Death Penalty Saves Lives
June 14, 2007 Posted by Amy Hall
In Genesis 9:6, God commands, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” Because he bears the image of God, the value of a man is so great that there is only one punishment worthy of the unjust taking of his life. The ultimate crime against the innocent demands the ultimate penalty for the guilty. This is not only just, it’s also a way to protect the innocent. According to the article “Studies say death penalty deters crime,” anywhere between 3 and 18 (depending on the study) lives are saved when a murderer is executed.
“Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it,” said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. “The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.”
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. “The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?”
Another professor responded:
“Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven’t given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty.”
If the findings are correct, they pose a real dilemma for those who oppose the death penalty: Is it right to keep a murderer alive if it means as many as 18 innocent people will die?
Related posts:
- Death by Hanging
- Our Lives for God's Wonderful Plan
- Punishment is Necessary for Justice
- Yippee, Kids! It Is the Time of Death!
- Victory in Death
- The Moral Repugnance of Our Age
Posted in Amy's Posts, Ethics, Main Page, Politics
content rss
June 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I oppose the death penalty and the studies or scriptures you cited pose absolutely no real dilemma for me.
As far as scripture is concerned, this is a gray area. There are good, thoughtful, Biblically sound people on both sides of the issue.
Your post is trying to argue to things: 1. Death Penalty is a deterrence and 2. Death penalty is a just response.
Even those studies are flawed. Take into account this study. It shows that murder rates in states that do not have the death penalty are significantly lower than the states that do have them.
For me, I have to figure out which is the higher value—the value of deterrence or the value of justice. So, my question to you is this, Would you still support the death penalty even if it doesn't deter, but (dare I say) actually encourage a violent society?
What about the economics of capital punishment? For some people, the value of saving the state money is a higher value. (It's cheaper for the state to do life in prison than to do capital punishment)
In terms of the response about justice, as I mentioned above, this is a gray area in scripture. And I'm ok with that tension. But what I do know that is not a gray area in scripture in terms of justice is the way race & ethnicity skews this system.
This other article will provide the unfortunate reality that blacks who kill whites are overwhelmingly more likely to face the death penalty than whites who kill blacks. Of course this is just scratching the surface. Injustices include the quality of defense afforded by blacks and other minority groups (compared to whites), the innocent people who have been executed, and the methods by which people are executed (to name a few).
The last thing I would say on this subject, is that perhaps my conservative values come forward in terms of my belief in the sanctity of all life and trust that ultimately only God is the arbitrator between life and death. I don't trust my government in many things, let alone to be the decision maker in someone's life.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“It shows that murder rates in states that do not have the death penalty are significantly lower than the states that do have them.”
But isn't it possible that that's a little backwards? The study would have to actually show that the murder rate went up after the death penalty was instituted, not simply that it is higher. Otherwise, it could just be that certain states need the death penalty as a deterrent more than others (because of larger population, higher population concentration in urban areas, or other factors that make murders more likely to occur).
“It's cheaper for the state to do life in prison than to do capital punishment.”
But this just shows the weakness of the system in other areas. It shouldn't be cheaper. As it is now, we're often paying for life in prison followed by capital punishment.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I'd like to know how the death penalty would be considered a “gray area” when God through his Law defined offenses that are punishable by death.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Not sure if you really want an answer since you are pretty much set in your worldview.
I am presuming that your “through his Law” defense of the death penalty is taken out of the writings in the Pentateuch. By my count, there are over two dozen reasons for punishing someone by death. Question: Do you and/or your church institute the death penalty for working on the Sabbath? (Ex. 35.2)
So, as a society we have come to agree on certain crimes that would be punishable by death and that others would not (regardless of whether it is in the law of God).
