~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~

In our last article we looked at the Scriptural basis for the death penalty as well as those verses sometimes cited by abolitionists which they think support the opposite view. Scriptural grounds for the death penalty come not only from the law of Moses given to Israel but the Noahic covenant made centuries before with all the peoples of the world. We find support for the death penalty in the New Testament as well. Paul said in his defense in Acts that he did not refuse to die if he had done something worthy of it, and in Romans 13 he says that civil rulers are God's agents to punish men for their evil deeds, bearing the sword, the instrument of execution. All of these passages in the Old and New Testaments refute the claims of death penalty opponents that it pertains only to the law of Moses or was abrogated at the cross.

Of course, as we said, many of the abolitionist arguments against capital punishment disregard considerations from Scripture, often accompanied by the acknowledgment that many who support it cite the Bible as their authority. To the secular mind, these are merely religious convictions that carry no real weight; but to the Christian, what the Bible says about any subject, including capital punishment, is of the utmost importance, far outweighing any other argument or consideration. Many secular analysts no doubt are also under the mistaken impression, as are many believers, that Biblical evidence on this as well as other subjects is inconclusive because anyone can make anything they want out of the Bible if he manipulates it skillfully enough. Although this is exactly what happens much of the time, it doesn't mean that this is the way the Bible should be handled, nor does it mean that one cannot detect and demonstrate when this kind of manipulation under the guise of interpretation is being done. There are fundamental rules of interpretation which if observed will prevent the twisting of its message to suit particular aims.

If the Bible teaches capital punishment, as I believe we demonstrated thoroughly in our last issue, this is all a true Christian would need to conclude it is valid and give his support to it. For the true Christian, the Word of God, not the opinions and arguments of men, is the final authority. No one can be wiser than God on any subject. As Paul said, "...Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge'" (Romans 3:4, NIV). Nevertheless, for the sake of argument and to show the reasonableness of the death penalty, in the following objections to it most often offered by abolitionists we have included some that have nothing to do with Scripture as well as those that do. We have already touched upon some of these objections to the death penalty in our last issue, but we will repeat them here in order to bring all the objections together.

1. "Capital punishment is legalized or state-sanctioned murder." We touched on this in our last issue. This false charge implies that all killing is murder, but this is certainly not the case. The Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," is not a prohibition of capital punishment by the state, as is evident from the many places which follow this command that require that the death penalty for certain crimes. The Sixth Commandment is a prohibition of murder, the unauthorized and intentional taking of human life. To insist that capital punishment is murder is to take it for granted that the state has no authority to put criminals to death, a proposition that cannot be proven from either the Bible or reason.

2. "The state putting people to death sets a bad example, encouraging violence." God didn't think so in the Bible. Surely He would have known if the death penalty He demanded for certain crimes promoted the very violence He condemned. On the contrary, He was convinced that capital punishment would be a deterrent for these crimes. In several places in connection with the command to put people to death for certain offenses He adds that He expects this to be a deterrent. For example, after requiring stoning for anyone, including a family member, who would lead Israel after false gods, He says, "Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again" (Deuteronomy 13:11). In the case of a stubborn and rebellious son God prescribed the same punishment: "Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid"(Deuteronomy 21:21). In Deuteronomy 17:12,13 we read, "The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again." The fact that some went ahead and committed these crimes anyhow does not show that capital punishment was not a deterrent. It simply means that it was a deterrent for some people if not for all. I doubt if there is any real evidence that executions by the state encourage violent acts of crime, any more than there is for the similar claim by liberal psychologists that parents who spank their children encourage them to violence. God recommends spanking in His Word, again, as a deterrent to disobedience and bad behavior and as part of an over all program to "train up a child in the way he should go."

3. "The death penalty is 'cruel and unusual punishment' prohibited by the United States Constitution."

Whether or not it may be considered "cruel," it can hardly be called "unusual," either at the time of the writing of the constitution or in the thousands of years of human history prior to it. The fifth amendment to the constitution says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury....nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

And the fourteenth amendment reads:

...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

The terms and phrases used in these amendments clearly refer to capital punishment. It should be obvious, then, to anyone of ordinary sense that the forbidding of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the eighth amendment does not include capital punishment. Ignoring this as well as the views of the framers of the constitution at the time of its writing, liberal judges, following, I suppose, the modern theory of interpretation of documents that meaning is in the eyes of the beholder regardless of the meaning intended by the author, have argued that capital punishment is "cruel and unusual punishment" forbidden by the constitution! Professor Ernest van den Haag observes:

It is because of his all too reasonable suspicion of intellectual fashions that William F. Buckley, Jr., declared some time ago that he would rather be governed by the first thousand people listed in the phone directory-a random selection in all relevant respects-than by the Harvard faculty. (The Death Penalty, A Debate; Pro, Ernest van den Haag; Con, John P. Conrad; Plenum Press: NY; 1983, p.159)

Many liberal judges are Harvard graduates. A random selection of citizens from the phone book sitting on the bench would give us a chance at least of getting someone with common sense.

4. "Capital punishment is revenge."

