All Christians Should Support Capital Punishment
Shane Claiborne- a social justice activist, a progressive Christian who runs the Simple Way community in Philadelphia, and an author who published Executing Grace earlier this summer about the death penalty- was recently interviewed by Relevant Magazine about what he claims is the Christian obligation to reject capital punishment.
Claiborne seems sincere in his religious opposition to capital punishment. Still, his reasoning (in this piece and his book) to support abolition conflicts with biblical justifications for the death penalty and doesn’t make much sense.
For example, Claiborne says-
“The consistent life ethic is beautiful. It says, “We are uncompromisingly going to stand for life.” The early Christians did that; they unilaterally spoke against violence in all forms. But what’s happened… pro-life has come to mean anti-abortion… But it’s not the only life issue.
…The death penalty raises one of our faith’s fundamental questions: Is any person beyond redemption? There are many reasons to be against the death penalty, but for a Christian who believes that Jesus died to spare us from death and this idea of grace or, as Scripture says, “mercy triumphs over judgment.”
This argument is a bit convoluted and attempts to hide moral relativism posing as, but distorting, Christianity.
“Violence in all forms?” The Bible and Christian orthodoxy are apparent that gradations of violence, sin, and punishment exist precisely because of the morality attached to them. So murder, rape, and discipline are both morally equal and can be compared to violence? How? Based on what functioning moral universe?
The idea that one has to reject capital punishment to maintain pro-life ethical consistency is a false dichotomy, completely ignoring biblical teaching.
In my opinion- and based on the Bible, to be pro-capital punishment is to be pro-life.
It’s why the divine injunction of capital punishment (related explicitly to intentional murder) is the only command repeated in each of the first five books of the Bible, beginning in Genesis 9:6, a universal prescription and application which predates the judicial and ceremonial laws of the theocracy of ancient Israel. As such, this divine directive can’t be rationalized away as an injunction historically and geographically explicit to the ancient Hebraic religious cultic practice.
So, why is supporting capital punishment equal to being pro-life? The answer is found in the above scriptural passage: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” This divine imperative foreshadows the language found in the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue–“You shall not murder.” It’s precisely because we’re created in the image of God that (premeditated) murder must be punished with this kind of required severity. Murdering a fellow human is a moral offense to God and must be treated and responded to.
Capital justice rightly roots out the evil in our midst, preserving the lives of the majority. It’s a tool adequately used by the government to protect and defend human life, not a course of cheap vengeance. As stated earlier, all ‘violence’ isn’t the same because of the morality attached and the required response. Those who commit the most grievous of crimes and are worthy of the death penalty are killed, preventing them from re-committing their reprehensible acts, which violate the safety and security of other people.
Sparing the life of one worthy of capital punishment, for example, a murderer increases the chances that they will murder again. Are Christian abolitionists of the death penalty willing to see another innocent person murdered by someone that should’ve been put to death? Shane Claiborne and other Christian abolitionists of the death penalty never confront the real statistical possibility that ‘executing grace’ to a condemned murderer allows them the ability to commit more violent acts and commit murder again–of another inmate or a correctional officer while imprisoned, or another civilian if/when they’re released from the prison due to shortened sentences. I’m not sure the consciences of these Christian abolitionists of capital justice confront the reality that their “compassion” facilitates more murders of innocent people, and they’re obligated to explain how this unsound position and gamble can be characterized as compassionate.
Furthermore, Claiborne’s petition that no one is “beyond redemption” doesn’t factor in the dispute against capital punishment. The argument is that no person- regardless of the moral depravity evidenced in the actions s/he’s committed- is beyond repentance, spiritual conversion, and redemption. As such, a person shouldn’t be condemned to death via capital punishment but should be spared and given opportunities to be spiritually rehabilitated and saved.
Unfortunately, some people are simply beyond spiritual repair. History is chockfull of examples of people who committed atrocities against others who never repented of their evil acts. History also testifies that many people sentenced to prison for a determined length of time- up to life in prison- didn’t express remorse or realize spiritual restoration.
The redemption of the felon on death row is between the offender and God. It’s up to God to have mercy on them; we, on the other hand, must do what’s proper and necessary to preserve civil society by protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. Sparing the condemned doesn’t do that. It sends the wrong message about life’s sacrosanctity to other violent criminals who have yet to be brought to justice. Abolishing the death penalty shows preferential treatment for the murderer at the expense of the murderer. Again, how is this grace or compassion?
Even the “beyond redemption” appeal by Christians as a religious protest misses several critical points.