Second, how was the law supposed to be applied to the society that received it? Was it supposed to be imposed through civic/government? (In other words, are we supposed to have something similar to the Sharia of Islam) Was it supposed to be done more decentralized? Was it a religious document? Was it meant to be applied to all people, regardless of their race/ethnicity? (I digress, but it's not as simple as citing the law as the final word on what is punishable by death and how it applies to our society today)
Third, is the biblical worldview on capital punishment (assuming there is one and only one view) descriptive or prescriptive? In other words, are a lot of these passages you would cite to me a description of what happened or a prescription of a godly life and a godly society?
Fourth–well, there is also 61 other books of the bible that have something to say about this, including Jesus (who was somewhat gray on the matter).
Laurie–good points, just goes to show that anyone can use a study in his or her defense.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Good to see people commenting again! Uh…I guess it helps when we post.
EE, to start, I was going to say what Laurie did, that the study you pointed to didn’t measure how each region would have fared had it not had the death penalty. There may have been far more murders without it. On the other hand, the studies I pointed to actually measured things like the changes that happened when the same area either stayed executions or went through with them. So there wasn’t a problem of comparing apples to oranges. If you get a chance to read the article, it has a lot more to say than my post.
Laurie–good points, just goes to show that anyone can use a study in his or her defense.
More like, it shows that you have to think carefully through what a study says and what it doesn’t say and spot the weaknesses. I readily admit that I have no idea of everything that went into those new studies, and there may be flaws there, too.
There are good, thoughtful, Biblically sound people on both sides of the issue.
Sure! But I’m sure you’ll also agree that I think some of them are wrong and so do you. So, on to the issue…
Okay, now the command in Genesis 9. This was one of the first two commands to Noah and his family as they were starting to rebuild civilization. The Law of Moses (the constitution for the ancient state of Israel) came much later and does contain specific laws about the death penalty for other things, but I think God had something specific in mind for that. (I won’t go into that here, but I’ve written some brief thoughts about it here.) But the command in Genesis was a principle, not a specific law given to Israel that Christians are no longer under. And being that it was part of God’s first instructions for the new civilization, it seems to be important to Him and foundational to creating a flourishing society. It definitely seems prescriptive rather than descriptive.
So, as a society we have come to agree on certain crimes that would be punishable by death and that others would not (regardless of whether it is in the law of God).
Yes. As I said, we’re not under the authority of the specific laws given to the ancient nation of Israel. However, the basis for my position on the death penalty is not the Law of Moses (as I said above). And I think that any society that ignores the universal principle of justice described in Genesis (applied in a just manner, of course) will be worse off, as the studies showed.
I don’t trust my government in many things, let alone to be the decision maker in someone’s life.
But this is exactly what God has done–entrusted the government with this task. He’s given His authority to the government to maintain order and punish when necessary–even with the sword: “But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for [the government] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Romans 13). I think that God’s desire (based on the universal command in Genesis) is that murderers be brought to justice, and the instrument of that justice is to be the government–the authority God established to decide these things (according to Romans). I’ll also add that I don’t think anything Jesus said removed the authority and charge God gave to the government to maintain order and punish those who do evil.
I don’t deny that people I respect oppose the death penalty because they think it’s imposed unfairly. But I would simply say, let’s work to impose it fairly, then. Are you saying it’s unjust in itself or that it’s unjust because of the way it’s applied?
I didn’t see anyone on that website who was wrongly executed. Is there one? I think the evidence has to be pretty solid to convict someone of murder and give him the death penalty, and I haven’t heard of someone later being found innocent (not to say there never was one, I just haven’t heard of one, nor has anyone been able to point me to one), and I’m sure DNA evidence helps with this. But the sad reality is that though there’s a chance that an innocent person here or there may be executed, there’s a certainty that innocent people will die if none of the guilty is executed. It seems the death penalty is still on the side of justice even if such a horrible tragedy as an innocent being executed were to occur.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Not sure if you really want an answer since you are pretty much set in your worldview.
If I really didn't want an answer, I wouldn't have asked. In my worldview, and I hope in yours as well, asking for better understanding is a good thing.