This is simply the "state-sanctioned murder" charge in another form. It is true that God forbids us taking vengeance:

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."(Romans 12:19,20)

But that this has no reference to the state putting criminals to death is proven by the next few verses as the text continues into the thirteenth chapter:

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3,4)

God forbids us as individuals from taking vengeance. He has wisely appointed this role to the state, government rulers and authorities. This was designed to prevent individuals from taking vengeance and the chaos that would ensue in society. There would be no end to the killing, including the taking of many innocent lives by mistake, if individuals were free to take revenge for murder. Capital punishment is not revenge but justice; it is the state acting with God-ordained authority to punish murderers and preserve social order. It is true that the motive of many supporters for the death penalty may be revenge, but it need not be the case. One may support the death penalty because it is just without any feeling of vengeance.

If Paul were forbidding capital punishment by forbidding revenge, he would also be forbidding the punishment of criminals altogether, destroying the criminal justice system, for he adds that not only are we not to take revenge, but, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink." All anyone including the state could do to criminals would be to bless them with food and drink, not prosecute and punish them. But who would you want to live in such a society?

5. "Capital punishment is the state usurping the place of God. God alone, and no human court, is competent to judge whether a person is worthy to die."

But as we have shown, capital punishment by the state is mandated by God in the Bible. Civil authorities are agents of His wrath to punish wrong doers, which includes executing murderers. Final judgment and eternal rewards and punishments certainly are God's prerogative alone, but He has commissioned human courts to judge and sentence wrong doers in this world. Human courts sometimes make mistakes regarding other crimes, so one might just as well argue they are incompetent to judge guilt in any matter, not just capital offenses. Thus it may as well be argued that no human court but God alone can judge anyone for any wrong; but in that case what kind of society would we have?

6. "Capital punishment is not merciful and therefore should not be practiced by any Christian nation."

Jesus did say in His Sermon On the Mount, "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36). The very next verse reads, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Clearly, then, His command to be merciful does not touch criminal justice, otherwise society could not punish anyone guilty of anything. Besides, God is merciful, yet He judges men and nations for their sins and punishes them severely. His mercy is present even in judgment in His warning men beforehand and giving them space and opportunity to repent.

7. "The death penalty violates the Golden Rule."

The Golden Rule is also taken from Jesus' Sermon On the Mount: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," a rough quote of Matthew 7:12. The argument is that since you wouldn't want to be executed, you wouldn't want to see anyone else executed. But the apostle Paul said, upholding the validity of the death penalty, "If I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die" (Acts 25:11). We should all be of the same mind. Actually, the Golden Rule has nothing to do with the death penalty or punishing criminals, but should some still insist it does, it may be argued that instead of forbidding capital punishment, it upholds it.

8. "If the murderer repents and is converted, he (or she) should not be executed because he is a new creation in Christ; God has forgiven him and so should we."

This argument surfaced strongly in the debate over Karla Faye Tucker's execution in Texas. Since she had become a born again Christian after she admittedly performed her brutal murders, many evangelical Christian leaders argued that she should not die because she was a "new creature in Christ; the old Karla Faye, the one who did those terrible things, was already dead." But becoming a Christian and being forgiven by God does not negate legal obligations we may have incurred before our conversion. Could we go to the banker and say, "The man who made that loan has died (that is, has become a new creation in Christ); therefore I will not pay it back"? Or to the divorce court, "The man who fathered those children has died; therefore I will not pay child support"? If Karla Faye should not have been executed for her murders because God had forgiven her and she was no longer the person who did those things, then on what grounds should she have been kept in prison for life as these evangelical leaders pleaded? Why shouldn't she be set absolutely free?

God's acquittal of us in forgiveness does not release us from existing legal obligations. This is evident from Paul's treatment of Onesimus, the runaway slave of Philemon: I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me. I am sending him-who is my very heart-back to you. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good-no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. (Philemon 1:10-12,15-18)

Paul did not argue that since Onesimus had become a Christian he was no longer Philemon's slave and was not obligated to return to him.

If you confront your child for disobeying you and he pleads, "I've already ask God to forgive me and He has," would this exempt him from your discipline? I should hope not; you would commend him for recognizing that he had done wrong and asking God's forgiveness, but if you were a good parent, you would still punish him. Neither does becoming a new creature or getting God's forgiveness have any bearing upon punishment for crime by the state.

9. "Capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent to more murders, having no advantage over life without parole."

Here we come to one of the most used and evidently most effective arguments advanced by opponents of capital punishment. They often cite figures that appear to show that the death penalty is not a greater deterrent of murder than life without parole, and is therefore far too harsh and unnecessary. Supporters of capital punishment counter that the studies upon which these figures are based are too localized and fail to take other factors into consideration besides whether a state or area has the death penalty. For instance, if an area has the death penalty but rarely actually puts murderers to death, deterrence is greatly minimized. As we have already noted, for the Christian, what God's Word says about a subject is final authority, all other considerations or arguments aside, and the Bible clearly establishes and authorizes the death penalty. Besides, the Bible adds that the execution of criminals is a deterrent against the crimes for which it is given. For the Christian, then, the matter is settled. But for the sake of argument and to accommodate those who do not ascribe such authority to the Bible, we will take up this objection on other grounds.

