, about preventing further bad. It is not for the “greater good.” It is about justice upon the perpetrator of the crime. It is final punishment for past sin.

I have also heard it said that capital punishment provides justice for the victim. Justice for the victim, however, has little to do with the question. Instead, it would be better to say, rather than that the victim gets what he deserves, that he is avenged. Vengeance is defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as “The action or an act of avenging oneself or another; an infliction of injury or punishment in retribution for wrong to oneself or another.” Vengeance or retributive justice, then is the aim of capital punishment. God says, “Vengeance is mine” (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19), but in Romans 14, he says that the government is the minister, the executor of this wrath. Thus, as He said in Genesis, by man shall man’s blood be shed, because man has taken man’s blood.

Because of this, then I must conclude that capital punishment does not fall under the realm of sacrificing someone else, and my conclusion stands. I also find this to be the most compelling argument for keeping capital punishment. Because it is not preventative but about retribution for sin, the punishment must fit the crime (as the Mikado would say). In Matthew 5, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I tell you not to resist an evil person.” Far too many people have interpreted that to mean that the Old Testament represents a strict code of civil justice and the New Testament represents one of love. Unfortunately for them, Jesus is not talking about civil government at all in this passage. Also, Romans 14 does not paint a toothless picture of government. God is zealous about Himself, and He is no less zealous about His image.

One final note. Some may find such reasoning utterly inapplicable in civil society today. And perhaps it is. But it is reasoning based on truth, no matter whether others realize it or not. And I can reason from no other base than that which I know to be the truth. Also, I am not advocating any legal action, merely trying to define the purpose of something existing, though perhaps ailing and dying. It is as necessary to define the purpose of a punishment as it is to define the punishment itself, that justice may be served.

Posted at 6:08 pm EST on the 15th of July 2009 by V. K. Blake.

Under Theology as

There are 6 replies.
 
  1. H. G. Roorda says on July 15th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Vicki– Absolutely smashing! Very well put.

  2. L. M. Corinth says on July 16th, 2009 at 12:58 am

    Very, very nice. An interesting topic, as well, and one that I hadn’t thought deeply on before. :-)

  3. Dudley Sharp says on July 16th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    You are right on.

    Some more references:

    Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars
    http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/

    Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty
    http://homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

    Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review
    http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean–the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

  4. P. B. Hilton says on July 19th, 2009 at 7:10 am

    First, the verse you quoted from Genesis seems to indicate that this is a cut-and-dried matter, with the only option for those who commit homicide being death, that is, capital punishment executed by human justice. However, I found a verse in Exodus (21.20) that seems to suggest otherwise:

    When a man strikes his slave…and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.

    It simply uses the term ‘punished’ for the man, not ‘killed’, and the crime in question is regular homicide, similar to beating one’s wife to death.

    Second, Exodus apparently considers many crimes worthy of death. The same passage declares that striking or cursing one’s parents also warrants death. No reason is given. However, I would be chary of assuming that any of the commands for capital punishment in the OT are more than cultural norms which God allowed ‘due to the hardness of their hearts’.

    I, for one, could never condone a law that punished striking one’s parent with death, although I would agree that it is a shocking offense.

    Finally, there is a parallel passage in Matthew, although I cannot recall the reference: he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. As I understand it, this parallel passage seems to indicate that God will vindicate those who ‘live by the sword’. It has, in fact, no bearing on human justice, just as God’s statement to Eve ‘you shall have pain in childbearing’ is not a warrant to try to make women have pain in childbearing. It is a facet of divine, and not human justice.

    So my point in all of this is that I don’t agree with your basic premise that an eye must be taken for an eye. That, at any rate, is what you seem to be saying. I think the punishment for a crime can depend on many things, among them, deterring future crime, and aiding the victim.

  5. V. K. Blake says on August 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    So I’m finally getting around to replying to you, Philip.

    Point 1: I guess I was suggesting that it appears cut and dried because it IS cut and dried. It’s given in a sort of transitional time before ceremonial and civil laws are reintroduced. Remember that part in Matthew where they’re like “But Moses allowed divorce!” and Jesus is like “Yeah, you mean he made rules for it ’cause of the hardness of your hearts.” My gut reaction is that alterations to the Genesis statement fall into this category.

    Point 2: I don’t really see how that’s related. Just because one doesn’t mean not the other.

    Point 3: Okay, I can grant that the passage in Matthew is not commanding a form of punishment, it’s just stating the facts. Nevertheless, the one in Genesis is definitely a command.

    You might notice that I’m not entirely convinced myself. ^_^

  6. Death Penalty Not for Common Good « Cogito, Credo, Petam says on September 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    [...] · Leave a Comment Once it was pointed out to me that deterrence for the ‘common good’ was a utilitarian argument for the death penalty, I had to reject such an argument. As it stands, then, the only theoretical [...]