I am presuming that your “through his Law” defense of the death penalty is taken out of the writings in the Pentateuch. By my count, there are over two dozen reasons for punishing someone by death. Question: Do you and/or your church institute the death penalty for working on the Sabbath? (Ex. 35.2)
Interesting question considering how few Christians even follow the Sabbath. That's like asking, “Are unicorns ugly?” What's the point of asking the question since unicorns do not exist? What's the point of asking if the church should institute a death penalty for breaking a Sabbath that many Christians do not believe we follow? Where there is no law, there is no punishment.
So, my questions to you are: Do you believe we do have a Sabbath? And if so, what is your argument against the death penalty for breaking it?
So, as a society we have come to agree on certain crimes that would be punishable by death and that others would not (regardless of whether it is in the law of God).
But you have not demonstrated anything. Just because there are consensus and disagreements, it does not negate the fact that Scripture does institute the death penalty.
Second, how was the law supposed to be applied to the society that received it? Was it supposed to be imposed through civic/government? (In other words, are we supposed to have something similar to the Sharia of Islam)
Yes, it is supposed to be imposed through the civil government (Romans 13). And trying to parallel this to Islam is a fallacious argument of being guilty by similarity. No civil government exists in a vacuum apart from a religious (yes, even atheism is a religious worldview) conviction.
Was it supposed to be done more decentralized?
Huh? What does a decentralized government have to do with the validity of the death penalty?
Was it a religious document?
What does that have to do whether or not the death penalty is valid?
Was it meant to be applied to all people, regardless of their race/ethnicity?
I'm not sure what you are implying here. Under the rule of law, all people, regardless of race/ethnicity, are equal. I don't see how this would be an argument against the death penalty.
(I digress, but it's not as simple as citing the law as the final word on what is punishable by death and how it applies to our society today)
How it applies to our society today is not an argument against the death penalty. Difficulty in instituting it negates nothing. Would the difficulty of flying to the moon negate building rockets?
Third, is the biblical worldview on capital punishment (assuming there is one and only one view) descriptive or prescriptive? In other words, are a lot of these passages you would cite to me a description of what happened or a prescription of a godly life and a godly society?
Absolutely prescriptive. It is God Himself who had instituted it in order to remove the evil from the society.
Fourth–well, there is also 61 other books of the bible that have something to say about this, including Jesus (who was somewhat gray on the matter).
Well, considering that you have a very different understanding of God's Law, I am not surprised to see that you find Jesus gray on this matter. But now we're back at square one: I'd like to know how Jesus was “gray” concerning the death penalty.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:37 am
As I said, we're not under the authority of the specific laws given to the ancient nation of Israel.
Curious. Do you believe the general equity of the case laws to Israel only limited to their society, or are they universal in scope?
June 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
This is an issue that I have grown more passionate about in recent years. I used to support the death penalty, but have become an abolitionist — though not entirely active in that pursuit.
Like EE, the studies here don't affect my view very much since my main stance against the death penalty is no that it isn't a successful deterrent. I believe that the death penalty can be a very successful deterrent, but that doesn't mean it is just or humane. If the death penalty is used swiftly, it can be a strong deterrent. For example, according to NationMaster.com China ranks 14th in executions per capita, but they do not crack the to 62 in murders per capita. It could be well argued that China's proactive stance of prosecuting and punishing crime has led to lower murder rates. However, how many of us would want to live under a Chinese-like state?
Laurie also brings up good points about understanding how murder rates were affected by abolition or when the death penalty was reinstated. But it is also germane to ask why the murder rates in states or industrialized nations without the death penalty by and large remains lower than states or nations with the death penalty? I think it points to the fact that capital punishment is not the only factor affecting homicide. Are there other and more effective ways to protect innocents from murder without having to take someone's life, while still holding those who commit murder accountable?
The story that Amy has a lot to consider, but it also has problems. I don't know if it's the studies themselves or the reporting. (My assumption is that the reporters don't quite grasp the way statistics work.) For example, the article states, “A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides.” The second part of that statement seems to be a dubious claim. I think — without seeing the studies myself — that the researchers found a correlation between commuting a death sentence and an increase in homicides. To say that “commuting a death sentence means five more homicides” is a causational statement. When a governor commutes a death sentence, five people do not drop dead by the stroke of his or her pen. We had a mantra in my research methods classes in college: correlation does not mean causation. But correlation does mean there is a relationship that demands further investigation.