In his 1983 debate with abolitionist John P. Conrad, law professor and psychoanalyst Ernest van den Haag writes:

The intended effect of all legal threats obviously is to deter from doing what the law prohibits, from committing the crimes threatened with punishment. And needless to say, the threatened punishments must be carried out-otherwise the threats are reduced to bluffs and become incredible and therefore ineffective. Thus, the primary purpose of legal punishment is to deter from crime. Over the years, theorists have agreed on three additional purposes of punishment, although they disagree on the comparative importance of each purpose and therefore on the weight each should have in determining the punishment of criminals. 1. Rehabilitation is the bringing about of changes in the character of the convict in order to produce law-abiding behavior upon release. For a while, this purpose was quite prominent. It is with this purpose in mind that prisons were called "correctional institutions" and guards "correctional officers." Rehabilitation is less fashionable now because no effective method to achieve it has been found. If one compares convicts subjected to any of the many current rehabilitation or treatment programs with convicts not subjected to any program (taking care, of course, that the two groups of convicts are similar, except that one was and the other was not subjected to treatment), one finds no significant differences in behavior after release....2. Incapacitation (also referred to as isolation from society, confinement, or imprisonment) is a second purpose of punishment. At least while confined, the convict cannot commit crimes outside. Death incapacitates totally and permanently, imprisonment partially and temporarily. Imprisonment and execution are likely to affect the crime rate by deterring others....3. Justice is, without a doubt, one of the main reasons for punishment, although many people are uneasy about acknowledging as much....Punishment is defined as a deprivation or suffering inflicted by a court of law, as specified by the law broken by a convict. The criminal is thought to have done something wrong, which he could have avoided, and therefore to deserve punishment-a repayment (retribution) for the wrong he did, which should offset any advantage, benefit, or pleasure he might have derived from breaking the law....4. Deterrence is the main purpose of the threats of punishment and of punishment itself....All criminal laws contain threats of punishment and therefore purport to deter from crime. Does the threat of punishment succeed in this? Certainly not everybody is deterred. Perhaps the threat is not great enough to deter; or it is not carried out often enough, so that the risk of suffering the threatened punishment seems small; or the crime appears so attractive to the criminal that he is willing to bear the risk of punishment. On the other hand, most people learn that crime does not pay and most of the time refrain from committing crimes, even when the opportunity presents itself. Some scholars doubt the effectiveness of deterrent threats and of punishment. There is no basis for such doubts. Just as credible promises of reward do function as effective incentives, so do credible threats of punishment function as disincentives. They may be material (e.g., money as a reward; deprivation of money, or of freedom, as a punishment) or psychological (love, prestige, or popularity as rewards; unpopularity, contempt, humiliation as disincentives). A moment of reflection illustrates the deterrent effectiveness of threats. How many people would go to the movies-however entertaining they may be-if they had to pay a $500 fine when caught? How many would go if effectively threatened by five years in prison? While there can be no doubt that credible threats deter in general, there can be legitimate doubts about the deterrent effectiveness of specific threats meant to deter from specific crimes. The factors determining effectiveness are (a) the credibility of the threats (How great is the risk for the offender of being apprehended, convicted, and punished as threatened? How does he perceive the risk? What proportion of offenders are actually punished?); (b) the size of the threatened punishment (Punishment will not deter if it is trivial, any more than it will deter when incredible); (c) the attractiveness of the crime from which the threat is to deter. Estimates of risk and estimates of attractiveness vary from person to person. Obviously a criminal normally hopes he will not be caught. Yet he is also aware of a risk. Obviously the crime is attractive to the criminal, but the degree of attractiveness depends on his personality and situation. A hungry man will run great risks for food. Drug dealing is so profitable to wholesalers that it is hard to think of any threat that would deter them. And a man in a paroxysm of hate may well disregard any threat of punishment to gratify his anger. Threats of punishment cannot and are not meant to deter everybody all of the time. They are meant to deter most people most of the time. If sizable and credible, they do. But they are not great enough to deter every genuinely hungry person from stealing food, or every angry person from assaulting another, or every greedy person from stealing. No threat could be great and credible enough to do so. Thus, in considering a legal threat, the basic question is not, "Will it deter everybody?" but rather "Will it deter enough additional crimes, compared to a milder threat, to warrant the additional severity?" A second question, no less important, is "Is the threatened punishment just, is it deserved by the seriousness of the crimes that it is meant to punish?"...[N]o one pondering the death penalty will contend that it does not deter. The question is: Does it deter more than alternative penalties proposed, such as life imprisonment or any lengthy term of imprisonment? ...Despite a great deal of research on all sides, one cannot say that the statistical evidence is conclusive. Nobody has claimed to have disproved that the death penalty does deter more than life imprisonment. But one cannot claim, either, that it has been proved statistically in a conclusive manner that the death penalty does deter more than alternative penalties....[However] there are two quite satisfactory, if nonstatistical, indications of the marginal deterrent effect of the death penalty. In the first place, our experience shows that the greater the threatened penalty, the more it deters....[A] $1000 fine deters more than a $10 fine; 10 years in prison deter more than 1 year in prison-just as, conversely, the promise of a $1000 reward is a greater incentive than the promise of a $10 reward, etc. There may be diminishing returns. Once a reward exceeds, say, $1 million, the additional attraction may diminish. Once a punishment exceeds, say 10 years in prison (net of parole), there may be little additional deterrence in threatening additional years....It would still seem likely, however, that the threat of life in prison deters more than any other term of imprisonment. The threat of death may deter still more. For it is a mistake to regard the death penalty as though it were of the same kind as other penalties. If it is not, then diminishing returns are unlikely to apply. And death differs significantly, in kind, from any other penalty. Life in prison is still life, however unpleasant. In contrast, the death penalty does not just threaten to make life unpleasant-it threatens to take life altogether. This difference is perceived by those affected. We find that when they have the choice between life in prison and execution, 99% of all prisoners under sentence of death prefer life in prison. By means of appeals, pleas for commutation, indeed by all means at their disposal, they indicate that they prefer life in prison to execution. From this unquestioned fact a reasonable conclusion can be drawn in favor of the superior deterrent effect of the death penalty. Those who have the choice in practice, those whose choice has actual and immediate effects on their life and death, fear death more than they fear life in prison or any other available penalty. If they do, it follows that the threat of the death penalty, all other things being equal, is likely to deter more than the threat of life in prison. One is most deterred by what one fears most. From which it follows that whatever statistics fail, or do not fail, to show, the death penalty is likely to be more deterrent than any other. ...Finally, I believe that it has been shown by Professor [Isaac] Ehrlich and others ["The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," American Economic Review, June, 1975] that "the executioner can save more victims than the life sentence." His conclusions-that each execution saves between seven and eight victims who would have been murdered by others if there were no execution-seems to me well proven. Criminologists, sociologists, and economists, shocked that a fellow scholar would attack what has become a dogma to them-that the death penalty is futile-have set upon Ehrlich and in numerous papers tried to disprove his views. He responded and, in my view, got the better of the argument....Ehrlich's 1975 paper...related homicide rates to executions in the 30 years preceding the suspension of executions in the 1960's....Ehrlich's cross-sectional paper in the Journal of Political Economy (1977) in which he compared homicide rates in execution and nonexecution states (over a three year period)...concluded that "capital punishment has a differential effect over and above the actually enforced imprisonment terms." (The Death Penalty, A Debate, PRO Ernest van den Haag, CON John P. Conrad; Plenum Press: NY; 1983, pp.53-57,64,65,68,69,128,129,143,144)

