Research Paper #2
Capital Punishment 271
be corroborated, and the law was careful to ensure that no one could be put to death on the basis of one eyewitness who might have an ulterior motive for testifying against the accused. In fact, perjury in a capital case was itself a capital crime. Circumstantial evidence leaves room for doubt, and two eyewitnesses were necessary to ensure that eyewitness testimony was corroborated before someone could be put to death for murder. Thus the degree of certainty required to use the death penalty seems higher than the “reasonable doubt” standard that is used throughout the Western legal system today.
If this principle is applied literally to capital murder cases today, both principled and procedural abolitionists insist that most death row inmates have been sentenced to death in a way that is inconsistent with biblical guidelines. The procedural abolitionist can argue that the life- for- life principle is valid but that in terms of procedure the proponent of CP cannot meet the biblical standard for administering the death penalty. Since there was virtually no such thing as circumstantial evidence in the ancient world, the way it is handled today is clearly more reliable in assessing guilt than in the ancient world. But most people on death row today were convicted and sentenced without even one eyewitness of the crime, not to mention a second eyewitness to corroborate the account. If advocates of the death penalty desire to administer CP consistently with biblical guidelines, both principled and procedural abolitionists maintain that we must reconsider the cases of many inmates who now sit on death row and move them to a life sentence. Retentionists can respond by insisting that only the general principle of the certainty of guilt is required today, not the ancient specifics of the Mosaic law. They insist that the two eyewitnesses mandate does not adequately consider the sophistication of other forms of evidence, which are capable of satisfying the general principle of the certainty of guilt. They argue further that opponents of the death penalty are appealing to the details of the law when only the more general principles are required for today.
Arguments for Capital Punishment
The retentionist view accepts CP as appropriate under some circumstances. Advocates of this view do not favor any “across the board” view of the death penalty without careful guidelines to direct the way death sentences are handed down. Nor do they usually insist that the death penalty must be administered in cases of capital murder. There are a wide variety of opinions concerning the circumstances that would justify use of CP, but all advocates agree that in some cases the death penalty not only can but should be used in egregious cases. The procedural aboli- tionist can accept all of the following principled arguments while at the same time opposing the death penalty due to procedural concerns— those will be addressed in
9780310536420_MoralChoices_int_HC.indd 271 8/9/18 3:43 PM
272 Moral Choices
the arguments against CP. The four primary arguments in favor of the retentionist view are as follows:
1. Capital Punishment Expresses an Appropriate Demand for Justice
According to both the abolitionist and the retentionist, criminal justice in general demands that the punishment fit the crime. When a murder occurs and innocent life is taken, retentionists argue that the only punishment proportionate to the crime is the death penalty. Only the death penalty can express society’s moral outrage at the taking of innocent life. Justice being satisfied is especially important for a society dependent on due process of law instead of vigilantism to restore the imbalance created by crime. The retentionist has a difficult question for the abolitionist in this regard: What is it that is intrinsically unjust about requiring life for life? The retentionist insists that there is nothing inherently wrong with such a requirement. The reason for applying the life- for- life principle is that the condemned murderer actually forfeits his or her right to life by virtue of taking the life of another. Failing to require life for life as a general rule would involve a low view of the victim’s life that has been needlessly taken. It seems unjust to the retentionist that the condemned murderer could continue with his or her life (albeit in prison) when the victim’s life has been tragically and undeservedly ended.
The Execution of Timothy McVeigh Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the worst act of domestic terrorism in US history for
the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, which killed 168 people and
wounded several hundred more. After only six years on death row, he was executed
in 2001 by lethal injection. Surviving members of the victims’ families called it “the
completion of justice” and felt a long- overdue sense of closure to the bombing and
its aftermath. Still others protested McVeigh’s execution because they opposed the
death penalty in principle. Opponents of CP had their sentiments summarized by one of
McVeigh’s lawyers, who said, “If there is anything good that can come from the execution
of Tim McVeigh, it may be to help us realize that we simply cannot do this anymore. I am
firmly convinced that it is not a question of if we will stop, it’s simply a matter of when.”
“McVeigh Execution: A Completion of Justice.” CNN (online), June 11, 2001. http://edition.cnn .com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.02/.