God works on his time- not ours. The potential of the condemned being redeemed isn’t predicated on his exemption from capital punishment- as if God needs as much time as possible to transform and save the lost.
What if the guilty rejects redemption? Life imprisonment, rather than death for the possibility of redemption, is a substantial moral gamble that doesn’t make sense.
Since the time-sensitive potentiality of the condemned being redeemed is considered, why isn’t the alternative? Rather than giving God and the condemned inmate ample time to get to know each other, why don’t Christian opponents of capital punishment contemplate the prospect that the spiritual conversion of death row inmates might increase if the death penalty was more efficient and accelerated? Increasing the urgency of death could prompt a change of heart that 30 years on death row won’t.
To the point, being spiritually redeemed doesn’t revoke earthly punishment.
Claiborne continues-
“Today, black people are about 13 percent of the overall population, but they’re 34 percent of executions and 43 percent of death row.
We like to say it’s about the most heinous crimes, but the most significant determinants in capital punishment are the victim’s race and the defendant’s resources.”
This isn’t very ethical, and Claiborne either knows it or, at the very least, he’s exceedingly naïve.
Claiborne completely ignores the severity of the crime(s) committed- the reason(s) why a person is on death row- and implies that the disproportionate numbers of blacks on death row and their executions are primarily the results of racial and economic factors, not (im)moral ones. Christians who share this position of disparate impact completely ignore or excuse the violent acts committed by black felons deserving of the death penalty, which are readily available from the FBI or the Bureau of Justice Statistics/Department of Justice.
Intentionally excusing blacks from human moral obligation and agency isn’t benevolence; it’s condescending racial paternalism used to advance a superficial agenda masquerading as justice.
Absolving blacks from moral standards and expectations that everyone else is subjected to might qualify as “compassion” or “justice” in the morally ostensible world of social justice activists. In the real world of cause and consequence, the majority of people on death row are there as punishment deserving of the crimes they’ve committed. Suppose Claiborne is concerned about the disparate impact of capital punishment on black lives. In that case, he should instead focus on highlighting and condemning the contributing factors that facilitate the disproportional participation of blacks in violent criminality- the causative factor(s) which qualify black felons for the death penalty.
Extending leniency to villains as compensation for their evil guarantees the actions of evil- including murder- will increase.
Sparing the life of the murderer doesn’t demonstrate compassion; it devalues it.
Of course, Claiborne and other Christian abolitionists argue that the ministry of Jesus in the New Testament has vacated the Old Testament moral and legal prescriptions for capital punishment. But this is a form of theological and biblical service buffet- simply taking away what one likes and ignoring what one doesn’t reinforce one’s ideological predeterminations.
Despite opposing arguments, Jesus didn’t annul capital punishment in his Sermon on the Mount. During his Sermon in Matthew 5, Jesus says,
“You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
How exactly is this nullification against the divine command to kill a murderer? Jesus refers to the Levitical law of proportionality (Ex. 21:24, Lev. 24:19-21a), meaning that punishments should fit the crimes committed rather than exceed them. Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon isn’t rescinding the command to punish murderers by death. Instead, he’s teaching his listeners– first-century commoners and other marginalized groups- how to respond to insults and offenses in interpersonal relationships. This subversive teaching regarding self-control instead of retaliation in the face of public humiliation had nothing to do with government, governmental authority, or how the government was to administer punishment.
Aside from misinterpreting and misapplying Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount as an argument in favor of abolishing the death penalty, Christian opponents ignore or misinterpret Romans 13:1-5. Here Paul says that the government, being a servant of God, doesn’t bear the sword in vain. Instead, it rightly punishes criminals for committing evil. The Greek word for sword, combined with the implication of the passage, makes clear that Paul was indeed saying that civil government has a responsibility to protect its constituents, which included punishing those who commit evil and violence and threatening public safety by death.
A moral society that values life is duty-bound to protect its citizens. It also has a moral obligation to prove the high value of life by punishing those who intentionally and without reservation devalue it. In my opinion, contemporary Christian abolitionists of capital punishment undermine the sacredness of life by “compassionately” regarding murderers at the expense of the murdered and future murderers at the cost of the future victims of murder. By seeking to end the death penalty, they’re surrendering their responsibility to defend and maintain the unique value of human life by using the pro-life teachings of Christianity to defend a pro-death position.
Capital punishment is a touchy subject, and legitimate arguments are offered to support both sides of the debate. But many of the ideas advanced by Claiborne- in addition to Pope Francis (here and here) and other Christian opponents of the death penalty, thus far, aren’t good arguments, and they contradict and undermine the Bible in the process.