The date for Professor van den Haag's comments and statistics is 1983; since that time, more evidence has come to light to support the claim that murder is indeed deterred by the death penalty:

The FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1993 shows that "while the Nation's homicide rate per 100,000 residents was 9.3 in 1992, the historical high actually occurred 13 years prior," when many states had not yet begun to enforce the death penalty. Once the death penalty began being enforced in earnest in states all across America [nine states have resumed executions since 1990], the murder rate decreased. Also, the report found that "the Nation's cities collectively recorded a 1-percent decrease" in murders for 1993 over 1992. Most impressively, a later mid-year report showed that "the number of murders dropped 5 percent"-more in 1994 as compared to 1993. There is historic state evidence as well. In New York between 1940 and 1965 [25 years] when the death penalty was in effect, there were 12,652 murders. Between 1966 and 1991 [25 years] when there were no executions, there were 51,638 murders- "four times the number of murders than occurred in the same period of time prior to the abolishment of capital punishment. On average there were less than 500 murder victims a year" in New York when the state had the death penalty. During the years New York did not have it, 1993 marked "the sixth straight year that more than 2,200 people have lost their lives" by murder. Norman Darwick, executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, is sure that "many potential murderers are deterred simply by their knowledge that capital punishment exists and it may be their fate if they commit the crime they contemplate." Even some criminals agree. Luis Vera, who shot and killed Rosa Velez when she found him robbing her apartment, is one. "Yeah, I shot her," he confessed. "She knew me, and I knew I wouldn't go to the chair." (Capital Punishment, The Death Penalty Debate, Ted Gottfried; Enslow Publishers: Springfield,NJ; 1997, pp.35,36)

An article entitled, "Death Penalty And Sentencing Information In the United States" lists the following statistics in support of the deterrent effect of capital punishments:

Thirty years of study suggest that the death penalty is a general, or systemic, deterrent. (See works by Profs. D. Cloninger, S. Cameron, I. Ehrlich, W. Bailey, D. Lesser, S. Layson, K.I. Wolpin, L. Phillips, S.C. Ray, S. Stack, etc.) Examples: a) A 1967-68 study revealed 27 states showed a deterrent effect (Bailey, W., 1974); b) The 1960's showed a rapid rise in all crimes, including murder, while both prison terms and executions declined (Passell, P. & Taylor, T., 1977; Bowers, W. & Pierce, G., 1975); c) Murder increased 100% during the U.S.'s moratorium on executions (Carrington, F., Neither Cruel Nor Unusual); d) 14 nations that abolished the death penalty showed that murder rates increased 7% from the 5 year pre-abolition period to the 5 year post abolition period (Archer, et.al., 1977); e) A 37 state study showed that 24 states showed a deterrent effect, 8 states showed a brutalization effect and 5 states showed no effect (Bailey, W., 1979-80); and f) econometric studies indicate that each execution may deter 8 or more murders (Cameron, S., 1994)....The highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County), Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders. Texas resumed executions in 1982. Since that time, Houston (Harris County) has executed more murderers than any other city or state (except Texas) AND has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701 in 1981 down to 261 in 1996-a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential! (FBI, UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97, p.31A). (http://www.rit.edu/~wwl 2461/cp.html)

