Board index ‹ Capital Punishment

[Taiwanese]

Do you believe in capital punishment?

[jimwalton]

Yes, I do, and I believe that the Bible teaches it.

Genesis 9.6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

Bob Walton writes:

- Capital punishment was mandated by God in cases of murder based on the inherent dignity of all humans—the fact that they are made in the image of God (Genesis 9:5-6). Thus human life is of great value. One who unjustly takes that life deserves to lose his own. Retribution is seen as justice, not vengeance. Scripture thus gives far greater attention to justice for the victim than humanists tend to do.
- Any attempt to use the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13) against capital punishment is absurd given the fact that the next chapter enumerates six offenses for which it should be enacted.
- Concerns about the unjust administration of capital punishment are legitimate, which is why the legal system handed down by God included safeguards such as the requirement of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15).
- Part of the responsibility entrusted by God to the state is the use of the sword to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4), a power that Jesus Himself acknowledged (John 19:11), as did the Apostle Paul (Acts 25:11). These passages are particularly powerful because in both cases the state, in the form of a time-serving bureaucrat like Pontius Pilate and an insane megalomaniac like Nero, was acting unjustly. The remedy for the unjust application of capital punishment is not to eliminate it, but to carry it out in a just manner. Too often today, one gets the impression that the government exists to protect criminals from the society that has abused them and the system that seeks to hold them accountable for their deeds.
- One of the consequences of the Fall is that man became a violent being (e.g., Cain and Abel). Violence is therefore the result of sin and is now part of man’s sinful nature. When the Bible deals with the concept of violence, therefore, it does not take the simplistic humanistic approach that violence is always wrong. Instead, it recognizes that, because man is basically evil, those evil impulses must be controlled, and sometimes this requires violent actions against those who do evil, both as appropriate retribution and as a deterrent to future evil actions.
- Man’s sinful nature necessitates that he be held accountable for his evil deeds. Humanists, on the other hand, assume that man is basically good (contrary to their own evolutionary theory, which teaches “nature red in tooth and claw”) and needs to be reeducated or put into a healthier environment in order to change his behavior.
- Scripture assumes that people are responsible for the choices they make. To hear some defense lawyers tell it, today no one is considered responsible for his evil deeds; the fault is always laid at the feet of parental abuse, a horrible environment, poor education, psychological maladjustment, or some life-altering trauma.

The text is clear about several things:

1. Human life is sacred.

2. God is not to be blamed for human violence.

3. God will not avenge murder but instead gives human government judicial power to control the rampage of sin.

4. Capital punishment is not about revenge but about justice.

Patrick Buchanan writes: A society that outlaws or disregards the death penalty does not send a message of reverence for life, but a message of moral confusion. When we outlaw the death penalty, we tell the murderer that, no matter what he may do to innocent people, whether men, women, children, old people, his most treasured possession—his life—is secure. We guarantee it in advance. Just as a nation that declares that nothing will make it go to war finds itself at the mercy of warlike regimes, so a society that will not put the worst of its criminals to death will find itself at the mercy of criminals who have no qualms about putting innocent people to death.

[Regnis Numis]

> Capital punishment was mandated by God in cases of murder based on the inherent dignity of all humans—the fact that they are made in the image of God (Genesis 9:5-6). Thus human life is of great value. One who unjustly takes that life deserves to lose his own. Retribution is seen as justice, not vengeance. Scripture thus gives far greater attention to justice for the victim than humanists tend to do.

But isn't God seeking to provide spiritual salvation to human sinners, despite the fact that everyone supposedly deserves Hell? Why would God try to redeem human sinners who otherwise deserve Hell while simultaneously calling for capital punishment against murderers? Why give murderers the punishment they deserve on Earth, but not give all human sinners the punishment they deserve after death? Why apply the principle of retributive justice to the earthly realm but not the spiritual realm?

> Any attempt to use the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13) against capital punishment is absurd given the fact that the next chapter enumerates six offenses for which it should be enacted.

I agree that the Bible doesn't actually denounce capital punishment, given your reasoning, but I'm not convinced it's endorsing capital punishment today either. After all, the Law of Moses (including the death penalty laws of Exodus 21) no longer applies because Jesus fulfilled the Law, correct?

> Concerns about the unjust administration of capital punishment are legitimate, which is why the legal system handed down by God included safeguards such as the requirement of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15).

Except plenty of modern research suggests eyewitness testimony can be unreliable due to faulty memory. According to the Innocence Project, eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions.

