Death Penalty -- Deterrence or Revenge?

Earlier published column ---

Faith in the Public Square
Lompoc Record
December 5, 2005

The death penalty is back in the headlines. Our nation recently executed its one thousandth person and we read daily of the pending execution of Stanley Williams. From what I read, the death penalty remains popular - upwards of 70 percent of Californians support its use.

The death penalty is rooted in a longstanding principle of retribution. If you take what is mine, I should be able to take something of yours - an “eye for an eye.” Historically, this principle was meant to limit the extent of revenge - if you take my eye, I get yours but nothing more - but it has become a central principle of justice.

Modern arguments for the death penalty are rooted in the concept of deterrence, but if you listen to families and friends of victims, it is not a matter of deterrence, but of vengeance. This is understandable. If someone killed my wife or son, I would indeed be angry and would demand justice. I understand the emotional need for vengeance, for leveling things out, but I also oppose the death penalty on principle.

I could and will enumerate some practical reasons why the death penalty may not be a good idea, but my reasons are theological, not practical. Practical arguments must begin with the admission, that no justice system is perfect, even ours. Every study of the death penalty suggests that its imposition is often arbitrary and falls hardest on the poor and on ethnic minorities. The discovery that a significant enough number of death row inmates were innocent led the former governor of Illinois to put a moratorium on executions. Death precludes a new trial, so from a practical perspective I'd rather err on the side of mercy for the guilty than to prematurely end the life of the innocent. With regard to deterrence, the evidence is mixed, so we come back to the question of vengeance and whether an execution brings closure. I cannot answer that question, but it must be raised.

My argument against the death penalty is a theological one. It starts with the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. He was executed in the cruelest of fashions, because he was a “rabble-rouser.” Because I serve one who was deemed by his peers to be a criminal worthy of death, that reality gives me pause when I consider passing judgment on another person.

The Hebrew Bible counsels us not to take revenge, but to love our neighbor instead (Leviticus 19:18). St. Paul counsels us not to repay wrong with wrong, but instead to leave vengeance to God's hand. Instead of doing evil to those who mean us harm, we should do good to them. If your enemy is hungry or thirsty then feed them and give them drink “for by doing this you will make him burn with shame” (Romans 12:17-20). As you can see, Paul believes in the power of the conscience and the possibility both of conversion and reconciliation.

I find very poignant, the picture of Jesus standing beside the adulterous woman. According to the law she was guilty and deserved to be stoned to death. Jesus turned to the crowd who had gathered to stone her, and said, “Let the one who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Everyone dropped their stones upon the ground and left, and Jesus, who our tradition says was without sin, offered forgiveness (John 8:1-11). Jesus canceled the law of retribution - the eye for an eye - and said instead, “Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you,” but rather love your enemies (Matthew 5:38, 43-44).

These scriptural provisions do not preclude justice, but they caution us against taking the most drastic of measures to attain justice. They remind us that death cannot be undone and that such matters should be left to the hand of God. I do not advocate letting dangerous criminals free to roam our streets, but can we who claim to follow Jesus support or encourage or undertake the execution of another - even if that person is “guilty as sin”? I will leave that to the reader to decide.

Dr. Bob Cornwall is pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

December 9, 2005