"Wesley Lowe's Pro Death Penalty Webpage" adds these statistics:

In 1985, a study was published by economist Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina that showed that every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murders. The study also showed that raising the number of death sentences by one percent would prevent 105 murders....Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M; University came up with these statistics: in 1960 there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and in 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank....And more recently, there have been 56 executions in the USA in 1995, more in one year since executions resumed in 1976, and there has been a 12 percent drop in the murder rate nationwide. (http://www.rit. edu/~wwl2461/cp.html)

Supporters of the death penalty argue that the deterrent effect is minimized by the comparative rarity of executions and the long delays of it through endless appeals. Although most states have reinstated the death penalty and resumed executions since the 1970's and some executions have received disproportionate publicity, the death penalty is still rarely carried out compared with the number of murders. If the chances of getting caught or punished are extremely slim, this tends to weaken the deterrent effects of any punishment. The article "Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States" says:

Imposition of the death penalty is extraordinarily rare. Since 1967, there has been one execution for every 1600 murders, or 0.06%. There have been approximately 560,000 murders and 358 executions from 1967-1996 (FBI's Uniform Crime Report [UCR] & Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS]). Approximately 5900 persons have been sentenced to death and 358 executed (from 1973-1996). An average of 0.2% of those were executed every year during that time. Fifty-six murderers were executed in 1995, a record number for the modern death penalty. This represented 1.8% of those on death row. The average time on death row for those 56 executed-11 years, 2 months ("Capital Punishment 1995," BJS, 1996), an all time record of longevity, breaking the 1994 record of 10 years, 2 months....Assume all murderers would instantly die upon murdering. Murderers would then kill only if they wished to die themselves. Murder/suicide is an extremely small component of all murders. Therefore, if a swift and sure death penalty was universally applied to our worst criminals, it is logically conclusive that the death penalty would be a significant deterrent and that many innocent lives would be saved.

Another evidence of the deterrent effect of capital punishment is the testimony of criminals themselves:

The individual deterrent effect is proven by many, perhaps thousands, of individual, fully documented cases where criminals have admitted that the death penalty was the specific threat which deterred them and/or others from committing murder. Indeed, one study showed that criminals, by a 5:1 ratio, believed that capital punishment was a significant enough deterrent to prevent them and/or others from murdering their victims (People vs. Love, 56 Cal 2d 720 [1961], McComb, J. dissenting). ("Sentencing Information," op.cit., pp.8,9)

The Honorable B. Rey Shauer, Justice of the Supreme Court of California, has said: "That the ever present potentiality in California of the death penalty, for murder in the commission of armed robbery, each year saves the lives of scores, if not hundreds of victims of such crimes, I cannot think, reasonably be doubted by any judge who has had substantial experience at the trial court level with the handling of such persons. I know that during my own trial court experience... including some four to five years (1930-1934) in a department of the superior court exclusively engaged in handling felony cases, I repeatedly heard from the lips of robbers...substantially the same story: 'I used a toy gun [or a simulated gun or a gun in which the firing pin or hammer had been extracted or damaged] because I didn't want my neck stretched' [the penalty at the time was hanging]." ("Wesley Lowe," op.cit., p.3)

If executions deter some murderers and therefore save innocent lives, not only is it justifiable as a punishment, but also society has a moral obligation to carry them out and is responsible for the deaths of those innocent victims if it does not. And even if there were no deterrent effect, still the death penalty would serve the cause of incapacitation and justice better than any other punishment. Incapacitation is a particularly significant issue when weighing the advantages of execution over life without parole. If there were no death penalty, convicted murderers would be emboldened to kill either fellow inmates or prison officials with immunity. In addition, they might escape or be released despite the "no parole" stipulation through changes in sentencing laws in the future and kill again.

The incapacitation effect [of executions] saves lives-that is, by executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again and do, thereby, save innocent lives. The evidence of this is conclusive and incontrovertible....The argument that murderers are the least likely of all criminals to repeat their crimes is not only irrelevant, but also increasingly false. Six percent of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of murder were arrested for murder again within 6 years of release ("Recidivism of Young Parolees," 4, 1987, BJS)....Obviously, those executed can't murder again. "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives" (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, p.153)....[S]ome 10,000 persons have been murdered since 1971 by those who had previously committed additional murders (JFA)....Nine to fifteen percent of those on death row committed at least one additional murder prior to that murder (or those murders) which has currently put them on death row...14% of those sentenced to death from 1988-94 had received two or more death sentences ("Capital Punishment 1994," BJS 1995 & JFA)....Should we put prison personnel and other prisoners at any additional risk from known murderers? Prisoners on death row are 250% more likely to murder in prison than are prisoners in the general population (Lester, D., "Suicide and Homicide on Death Row," American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 559, 1986)....With no death penalty and only life without parole (LWOP), there is no deterrent for LWOP inmates killing others while in prison or after escape....Currently there are a number of inmates who have killed numerous people in prison or after escape. Their punishment could not be increased because there is no death penalty in those states....("Sentencing Information," op.cit, pp.4-6)

The average prison sentence for murder is 5 years and 11 months according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The average expected punishment, based on the probability of getting caught, imprisoned, and time served, was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose to only 2.7 years in 1995.