> as a deterrent to future evil actions.

Do you have statistical evidence to support the notion that capital punishment deters crime?

> Humanists, on the other hand, assume that man is basically good (contrary to their own evolutionary theory, which teaches “nature red in tooth and claw”)

I don't see a contradiction here; humanists could argue that evolution favors cooperation over conflict when it comes to personal survival, thus explaining how mankind has developed a basically "good" nature.

> Just as a nation that declares that nothing will make it go to war finds itself at the mercy of warlike regimes, so a society that will not put the worst of its criminals to death will find itself at the mercy of criminals who have no qualms about putting innocent people to death.

Would you care to describe a historical example of a society overrun by murderous criminals simply because it didn't enforce capital punishment? I can see how a nation that refuses to go to war will eventually end up at the mercy of warmongering regimes, but I do not see how a society that imprisons murderers without executing them will eventually be usurped by such criminals.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. Always glad to dialogue with you.

> Why would God try to redeem human sinners who otherwise deserve Hell while simultaneously calling for capital punishment against murderers?

God seeks to save all, but all will not be saved. Without justice on the earth enacted by human agencies, earth would just become hopelessly corrupt, violent, anarchic, and depraved. It's the "Lord of the Flies" syndrome: without an overriding authority, society quickly degenerates into violence and evil. The reason to exercise capital punishment on murders is to contain the prevalence of violence, which is the only hope of living in a civilized world. Another reason is that to let the murderer go free shows that you value the life of the guilty more than that of the innocent, which is backwards thinking.

> Why give murderers the punishment they deserve on Earth, but not give all human sinners the punishment they deserve after death? Why apply the principle of retributive justice to the earthly realm but not the spiritual realm?

Murder is in a unique category of depriving an innocent of life. Unchecked, there is no conclusion except an abysmally violent society. Murder has to be curbed. In answer to your second question, all human sinners will get the punishment they deserve after death. God is a righteous judge, and each person will receive appropriate reward and/or punishment.

> I agree that the Bible doesn't actually denounce capital punishment, given your reasoning, but I'm not convinced it's endorsing capital punishment today either.

The Bible does endorse capital punishment. Genesis 9.6 is the clearest expression of it, but numerous infractions in Exodus and Leviticus call for the death penalty (Ex. 22; Lev. 20, et al.). One would be hard pressed to make a case that the Bible does not endorse capital punishment.

> After all, the Law of Moses (including the death penalty laws of Exodus 21) no longer applies because Jesus fulfilled the Law, correct?

This is correct, but Genesis 9.6 is not part of the Sinaitic Law. It is considered to be a principle for humanity, not part of the Mosaic covenant that Jesus fulfilled.

> Except plenty of modern research suggests eyewitness testimony can be unreliable due to faulty memory.

While eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, it is still the backbone of jurisprudence, science, and journalism. We have to be able to trust reliable eyewitness testimony to a large enough extent to function as a society.

> Do you have statistical evidence to support the notion that capital punishment deters crime?

I don't, but we know that it does. We see it every time there are riots and looting in the cities. When looters think they can get away with it without facing punishment, they steal from local stores, not as part of their protest but simply to get away with crime. I can also speak for myself (and I presume for others) that the prospect of getting a ticket keeps me driving a reasonable speed—and drivers routinely slow down when they see a cop. The fear of prosecution is a great deterrent to people stealing, cheating, and murder. We all know that fear is a powerful motivator. It's very possible that hardcore criminals are not deterred by the prospect, but intuition and reason tells us all that we know fear of punishment is what restrains our corrupt behavior.

> Would you care to describe a historical example of a society overrun by murderous criminals simply because it didn't enforce capital punishment?

Nazi Germany started killing Jews in 1933, escalated government-approved murder in 1938, and then modulated to systemic murder in 1941. Much of the population (though certainly not all) was complicit. When such murder was encouraged and endorsed rather than punished, the nation ran amok in capital crimes. It's also true of the Rwandan genocide and Stalin's purging of Russia (up to 23 million killed).

[Regnis Numis]

> The reason to exercise capital punishment on murders is to contain the prevalence of violence, which is the only hope of living in a civilized world.

Again, this reasoning only works if you can provide statistical evidence of the fact, rather than relying on pure intuition. After all, why isn’t high security imprisonment enough to contain the prevalence of violence?