I think it's fair to say that one is against the death penalty in toto on moral and theological grounds, against it on moral and theological grounds though still remaining open to it while seeking other forms of punishment like John Paul II, and still making complaints about the way it is carried out. It is a way of saying, the end is unjust and the means are unjust. For example,
in 2000, Illinois governor George Ryan suspended the death penalty because of deep problems in the system. “We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system — 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death,” Ryan told CNN. “There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied.” One of those exonerated was two days away from execution. The governor did not say the ends were unjust, but clearly the means were and I think that should open up the larger conversation.
The biblical and theological questions here are even more difficult to sort out in my opinion. I disagree with the stance that because Genesis 9.6 came before the Mosaic Law that it is any more or less binding than the Mosaic Law itself. That doesn't seem to be how the communities in the OT or the NT spoke of those texts. The Torah and the death penalty is a supremely hairy topic. It has been established here that the Torah contains admonitions to execute people for various offenses. Yet the Torah and the rest of the Bible contain several stories of people committing those same offenses and not being executed. One thinks of Moses and David who committed or were complicit in murder and both died natural deaths.
Finally, I'd like to address the Sabbath question, though I understand it was a tangential example. Yes, I think the Sabbath is still in play and the fact that many of us do not observe it saddens me greatly. We miss out on a wonderful gift from God. Without the Sabbath, our tendency to delude ourselves that we are in control becomes more concrete. Our trust for provision goes into our work rather than to God. The Sabbath — or the Lord's day as Paul seems to call it — roots us in the stories of our faith. God's call to Sabbath reminds us of creation and the character of God. To rest is to be like God. It also reminds us of salvation and deliverance. To rest is to remember it was God who brought our spiritual ancestors our of slavery in Egypt. God is not a taskmaster like Pharaoh. How much more meaning does this wonderful rest have for us when we consider the salvation through the cross and resurrection?
June 15th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Good gracious, upon re-reading my comment, I see that it is really long and full of typos. My apologies. Blessings to you brave enough to venture through it. If I need to clarify things, just ask and I'll gladly do so.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Thanks for your contribution, Tyler.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I'm not sure what you're asking… I think that we learn about God's character, about good and evil, and principles of justice from the laws given to Israel. But those specific laws aren't binding on us, although many of the principles may be universal and expressed in many different laws througout the world. Here's an article that has some interesting things to say about this (you have to scroll down and click on “The Law of Moses and the Law of the Messiah).
The Law is a huge subject, so that's as far as I really have time to go with it at the moment. I'm still working out what I think about its place today, but right now, my thinking is very similar to the article, so you can check that out.
June 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
To be honest, I don't quite understand why the confusion. I think you may have misread my comments/responses…
June 17th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I guess my perceived confusion is that I assumed you were showing how the death penalty was a gray area in Scripture, yet your reply did little to show that. Difficulty in applying the death penalty does not preclude its validity, which seems to be where you stand.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
As I mentioned in my first response, I doubt anything that I say would really be of “validity”, since you are pretty much set in your worldview. Of course the difficulty of applying any teaching will challenge its validity to some level–not to say that it won't stand the challenge, but it is a challenge nevertheless. My understanding of scripture allows certain tensions and certain gray areas, and yours doesn't. I doubt there are resolutions to this.
June 17th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
You assume too much about my worldview. Otherwise, I would never come to a trinitarian stance, which is full of tension. And as for God's Law, there will be cases where there are gray areas on application. Still, this does not preclude all other actions to take place when the cases are clear.