10. "Murderers are sick or deranged needing rehabilitation, not execution."

This follows right behind the debate on deterrence because it is used by abolitionists to argue that the death penalty is ineffective on would-be murderers because they are not "normal" and will murder no matter what. This idea is part of the over-all "psychologizing" of our society; we are afloat in psycho-babble and silly psycho-theories that remove responsibility and guilt for people's actions. It is also part of what Judge Robert Bork calls our slide towards Gomorrah, the lowering of moral standards and expectations. We can no longer bring ourselves to denounce anyone or anything as evil (unless it's tobacco companies, smoking, political conservatism, or the "dangerous religious right"). The fact is, few if any murders are committed by people who are so mentally imbalanced that they do not realize what they are doing or can otherwise not legally be held responsible for what they have done. Murderers are not sick, they are evil, and such horrendous evil should be punished. Rehabilitation is a worthy goal for those who are, after their incarceration, turned loose again on the public, but rehabilitating a murderer, supposing this were actually done, is granting the murderer far more than he allowed his victim and is therefore immoral and unjust. "But he might become a productive member of society and thereby compensate somewhat for what he has done." So might the victim have remained a productive member of society. The best way to compensate for what he has done is to take away his life.

11. "The death penalty says that a man may be entirely and hopelessly evil and therefore unrehabilitatable."

This presupposes that the only or at least the main goal of punishment is rehabilitation. But justice and deterrence are at least equally important as rehabilitation and incapacitation as goals of punishment. When rehabilitation becomes the main goal of punishment, it may even become a reward for wrong behavior, as when criminals may obtain college degrees, job training, and other benefits at government expense that otherwise would not have been available to them. Capital punishment does not say that a man is entirely or hopelessly evil and therefore unrehabilitatable, but that a man deserves to die because he has taken the life of another. Why should he benefit so much from his crime? He gets rehabilitation while his victim is deprived of life itself. He also gets the benefit and possible satisfaction of knowing that his victim is dead, for whatever reason he wanted him dead, while he himself is permitted to live on. This is unjust. Capital punishment simply places justice ahead of the other goals of punishment.

12. "Two wrongs don't make a right; besides, executing the murderer won't bring back the murder victim."

In order to use the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument one must first demonstrate that execution is a wrong. It is true that neither executing murderers nor anything else will bring back their victims, but this is true of all other punishments as well including life in prison without parole. Therefore, according to this argument we might just as well let the murderer go free. Whatever else the death penalty may fail to do, it succeeds in bringing about justice, and surely this is worth something.

13. "Life is sacred; it is wrong to take a life under any circumstances."

This is the doctrine of the "sanctity [sacredness] of life." Many abolitionists acknowledge that killing in a just war is an exception to the doctrine, although, quite inconsistently and hypocritically, almost all of them are pro-abortion. Sometimes pro-life Christians argue for the sanctity of life in opposing abortion, but it is not a Christian doctrine. The Bible does not teach that all human life is sacred and that therefore it would be wrong to kill under any circumstance. Killing in war is not murder and neither is the execution of criminals. Capital punishment is authorized, even demanded, by God.

14. "Even murderers have an inalienable right to live."

Of course this is another form of the sanctity of life argument. There is no such inalienable right. This is an attempt to argue ipso facto against capital punishment, a form of arguing in a circle. It is the same as arguing that capital punishment is wrong because capital punishment is wrong. Our lives, under the U.S. Constitution, may not be taken without "due process of law," but life is not an unalienable right. We forfeit our right to live when we murder another.

Professor van den Haag writes:

The abolitionist faith seems a rather odd kind of substitute for religion. It makes existence, life itself, the highest moral value, so high that life should never be taken (or given up?) for the sake of any other value. Worse, and somewhat incoherently, life never should be taken even to preserve other, more numerous lives. Even a guilty life should never be taken to preserve more numerous innocent lives-even if the life of a murderer is sacred, and, oddly enough, more sacred, in effect, than that of his victims. All values are devalued if one takes this dogma seriously. If no value is worth sacrificing life for, none can be more important than life, none can transcend it. Ultimately, and contrary to the intentions of abolitionists, abolition, rather than consecrating "the sanctity (or dignity) of life," desecrates it. For what is the value of a life that cannot be dedicated-and if need be, sacrificed-to a value that transcends it? Surely individual life is cheapened if it becomes itself the highest of values and cannot be dedicated to something beyond it. To suggest that the life of the murderer is so important that it cannot be sacrificed to assert the moral value he violated by murdering trivializes innocent life and the rules made to preserve it. (Ibid., p.276)

Wesley Lowe says, "Personally, I think abolitionists have a lot of gall claiming that they are motivated to oppose the death penalty by their 'reverence for human life' when the only people they are interested in preserving are those who display the least of it...the very least reverence for human life."

15. "Capital punishment violates human dignity and cheapens life."