> Another reason is that to let the murderer go free shows that you value the life of the guilty more than that of the innocent, which is backwards thinking.

Can murderers still be saved by God's grace? If so, then doesn't this mean God values the salvation of murderers over justice for the victims (especially if the victims weren't Christian and thus unsaved)? Or couldn't it be argued that God values the free will of the murderer over the life of the victim every time He allows a murder to take place? Moreover, hypothetically speaking, if executing the murderer would restore the victim back to life, yet we still refused to do so, then you could argue that we value the murderer's life over the victim's. However, as things stand, executing a murderer neither restores the victim back to life nor (as modern research suggests) effectively deters crime. It's not that we value the murderer's life more than the victim's; it's that neither the deceased victim nor human society benefit from the murderer's execution.

> all human sinners will get the punishment they deserve after death. God is a righteous judge, and each person will receive appropriate reward and/or punishment.

If all human sinners will receive the punishment they deserve after death, and every human being is a sinner (since you've claimed man is "basically evil" as a consequence of the Fall), then how can any person receive a reward at all?

> While eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, it is still the backbone of jurisprudence, science, and journalism. We have to be able to trust reliable eyewitness testimony to a large enough extent to function as a society.

Not to the extent of risking innocent lives through miscarriages of justice.

> I don't, but we know that it does. We see it every time there are riots and looting in the cities. When looters think they can get away with it without facing punishment, they steal from local stores, not as part of their protest but simply to get away with crime. I can also speak for myself (and I presume for others) that the prospect of getting a ticket keeps me driving a reasonable speed—and drivers routinely slow down when they see a cop.

Firstly, you cannot tell me that you "know" capital punishment deters crime without providing concrete evidence. Secondly, both of your examples (i.e. looting and speeding) describe how a high risk of getting caught would deter crime, not how the severity of legal punishment deters crime. The likelihood of getting caught and the severity of a penalty are two independent dimensions under a rule of law.

> Nazi Germany started killing Jews in 1933, escalated government-approved murder in 1938, and then modulated to systemic murder in 1941. Much of the population (though certainly not all) was complicit. When such murder was encouraged and endorsed rather than punished, the nation ran amok in capital crimes.

Firstly, could you name specific instances in 1933 where Nazis began killing Jews? Secondly, it's worth noting that Hitler became chancellor of Germany by January 30, 1933. Even though capital punishment existed in Germany at the time, it didn't seem to prevent the Nazis' rise to power, especially given the fact they presumably began killing Jews after consolidating political authority, during which they were in charge of capital punishment (meaning they cannot be subjected to capital punishment themselves). Besides, even if you could somehow attribute this situation to the German government's failure to enforce capital punishment, how do you know there weren't alternative measures aside from capital punishment to stop the Nazis? If you want to convince me, you'll have to present me with a historical example of a society that has actually tried to deal with criminals, particularly murderers, without utilizing capital punishment, only to be overtaken by such criminals.

[Regnis Numis]

> Punishment is a deterrent for good people with a conscience, but not for the criminal mind. Fear is a tremendous and effective motivator.

Theoretically, good people with a conscience wouldn't need punishment to deter them from crime in the first place, leaving us with the criminally-minded individuals. Since you've stated that punishment isn't a deterrent for the criminal mind, what use is capital punishment? And what do you mean by claiming that fear is a tremendous and effective motivator, since you've conceded the criminal mind isn't deterred by punishment?

> The only way to avoid punishment for what we've done and to receive a reward at all is by the mercy and grace of God. Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. We go to heaven not because we have earned or deserved it, nor were we able to earn or deserve it. We are forgiven for our wrongs by throwing ourselves on the mercy of the court, asking forgiveness, and accepting the atonement Christ provided.

A reward is something given in recognition of one's merits and works. If we ascend to Heaven not because we earned or deserved our place there, but due to God's mercy and forgiveness, then it's not truly a reward. And since your first sentence heavily implies everybody deserves punishment yet certain human sinners can be spared by accepting God's grace, it means you cannot assert that all human sinners will receive the punishment they deserve after death.

[jimwalton]

> Since you've stated that punishment isn't a deterrent for the criminal mind, what use is capital punishment?

The use of capital punishment is just retribution against the perpetrator and justice for the innocent. if we do not punish the perpetrator, we are saying his guilty life is of more value than the life of the innocent unjustly stolen. The guilty should pay for their crimes, a life for a life.