9780310536420_MoralChoices_int_HC.indd 272 8/9/18 3:43 PM
Capital Punishment 273
This demand for justice can be consistent with the New Testament emphases on showing mercy and forgiveness and on vengeance belonging to God. However, when family members of a murder victim express a demand for justice, they are often expressing a desire for revenge that does not reflect the teaching of Jesus. Nevertheless, it is true that the victim’s family has personally experienced the loss caused by crime, and thus their demand for justice may be a legitimate demand.
The problem with bringing Jesus’ ethic of forgiveness to bear on the issue of the death penalty is the way abolitionists confuse personal and social ethics. The New Testament teachings on revenge and forgiveness are part of a personal ethic that forbids individuals from taking revenge and that requires forgiveness when wronged. But that ethic cannot be applied to the state. The responsibility of the state is to punish and deter criminals, not to forgive them. The state may not exercise its role unjustly or indiscriminately, but God has given the state the responsibility of criminal punishment (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Peter 4:15). The retentionists argue that the biblical emphasis for forgiveness and mercy, and against revenge, is irrelevant to the morality of the state- administered death penalty and has nothing to do with the state’s legitimate responsibility to uphold criminal sanctions.
2. Capital Punishment Deters Crime
The argument that CP provides a unique deterrent against crime has a strong intuitive appeal, particularly since many societies around the world are perceived as becoming more chaotic with less respect for law and morality. Since the fear of death is virtually a universal phenomenon, the death penalty is an unparalleled deterrent for people considering a capital crime. Generally, the harsher the poten- tial penalty, the greater the deterrent value of such a penalty. Deterrence increases with the severity of the penalty involved.
A strong view of the sanctity of life is not inconsistent with advocating the death penalty when viewed from the perspective of a deterrent. If society is serious about the sanctity of life, then it will mandate the strongest possible deterrent to keep people from taking innocent life. To deny the legitimacy of the death penalty cheapens life by discounting the life of the murder victim. Retentionists argue that it is not inconsistent to be pro- life and support the death penalty, since it encour- ages people to consider the consequence of taking the life of an innocent person.
It is undoubtedly true that the death penalty is not a deterrent for certain types of people— for example, terrorists who kill innocents out of a commitment to a cause, those who commit a murder while serving a life sentence, and professional killers. Although the prospect of the death sentence cannot deter all murderers,
9780310536420_MoralChoices_int_HC.indd 273 8/9/18 3:43 PM
274 Moral Choices
that does not mean it is unable to deter any murderers. This fact suggests reten- tion of the death penalty as the only adequate deterrent for some types of people. Though not entirely related to the deterrent effect, prosecutors maintain that with- out the death penalty as a realistic sentencing option, they have considerably less leverage over accused murderers in arranging plea bargains in which they admit to lesser crimes to avoid harsher sentences.
Although most people have a strong intuitive belief in the deterrent power of CP, abolitionists will point out that, statistically, there is no relationship between CP and the murder rate. In fact, the murder rate is lower in Europe in countries that have abolished the death penalty. The murder rate is very complex and is influenced by many factors other than the deterrent force that the death penalty contributes (such as the socioeconomic background of the perpetrator), which make it nearly impossible to determine the deterrent effect of CP. Thus substantial debate will likely always surround the subject of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.
Murder Suspect Not Eligible for Capital Punishment Due to Intellectual Disability A Columbus, Ohio, man, who was accused of stabbing an eighty- nine- year- old woman
while committing a robbery, was ruled not eligible for the death penalty due to his
intellectual disability. The man’s IQ was between sixty- six and seventy- two, and he had
trouble with communication and self- care. IQ tests dating to his elementary school
years indicate his disability, and the US Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that the death
penalty for those “suffering from intellectual disability constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment.” An IQ of 70 is generally considered the minimum threshold for intellectual
disability, though that is not a rigid standard and can be contested with other evidence
of intellectual impairment.
Futty, John. “Murder Suspect Not Eligible for Death Penalty Because of Intellectual Disability, Judge Rules.” The Columbus Dispatch, December 9, 2015. http://www.dispatch.com/ content/stories/local/2015/12/08/death- penalty- case.html.
But that is not the end of the deterrence discussion. Let’s consider what is called the best- bet argument.14 First, let’s assume that the death penalty works as a deterrent. If society has the death penalty, society ends up in a positive position
9780310536420_MoralChoices_int_HC.indd 274 8/9/18 3:43 PM