We might just as well argue that not putting a murderer to death violates human dignity and cheapens life. By putting murderers to death we are saying that we value human life so highly that we will in no wise tolerate murder. In the covenant God made with Noah which we have looked at, it was for this very reason, that man is made in the image of God, which is his value and dignity, that anyone who sheds man's blood must be executed:

"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."(Genesis 9:5,6)

Continuing our quote from the previous point, number 14, Professor van den Haag adds:

Some German philosophers, including Immanuel Kant and G.F.W. Hegel, went so far as to argue that the criminal not only has the moral duty to submit to punishment-after all, had he designed the laws, he too surely would have punished murder-but has a right to it. It is by means of his punishment, the philosophers felt, that the criminal's human dignity is preserved. He is held responsible for his acts, unlike an animal, a child, or an insane person. Kant, in particular, felt that not to execute a murderer is to deny him his human dignity as a rational and responsible person, and to deny the obligation of society to uphold the moral law. (Ibid.)

John Stuart Mill, nineteenth-century philosopher and reformer wrote:

Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall. (Quoted in "Wesley Lowe's Pro Death Penalty Webpage," op.cit.)

16. "There is a trend in all civilized countries to abolish the death penalty, and we should follow it."

This argument attempts to shame America by portraying capital punishment as barbarism. Western nations have, it is true, generally abolished the death penalty, but this may be part of the general falling away from Judeo-Christian values that these countries were once founded upon and should not be considered progress in the right direction. Besides, what the Scandinavians, the French, etc., etc., do should have little bearing upon what we do as an nation. When did we ever think it was the thing to do to follow their example? Is that what made our country great?

17. "Capital punishment risks executing innocent people; in fact there are actual cases in which innocent people have been executed."

This is another argument advanced by abolitionists that has proven to be quite successful. The death penalty is simply not worth risking the horror of executing someone who is truly innocent though found guilty and sentenced to die. If even one innocent person is executed, we must abolish the death penalty, they argue. As evidence that this has in fact been done, abolitionists usually refer to a 1987 study, Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases by Bedau and Radelet, both opponents of the death penalty, which concluded that 23 innocent persons were executed between 1900 and 1985. However, a response to this study by Markman and Cassell in 1988 demonstrated that the methods and figures were flawed. In at least 12 of the 23 claimed cases, there was no evidence of innocence but rather substantial evidence of guilt. Of the 11 remaining cases, there is no proof that any of them were innocent. Even the authors of the study themselves, Bedau and Radelet, later admitted in 1988, "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent, we never claimed that we had" (Stanford Law Review, Nov.1988). And yet, opponents of capital punishment as well as supporters of it in books and debates on the subject still routinely repeat that "in 23 cases (or 35) since 1900 innocent people have been executed in the U.S." This is typical of the way the left puts forth false information in their war to deceive the American people on a whole host of issues including abortion, euthanasia, homelessness, etc., etc. The fact of the matter is that there is no proof of a single innocent person being executed in the U.S. in this century. (From "Death Penalty and Sentencing Information," op.cit.)

Retentionists also respond that even in the extremely rare event of an innocent person being executed, this would not be sufficient reason for abandoning the death penalty. Professor van den Haag says,

Despite precautions, nearly all human activities, such as trucking, lighting, or construction, cost the lives of some innocent bystanders. We do not give up these activities, because the advantages, moral or material, outweigh the unintended losses. Analogously, for those who think the death penalty just, miscarriages of justice are offset by the moral benefits and the usefulness of doing justice. ("The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense," Harvard Law Review Association, 1986)

18. "The death penalty is racist, sexist, and biased against the poor."

Ted Gottfried writes:

Supporters of the death penalty deny the charge that it is racist because there are so many more blacks than whites on death row compared to their numbers in the population. When Warren McClesky, a black man, was convicted of murdering a white police officer, his lawyers appealed the verdict on the grounds that killers of whites were four times as likely to be sentenced to death in the state of Georgia as killers of blacks. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, pointing out that "apparent disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system." Carrying the Supreme Court's logic one step further, pro-capital punishment journalist Laurence W. Johnson considered the fact that "most murderers of blacks are themselves black." Far from being an act of bigotry, ridding this community of these killers is making African Americans more safe and secure in their homes. Many African Americans support the death penalty for just that reason. Backing up this support is the fact that 94 percent of black murder victims are killed by blacks according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. It is also worth noting that the Bureau of Justice Statistics for 1995 shows that whites convicted of murder spend thirteen months less time on death row than African Americans do. Death penalty supporters find little evidence to back up claims of discrimination against blacks in its administration. Even so, the general feeling among death penalty supporters is that if race is a factor, every effort should be made to correct that injustice. But that no more means that we should do away with the death penalty than that we should do away with all police because of the few that are racist. The argument is the same when it comes to people and capital punishment. When Senator Ted Kennedy called the death penalty "the ultimate discrimination against poor people," he was answered by Professor van den Haag, who believes that how fairly capital punishment is applied to African Americans and poor people is "wholly irrelevant." Such charges look at "the unfair way in which the penalty is distributed, not the fairness or unfairness of the penalty" itself. Professor van den Haag reasons that the wrong "is not in the penalty, but in the process." (Gottfried, op.cit., pp.39,40)