> And what do you mean by claiming that fear is a tremendous and effective motivator, since you've conceded the criminal mind isn't deterred by punishment?

Fear, hopefully at least, keeps the "perpetrator pool" at a minimum, hopefully stopping a large group of people who might be borderline, or who would morally fail by sinking into crime given the opportune circumstance. Fear keeps them on the moral side of the equation.

> A reward is something given in recognition of one's merits and works. If we ascend to Heaven not because we earned or deserved our place there, but due to God's mercy and forgiveness, then it's not truly a reward.

I see what you're, but Christian theology says that the reward is due to Jesus's merits and works, freely transferred to us as an act of love and grace. So it truly a reward, even though it travels through a sequence of events.

> And since your first sentence heavily implies everybody deserves punishment yet certain human sinners can be spared by accepting God's grace, it means you cannot assert that all human sinners will receive the punishment they deserve after death.

Christian theology says that Jesus took the deserved punishment of death for all who will accept and appropriate his substitution. Envisioning a court of law, each of us stands before the judge, and a guilty verdict is rendered. For those who have given themselves to Jesus, at that point Jesus steps in between the guilty and the judge and says, "I have already paid the necessary penalty for this one. He/She is to go free." And so it is. The punishment is always rendered and received; the question is whether we bear it ourselves or Jesus bore it for us.

[Regnis Numis]

> if we do not punish the perpetrator, we are saying his guilty life is of more value than the life of the innocent unjustly stolen.

I've already responded to this point in an earlier comment.

> Fear, hopefully at least, keeps the "perpetrator pool" at a minimum, hopefully stopping a large group of people who might be borderline, or who would morally fail by sinking into crime given the opportune circumstance. Fear keeps them on the moral side of the equation.

The keyword being "hopefully". Since you lack statistical evidence to demonstrate how capital punishment would deter such people more than life imprisonment, do you have any anecdotal evidence?

> I see what you're, but Christian theology says that the reward is due to Jesus's merits and works, freely transferred to us as an act of love and grace. So it truly a reward, even though it travels through a sequence of events.

So we're being rewarded for the merits and works of someone else? To me, that is a very bizarre concept I've never seen applied elsewhere.

> Christian theology says that Jesus took the deserved punishment of death for all who will accept and appropriate his substitution. Envisioning a court of law, each of us stands before the judge, and a guilty verdict is rendered. For those who have given themselves to Jesus, at that point Jesus steps in between the guilty and the judge and says, "I have already paid the necessary penalty for this one. He/She is to go free." And so it is. The punishment is always rendered and received; the question is whether we bear it ourselves or Jesus bore it for us.

Aren't you basically conceding that not all human sinners will receive their due punishment because Jesus intervenes to save them? In that case, why did you say all human sinners will receive the punishment they deserve after death?

Moreover, I've always vehemently scorned penal substitution theory as an absurd concept for a few reasons. First, if Jesus is God, then God sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself in order to save mankind from Himself. Or if Jesus isn't God, then God sent His son to be mocked, flogged, and crucified by mankind so He can forgive mankind. Normally, our judges do not absolve criminals by sending innocent volunteers to be killed by those same criminals. Do you see how I find both ideas rather ludicrous? Moreover, what penalty is Jesus saving us from? Everybody since His crucifixion are still subject to physical death (and many people have arguably suffered even worse fates than crucifixion), so I assume physical death isn't the penalty He was rescuing us from. Is the penalty eternal separation from God in Hell? In that case, shouldn't Jesus still be in Hell today? Plus, why is belief necessary when Jesus paid off our debt for us? If I pay off a friend's financial debt, then it doesn't matter whether he believes I had done so; he's already off the hook.

[jimwalton]

> I've already responded to this point in an earlier comment.

As far as I can tell, this was your response: "But isn't God seeking to provide spiritual salvation to human sinners, despite the fact that everyone supposedly deserves Hell? Why would God try to redeem human sinners who otherwise deserve Hell while simultaneously calling for capital punishment against murderers? Why give murderers the punishment they deserve on Earth, but not give all human sinners the punishment they deserve after death? Why apply the principle of retributive justice to the earthly realm but not the spiritual realm?"

This is a response of asking rhetorical questions, not of any rebuttal to the point I was making. You want to know why I believe in punishing the perpetrator despite that it might not be a deterrent to the next guy. My response is because it is just to punish the guilty for crimes done. I don't feel as if your questions address the point, but rather inquire about theological extensions of my reason.

