Love and
Christianity are seemingly synonymous. When the judiciary awards death penalty
to criminals the social media, which include Christians, rumbles and grumbles about
the validity of death sentences.
How should
Christians view death penalty?
This is an
opportune moment to discuss this subject for Yakub Memon, involved in the 1993
Mumbai serial bomb blasts that killed 257 people, was executed in Nagpur, India
on 30th July - the morning of his 53rd birthday and a day
before his daughter’s 21st birthday.
Pew
Research Center reports [1] that from among the other religions, Judaism and
Buddhism oppose death penalty. Hinduism holds no clear stance. Islam favors
death penalty. American atheists and agnostics are split almost equally on
death penalty.
Pew
Research Center also reports [2] that from among the Christian denominations,
Baptist, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist oppose
death penalty. Assemblies of God and Mormons do not have an official position
on death penalty. Southern Baptist and the Lutheran church – Missouri Synod
favor death penalty.
Although
denominations may hold official positions on death penalty, individual members do
not necessarily adhere to these official positions. A case in point is that 53%
of US Catholics favor death penalty contradicting the official position of the
Catholic Church [3].
There are three
major positions in the context of death penalty.
First, Christians
favoring death penalty (Reconstructionism) quote Genesis 9:6, Numbers 35: 33
etc. Their arguments are three-fold [4]:
1. Old Testament law reflects God's
unchanging character.
2. Jesus
did not come to abolish the law.
3. Capital
punishment is prescribed in the New Testament.
Charles “Chuck” Colson, who served
as a special counsel to the American President Richard Nixon, founded “Prison
Fellowship” in 1976. Chuck Colson’s view as a Christian and as one who had vast
experience in serving prisoners should be diligently considered.
Chuck Colson opposed death penalty
to begin with. Subsequently, he changed his views and supported death penalty.
These are Chuck Colson’s words, “…For as long as I can remember, I have
opposed capital punishment. As a lawyer I observed how flawed the legal system
is, and I concluded, as Justice Learned Hand once remarked, that it was better
that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be executed. I was also
influenced by very libertarian views of government; I distrusted government too
much to give power to take a human life to the judicial system…
…But
I must say that my views have changed and that I now favor capital punishment,
at least in principle, but only in extreme cases when no other punishment can
satisfy the demands of justice.
…Perhaps
the emotional event that pushed me over the (philosophical) edge was the John
Wayne Gacy case some years ago. I visited him on death row. During our
hour-long conversation he was totally unrepentant; in fact, he was arrogant. He
insisted that he was a Christian, that he believed in Christ, yet he showed not
a hint of remorse….
…So
in spite of my misgivings, I've come to see capital punishment as an essential
element of justice. On the whole, the full range of biblical data weighs in its
favor. Society should not execute capital offenders merely for the sake of
revenge, rather to balance the scales of moral justice which have been disturbed.”
[5]
Second, Christians
who oppose death penalty (Rehabilitationism) would argue as follows [6]:
A. Neither
Christ nor Paul called for death penalty upon the adulterers they encountered.
B. God does
not rejoice in the death of wicked (Ezekiel 18: 23). God did not enforce death
penalty upon Cain and David for murdering Abel and for the adulterous affair
with Bathsheba, respectively.
C. Criminals
should be allowed to reform or repent.
D.
Christians are called to love another and not pay evil for evil (cf. Matthew 5:
38-39 & Romans 12: 19).
But what if
a psychopath who was shown clemency escapes from the prison to continue killing
people?
A secular argument against death
penalty is that the crime rate has not decreased despite the death penalty;
hence death penalty should be abolished. Isn’t this a weak argument since
abolishing death penalty is not a certain method to reduce crime?
On the contrary, abolishing death
penalty could fuel increased killings by rank evil minds, sociopaths and
psychopaths who know certainly that they would live despite murdering innocent
lives.
Allowing unrepentant and rank evil
murderers to live is unjust.
It is considered humane to abolish
death penalty. But is it humane to murder innocent lives?
It is merely on humanitarian grounds
that a murderer be excused and allowed to live. Humanitarian grounds posit an
argument that is “in favor of life.”
But the murderer has killed another
life! So allowing this murderer to live unconditionally is a violation of
justice. The only condition that would probably allow this murderer to live is
if the murderer repents.
So a murderer cannot live if he
remains unrepentant. Even if a murderer repents, how would anyone know whether his
repentance is true or not? This is the weakness of this position.
A third
position also exists. This favors death penalty for certain crimes, such as a
murder of a child (Retributionism). The
arguments in favor of this position are [7]:
(a) The primary goal of justice is
punishment (cf. Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:4).
(b) If it’s cruel to kill an
offender then it’s cruel to kill an innocent person (e.g. child) for which the
offender deserves to be killed.
To conclude, man does not possess
the godly wisdom to determine who dies and who lives. God who knows everything
would perfectly know if a person is incapable of repenting or is capable of
continuous murder. This knowledge is vital to decide the fate of a criminal.
If we certainly knew that a criminal
would continue to kill, then by all means it is safe and reasonable to execute
him so to prevent further murders.
If we certainly knew that a criminal
would not repent but holds a murderous mindset, it is safe and reasonable to execute
this criminal, for he could either escape and continue to kill or motivate
others outside the prison to kill.
But if a criminal repents of his
sin, then he deserves to live a changed life although in the confines of the
prison / correction center.
This then is the knowledge the
judiciary should possess to establish justice. Unfortunately, this knowledge is
privy to God alone.
In the absence of such knowledge,
the judiciary could merely examine the circumstances and evidences presented to
decide appropriately.
Finally, would
God intervene to save a criminal, who is about to be executed before repentance
via a wrong decision by the judiciary, and who would have repented if allowed
to live longer? I believe God, who does not rejoice at the death of the wicked,
would intervene to save this person, for HE knows perfectly that this criminal
would repent.
What would God do if a criminal who could
have repented is executed before he repents? Would this criminal gain eternal
life because of man’s (judiciary) wrong decision?
If the just God allows a death, it implies
that that criminal would not have repented even if allowed to live longer. Hence
it follows that this criminal would not gain eternal life.
Innocent people should not die. May
the authorities ensure this at all cost.
Endnotes:
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/13/some-major-u-s-religious-groups-differ-from-their-members-on-the-death-penalty/
last accessed 3rd August 2015, 1100 hrs IST.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.compellingtruth.org/death-penalty-capital-punishment.html
[5] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1274579/posts
[6] http://www.compellingtruth.org/death-penalty-capital-punishment.html
[7] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment