Christians today are often in favor of the death penalty because of biblical support. The institution is clearly just, as it was used by God in the Old Testament, therefore its use is appropriate today. 21st century Christians, however, are quick to condemn slavery. Not because of a lack of biblical support, but because we can see that the context of biblical slavery is vastly different from the the way in which it was practiced 160 years ago. American slavery, obviously, was a tool of racism and oppression. I therefore find it immensely satisfying that for every southern Christian who defended the instutution, there were one or more abolitionists who fought against slavery in the name of Christ.
My hope is that Christians will look past simple biblical support and into the heart of the American criminal justice system. The death penalty is just not working in large American communities. It, like slavery, has become a tool of racism and oppression. The death penalty, if it is ever to be just, must be impartial and without error. Sadly, in our country the death penalty is neither of these things. It is a punishment avoided by the rich and inflicted on the poor. And it is a punishment that can be manipulated by those in power. As long as that remains the case, it will remain an institution in need of repair.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Take a look at the number of people on death row and see if these people are victims of racism. Most are white. How do you reconcile that? By suggesting that this "tool" is being used by racists, are you suggesting that much of government law enforcement is comprised of racist "good ol' boys"? Who are these racists you speak of? Can you mention just one by name?
The death penalty is ineffective because it is slow to punish. These murders will die a painless death; something their victims didn't.
To date, not one case/person can be mentioned where someone was put to death for a crime that he did not do. This artilce you site only state that he "may have been innocent". To not punish violent murderers to death will only ensure that some innocents will die (as they already have). I understand and accept the possibilty that an innocent person will be executed. If that happens, I will have blood on my hands. Are you prepared to have blood on your hands for the innocents that die because murders not put to death kill more people? The death penalty is the only law specifically mentioned in each of the 5 books of the old testament and this should not be brushed aside.
When my values conflict with the bible, I ask "where can I be wrong?" Maybe instead of trying to correct the bible to make it fit your morals and values, you should rethink your positions--unless you think you are correct.
By the way, your analogy to slavery is a straw man and not equivent to this argument. The Bible put in such strict rules to slavery that it made it difficult or not worth having a slave (too big a subject to discuss further here). This is nowhere near the type of slavery practiced by the early colonist.
Why single out the death penalty? Wouldn't it be the case that for any penalty to be just, it "must be impartial and without error"? Presumably we cannot require an inerrant justice system, but instead a highly reliable one. I would agree that as the penalty increases in severity, it is reasonable to require greater procedural care, especially if some of the other societal benefits (e.g. protection of innocents) can be accomplished by another means (imprisonment for life).
So I take it that your main point is probably that the death penalty is currently applied in a way that includes a lot of partiality and error. I think you need a greater case to come to that conclusion. If anything, I would think your argument concerning rich and poor is for more death penalty sentences--to be applied to rich murderers.
Side thought on something I find ironic: many people--typically on the liberal side--in this country believe that poverty directly leads to crime, yet they are also opposed to the death penalty because more poor people are convicted and sentenced to it than rich people. Given their background beliefs concerning the causes of crime, would it not be the case that poor people are more likely to commit heinous murders?
Anyhow, it seems then that your concerns should concern how to repair death penalty sentencing (assuming it's possible to move in a direction of greater impartiality and less error), though it sounds like your post is closer to advocating the elimination of the penalty itself. "Repairs" could mean more restrictive rules (e.g. the biblical rules concerning two witnesses) to lessen errors. Other possibilities, off the top of my head, would be a different way of promotion for police officers and prosecutors, etc. (e.g. so that discovering a flaw in a case and freeing an innocent would give more merit than simply a successful prosecution). Similarly, perhaps you should argue for better funding for public defenders.
For the purpose of greater impartiality, different sentencing guidelines might be needed. Hard to say--but I'd hate to think that because one murderer gets off, the system has to let the rest off, in a kind of universalism.
I guess I'm just not convinced that the cause of justice is best served by eliminating the penalty, but like most advocates of the death penalty (or at least I hope most are like this), I am always open to improving the process so that fewer innocents are punished and more of the guilty are legitimately punished, as is the purpose of the state in a just society.
I used to be a strong supporter of the death penalty, but recently I have come to the conclusion that it is unjustifiable in a liberal society (liberal with a small L). In my opinion, a theory of punishment ought to be communicative, meaning that it engages the criminal offender as a rational agent, attempting to persuade him to see his actions as wrong. The ultimate aim of such a theory is for the offender to repent of his crime, reform himself, and be reconciled with society. Capital punishment is specifically at odds with this aim not only because it is so final, but also because it expresses to the offender that he is beyond redemption and will forever be an outsider to society because of his past actions. It forever gives up hope that he will ever repent and be reconciled with his victims, their families, and the rest of society. The death penalty (and life sentences for that matter) is in conflict with the values of a society that seeks to treat everyone equally and inclusively, aiming to help wrongdoers reform and find reconciliation.
Post a Comment