God's Law tells us of the kind of punishment that is to be rendered in a case of such-and-such transgression. This is not gray. What is gray is when we come across a case where it is difficult to determine if said transgression was committed. An example would be figuring out the difference between murder and manslaughter. In your view, even if it was determined murder, the death penalty should not apply. You cite:
…perhaps my conservative values come forward in terms of my belief in the sanctity of all life and trust that ultimately only God is the arbitrator between life and death.
But has not God, through His Law, given us stewardship in judging over crimes? Or are we to judge crimes apart from the imparted knowledge that God has given us through His Law?
Transgression of His Law is, first and foremost, a trangression against Him. And since He is “the arbitrator of life and death,” He has outlined what punishment fits the crime. Since God's knowledge of the “sanctity of life” far exceeds our own, He sought fit to put to death those who would violate it.
To dismiss the clear prescription of the death penalty is to dismiss God's judgement and justice against those who violate the sanctity of life.
June 17th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Thanks for sharing that article, Amy. Its stuff I've heard and read before, so it is not new to me. I have contentions, but I'll have to write them out later.
As for that I am asking, I'll try to be specific.
In Israel's justice system, were the case laws that prescribed the death penalty only applicable to the Israel commonwealth? Or were they universal where other nations' justice system should have had?
June 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I've been in the process of working out what I think about these things, so below are my recent thoughts, and I'm certainly open to hearing other people's ideas:
I think that, generally, some laws reflected universal principles, and some existed for the purpose of setting apart the nation from other nations to illustrate God's singular holiness. Regarding those laws that called for the death penalty, I suspect that the harsh punishment of the death penalty for more than just murder (the death penalty for murder was given to everyone before the Mosaic Law) was prescribed because of the purpose of Israel. Israel was supposed to show the holiness of God to the world as a nation. Hence, those who were imperfect (e.g., with skin diseases) were sent outside the city, and other moral imperfections had to be cut off completely if they were to continue to reveal God to the world. In other words, God required more harsh punishments from the Israelites than from the rest of the world because of their role in the world.
No nation serves as God's mirror today. We, as a nation, are not charged with revealing God's perfection, so we don't need to enforce perfection through the justice system. Jesus now reveals God to the world, and He, of course, is perfect. As the body of Christ, we are Christ's ambassadors to the world, so in the same way, Paul does tell us to remove people from the midst of our fellowship who persist, unrepentant, in sin. However, we don't kill those people, even though we represent Christ, because 1) it's not necessary; the body of Christ lives among the people of the world and we don't need to achieve absolute, physical separation–people can leave our fellowship and still live in our lands without affecting the purity of the Church because we're not a physical, political nation; 2) I think there's a difference between the charge to reveal God to the world (which demands perfection) and the charge to represent God and His message–to act as His messenger. Christ reveals, the Church represents. Christ has the parallel role to Israel in this case, not the Church. Even with their punishments, Israel did not perfectly reveal God; only Christ succeeded in this. And 3) the Church has not been charged with the task of keeping order and punishing the guilty in our society. That task has been given to the government.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Interesting thoughts, Amy. Allow me to comment.
the Church has not been charged with the task of keeping order and punishing the guilty in our society. That task has been given to the government.
Well, in one sense, the Church has been charged with the task of keeping order. The Church in disarray is in danger of its light being snuffed out. Then where would the world be? A handbasket, perhaps? But I digress.
If the government is given the task to keep order and punish the guilty, then how is it to determine the proper punishment for the crime?
It would be odd to think of God requiring more harsh punishments from the Israelites because of their role in the world, wouldn't you think? After all, isn't the punishment suppose to fit the crime? But you are right. The Law was to set the nation of Israel apart from the other nations, but only because it was the wisdom of Israel, not because it was tailored to Israel, which is what your comments seem to imply.
As I wrote above to EE: Transgression of His Law is, first and foremost, a trangression against Him. So when it comes to the penology, including the death penalty, it is what God requires of man for transgressing against Him. This cannot be limited to the locality of Israel. Though other nations' governments were not given God's Law, they were still established by God to bear the sword, and were responsible to punish trangressors justly. God did not have one standard (Law) for Israel, and another for the Gentiles nations.