The Morality of Capital Punishment Essay

Other Christians I previously spoke to believe that, “the killer's actions are irreversible and that such a crime deserves an equal punishment”. These same people would cite the biblical passage that exhorts "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". However, if a crime deserves equal punishment, then why do we not rape the rapist or burn the arsonist? A civilized society must be based on values and principles that are higher than those it condemns. Biblically, we are called to live by higher values. In the New Testament, Jesus said that we may have heard it said "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but He instructed us to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:38-41) to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-45), to obey the Ten Commandments which tell us not to kill (Exodus 20:13) and not to put ourselves into the position of God by judging whether others live or die (John 8:7). Vengeance and retribution are to be left to God, who is the only One with the perfect capabilities of judgment. If the argument is that serious crimes

Senator for Utah Orrin Hatch once said, “Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life,” (Brainy Quote). While the arguments for both sides of the debate over the morality of the death penalty are vast, the bottom line is that the death penalty does not disregard human life, but rather it reveres it, as Hatch said. Morality is defined as, “The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct,” (The Free Dictionary). One who seeks to protect a person who has committed a heinous crime such as murder is arguably not in accords with what is right and wrong. Therefore, although killing is generally accepted as being wrong, the death penalty is sometimes the only solution to bring justice to a

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

Even during the Early church, when death was much more common, some Catholics fought against the death penalty; one such example the Athenagoras of Athens written in 133 A.D claims “we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly. . . . We, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put a man to death?.” However, many Catholic leaders have supported the death penalty, St. Thomas Aquinas himself stated “The death penalty was not merely permitted by God: for certain crimes it was required by God.” Nevertheless, over the years the Church has become more and more uncompromising in its beliefs against the Death Penalty. Starting with Pope John Paul II a Catholic Pope who served from the late 70’s to early 2000’s creating the Evangelium Vitae which asserts ¨that [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.¨ In this doctrine, Pope John Paul II clearly and definitively makes the Catholic Church’s negative response

The criminal process supported by the bible is called retributive justice which is a system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than on rehabilitation. In ancient Israel the punishment was to have wrong doers pay a penalty or often punishment equivalent to stoning. We can see the similarity in criminal justice when a criminal is found guilty and punished by imprisonment or death, this is Jesus punishment for sin was substitutionary atonement meaning Jesus died as a substitute for others instead of them paying for their own wrong doing. Whereas, the criminal justice system holds the individual accountable and responsible for their own wrong doing.

Various religions also have varied responses to capital punishment. Even a particular denomination or religious group may not have a unified stand regarding capital punishment. Religious sentiments do play a significant part in the views of people regarding capital punishment. The Bible is replete with various passages that may seem to support or condemn capital punishment. The Old Testament, particularly, is based upon a morality of “teeth against teeth” and “life for life.” The books of laws of the Old Testament actually prescribe stoning to death the persons who commit serious crimes against God and against the community. A number of biblical scholars have considered the part of the Ten Commandments that say “You shall not kill” as a prohibition against individual cases of murder (The Ryrie Study Bible, Exodus 20:13). In the first place, the Christian faith believes that humans are created in the image of God. As such, a serious crime against another person is also a crime against God. In the Old Testament, premeditated murder was sufficient reason for the death penalty (Numbers 35:31, 33). Moreover, in Genesis 9:6, it can be read that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”. St. Thomas Aquinas also published his thoughts regarding capital

However it is absurd to think that such needless killing, raping, stealing, and torturing could be morally permissible. Moreover, to believe that God could have commanded these things is to destroy whatever grounds one might have for praising or worshiping him. And if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act.

(Death Row on Trial 2001: video) Religiously, the death penalty can also be morally justified because the Bible states “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:23-27) which can be interpreted as a life for a life.

Worldview, Justice and Punishment There are many worldview questions in the criminal justice system, but they all have their heart in one issue: justice. This paper will explore the concept of justice from the Christian worldview and compare the biblical view with the trending worldviews of evolution and humanism. Finally, this paper will cover how the Christian worldview of justice effects how a Christian approaches crime and punishment differently than his secular counterpart. How does a biblical worldview shape a Christian’s view of justice? The Christian narrative forms the framework for answering this question.

We often seek to “do unto others which is done to us”. The concept of revenge is directly mirrored in our prison system. Once someone commits a crime, they are then, through the 7th Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, subject to go to trial before a jury. If a jury of the defendant’s “peers” then deems the appropriate punishment for the crime that they are being tried for. The evocation of the death penalty grew very controversial mostly due to that reason. Essentially what was implied is that a human’s life is put into the hands of total strangers who in most cases are only knowledgeable of a minimal section of that person’s life and character. In an editorial research report on the death penalty, written in 1963, Jeanne Kuebler includes a quote by A. Francart on the appeal of capital punishment. “Capital punishment, its opponents insist, is revenge, not deterrence or protection, and as such lessens reverence for the sacredness of human life. ‘The lesson the scaffold always provides,’ Francart wrote, ‘is that human life ceases to be sacred when it is considered useful to suppress it…’” (Kuebler). A key point that Francart makes in his quote is the idea of revenge. Our society views revenge as a readily available convention to utilize whenever they see fit. Revenge, in its simplest form, deals with the notion that we all must become equal. In the ancient Code of Hammurabi this concept is referred to as “An Eye for

Final Exam Essay Back in the Old Testament days, the people accepted the notion of “an eye for an eye,” or revenge. Exodus 22:2-3 says, “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him.” This just goes to show how brutal the beliefs and teachings were back then. I think that an eye for an eye is not a good basis for punishment because it is wrong, it never solves anything, and the New Testament condemns the act.

Although our nation has gotten away from it in recent years, we were founded by those who had strong religious beliefs. On this note there are several passages in the bible that speak of letting the punishment fit the crime, hence making the victim whole again. Take, for example, Leviticus 24:19-23. This passage implicitly reads as follows: “19Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered. 21One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.” The principle here is making the victim whole. We must remember that when the circumstances warrant capital punishment the details of the crime are usually tremendously heinous. That being said sometimes capital punishment is the only fair and equitable punishment.

Furthermore, if you cannot have ethics without God, which one of God’s teachings should be following. Should the teachings in the old testament championing an “eye for an eye” be tossed aside in favour of the new testament teaching of us to “turn the other cheek”. If God’s will is good, then it is both morally right to exact revenge, as well as demonstrate forgiveness to an injustice. I argue that this argument challenges the premise that God is omniscient as in the old testament, God commands and permits one act, and in the new testament contradicts and supports an entirely different act. If we follow the DCT and assume that as God’s will is good then both commands are correct, then it is up to the individual to decide which moral action to take. If such freedom is possible in making moral decisions, then divine command may not always be needed to satisfy our moral duties.

In this report, the area of research is focused directly on capital punishment in America excluding that of religious and cultural beliefs.

During biblical times crime not only affected society, but it was believed to have also been directed towards God himself. The Bible is the oldest book to reference with many directives to living life peacefully and without revenge. As retribution is considered a form of punishment, if not the first, the Bible itself explains that the punishment should not exceed the crime. Matthew 5:38 states, “You have heard that it has been said, eye for eye and tooth for tooth”. This passage is meant as a way to explain that the punishment should fit the crime. As a member of society, the offender was punished equally as brutal as the crime