> The keyword being "hopefully". Since you lack statistical evidence to demonstrate how capital punishment would deter such people more than life imprisonment, do you have any anecdotal evidence?

I already responded to this in an earlier comment. I said, "but we know that it does [deter]. We see it every time there are riots and looting in the cities. When looters think they can get away with it without facing punishment, they steal from local stores, not as part of their protest but simply to get away with crime. I can also speak for myself (and I presume for others) that the prospect of getting a ticket keeps me driving a reasonable speed—and drivers routinely slow down when they see a cop. The fear of prosecution is a great deterrent to people stealing, cheating, and murder. We all know that fear is a powerful motivator. It's very possible that hardcore criminals are not deterred by the prospect, but intuition and reason tells us all that we know fear of punishment is what restrains our corrupt behavior."

> So we're being rewarded for the merits and works of someone else? To me, that is a very bizarre concept I've never seen applied elsewhere.

In the Bible, salvation is a free gift, bought and paid for by Jesus. We don't and cannot earn it or deserve it, but can only accept the gift. Those who refuse to accept the gift are left remaining in their natural state, that of separation from God. Therefore attaining heaven is being rewarded for the merits and works of Jesus, but the degrees of reward in heaven are based on our works and merits. How much and what type of reward we receive, beyond access to heaven itself, is based on our own record.

As far as being a bizarre concept, in the Bible substitutionary positions and actions are very common, and were common in all cultures in the ancient world. Sacrifices (blood, grain, incense, scapegoat) were all accepted by many cultures to effect substitutionary ends.

> Aren't you basically conceding that not all human sinners will receive their due punishment because Jesus intervenes to save them? In that case, why did you say all human sinners will receive the punishment they deserve after death?

When judgment is pronounced on saved sinners, Jesus will bear the due punishment for them. When judgment is pronounced on unsaved sinners, they will bear the due punishment themselves.

> First, if Jesus is God, then God sacrificed Himself to Himself to appease Himself in order to save mankind from Himself.

Close, but only close. First, there are more nuances to the Trinity than you are allowing. The Father sacrificed the Son, who volunteered for the task. There are different principles of action in the Trinity despite being a unified essence. Second, appeasing God's wrath is only one aspect of what atonement accomplished, so this sentence as you wrote it is reductionistic, almost straw-manish. Third, He wasn't saving humankind from Himself as much as He was saving humankind from the results of man's own behavior. We brought the wrath of God upon ourselves; God didn't initiate it.

> Moreover, what penalty is Jesus saving us from?

By our sin we brought the punishment of spiritual death upon ourselves. The penalty Jesus is saving us from is the penalty of spiritual separation that we began.

> In that case, shouldn't Jesus still be in Hell today?

There is a strong belief that Jesus went to hell and broke the locks, so to speak, so that no one had to stay there except by their own choice. He took out any who would come to him, and hell has no hold on any who choose him now.

> Plus, why is belief necessary when Jesus paid off our debt for us?

If you have a debt, and someone offers to pay it for you, it doesn't get paid unless you accept the offer. If you tell the benefactor to get lost, the debt is still on your shoulders.

[Regnis Numis]

I don't have much time right now, but let me correct you on one matter:

> As far as I can tell, this was your response: "But isn't God seeking to provide spiritual salvation to human sinners, despite the fact that everyone supposedly deserves Hell? Why would God try to redeem human sinners who otherwise deserve Hell while simultaneously calling for capital punishment against murderers? Why give murderers the punishment they deserve on Earth, but not give all human sinners the punishment they deserve after death? Why apply the principle of retributive justice to the earthly realm but not the spiritual realm?"

No, I was referring to this:

You: "Another reason is that to let the murderer go free shows that you value the life of the guilty more than that of the innocent, which is backwards thinking."

Me: "Can murderers still be saved by God's grace? If so, then doesn't this mean God values the salvation of murderers over justice for the victims (especially if the victims weren't Christian and thus unsaved)? Or couldn't it be argued that God values the free will of the murderer over the life of the victim every time He allows a murder to take place? Moreover, hypothetically speaking, if executing the murderer would restore the victim back to life, yet we still refused to do so, then you could argue that we value the murderer's life over the victim's. However, as things stand, executing a murderer neither restores the victim back to life nor (as modern research suggests) effectively deters crime. It's not that we value the murderer's life more than the victim's; it's that neither the deceased victim nor human society benefit from the murderer's execution."