A 1991 Rand Corporation study by Stephen Klein found that white murderers received the death penalty slightly more often (32%) than non-white murderers (27%). And while the study found murderers of white victims received the death penalty more often (32%) than murderers of non-white victims (23%), when controlled for variables such as severity and number of crimes committed, there is no disparity between those sentenced to death for killing white or black victims....In a recent crime bill, the Racial Justice Act, was proposed...[which] had it been implemented, would have established a penalty-by-quota system. As a precondition for applying for the death penalty, it would have required that all races be proportionately represented in the execution chamber. This practice would have allowed judgment to be made, not on the facts of a particular case, but on the facts of a defendant's race. Also, doesn't the fact that the death penalty is optional [for the prosecutor] make it seem more prone to racial discrimination?...If the death penalty were mandatory for [first-degree murder], race would be a non-issue and the courts would be forced to concentrate only on the crime committed, as it should be. ("Wesley Lowe," op.cit., pp.8,9)

Professor van den Haag adds,

Discrimination must be abolished by abolishing discrimination-not by abolishing penalties. However, even if one assumes that this cannot be done, I do not see any good reason to let any guilty murderer escape his penalty. It does happen in the administration of criminal justice that one person gets away with murder and another is executed. Yet the fact that one gets away with it is no reason to let another one escape....Justice requires punishing the guilty-as many of the guilty as possible, even if actually only some can be punished-and sparing the innocent-as many of the innocent as possible, even if not all are spared. Morally, justice must always be preferred to equality. It would surely be wrong to treat everybody with equal injustice in preference to meting out justice at least to some. Unequal justice is preferable to equal injustice. ("A Debate," op.cit., pp.223,224)

And,

If and when discrimination occurs it should be corrected. Not, however, by letting the guilty blacks escape the death penalty because guilty whites do, but by making sure that the guilty white offenders suffer it as the guilty blacks do....However, even if...this cannot be done, I do not see any good reason to let any guilty murderer escape his penalty. (From "Wesley Howe," op.cit., p.8)

19. "Execution is more costly to the state than life in prison."

Retentionists counter that figures on which abolitionists base this claim do not take into consideration that much of the cost of the death penalty is made up of expensive and frivolous appeals. Then the abolitionist figures leave out the costs of appeals that would surely be made if the death sentence were reduced to life in prison. If appeals were limited in number and kind, millions of dollars of public money could be saved. Besides, if executions save lives, as we have shown that they do, it would be worth the extra cost.

20. "Execution is a burden upon executioners; would you (or would Jesus) pull the switch?"

If people were adequately informed about the death penalty and the justice and morality of it as we believe we have shown, they should be able to "pull the switch," as they would be performing a good service to mankind. But the fact that some, notwithstanding, could not bring themselves to do it should not have any bearing on whether the death penalty is just or moral. Many people could not bring themselves to be any kind of law enforcement officer not only for the dangers involved to themselves but because they may have to exercise deadly force to restrain a criminal or suspect. But this does not mean that we should do away with law enforcement because some could not bring themselves to do the job.

Many advance what they perceive to be a rhetorical question, "Would Jesus pull the switch?" They are confident that He would not and that most people would recognize this. But this is one of many ways in which the Lord Jesus Christ is popularly mischaracterized today as being all mercy and no judgment and divorced from the God of the Bible. Jesus is the One Who, being present as the Second Person of the Trinity, commanded the death penalty in Genesis 9 and upheld it through the Spirit of God inspiring the words of Paul in Romans 13. Besides that, consider these two parables of Christ in which He represents Himself:

While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.' He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it....'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them- bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"(Luke 19:11-15,27)

But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers." (Luke 12:45,46)

In summary, capital punishment for murder is ordained by the all-wise, all-loving, and all-righteous God, and human societies would do well, just as with any other command of God, to observe and obey it. It is not only what God requires and thus approves of, but it is in mankind's best interest. Capital punishment for murder is just. It silences the cry of his brother's blood from the ground. It is what the murderer deserves. The penalty for a crime should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime, and only capital punishment fits the enormity of the crime of murder. By taking the life of another the murderer forfeits his own right to live. Capital punishment is not only just, it is the only punishment for murder that is just. Any less punishment is an outrage. Ted Kazinski, the infamous "Unibomber" who killed three men and wounded many others by sending them packages of explosives in the mail should not have been permitted to live. Life in prison, regardless of its restrictions, is still life, and considering the comforts and conditions of modern prison life, is not too bad at all. That Kazinski can live on in comfort and ease, writing his nonsense and getting visits from his family the rest of his life is an absolute miscarriage of justice and an outrage against humanity. Abolitionists are not motivated by superior compassion but empty-headedness. It is a shame that Christian leaders joined them in condemning the execution of Karla Faye Tucker. It is one more evidence of the intellectual as well as spiritual and moral bankruptcy, in this case, not of the world, which is to be expected, but of the modern church.

I have taken the time and space to address the subject of capital punishment these two issues, but I do not feel it has been wasted. When the church, including individual believers, abrogates its responsibility to speak out on ethical issues in society, we not only leave ourselves open to the charge of being irrelevant, we leave the issues to be decided by the ungodly.

Until next time, God bless you all.

Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center

`

Background from Greenfield Graphics.