Capital punishment can be pro-life
The conservative ‘contradiction’ revisited
March 21, 2007
Tyler Chamberlain
Nothing is more important than understanding the world around us, analyzing the moral and political issues our world faces. One of the most important issues of our world is the death penalty.
Historically, the death penalty has been utilized in almost every civilization. Cesare Beccaria’s 1746 book, On Crimes and Punishments, started a death penalty abolition movement that has since proven to be highly influential. Not only is capital punishment debated, but it has also been officially abolished in many countries, including Canada.
Opponents of capital punishment almost always appeal to human rights—specifically, the right to life—to build their case. This raises two questions: does capital punishment violate an offender’s right to life, and if so, is it incompatible with the pro-life position? If it is, then many, if not most, conservatives and republicans are entirely confused.
Sven Heyde made the following case in “Death is still death” (MH, Dec. 6, 2006):
Premise #1: Abortion is wrong because it kills, but capital punishment also kills.
Premise #2: It is absurd to think that we, as fallen humans, have any right to pick and choose which human lives are expendable.
Conclusion: Therefore, we must not punish criminals with death.
Many ethicists accuse the death penalty of being two-faced: it declares murder to be morally wrong by punishing it with murder. Heyde captured this idea perfectly when he called capital punishment “state-sanctioned murder.” However, in my view, capital punishment can fit well into a holistic pro-life worldview.
One must only be reminded of self-defense to understand that not all killing is morally equivalent. Immanuel Kant wrote that one who murders has actually forfeited his right to life. By acting unjustly towards his neighbour, the offender acts unjustly towards himself by placing himself in a position where he deserves equal punishment. In other words, since the offender has willingly forfeited his right to life, no injustice is being done to him if his punishment is death.
One need not accept Kant’s theory of punishment, however, to know that comparing abortion to the death penalty is a weak analogy. A fair assessment of the facts shows that capital punishment is simply incomparable to abortion. Abortion kills an innocent baby; capital punishment kills a heinous criminal. If capital punishment is wrong because it is morally equivalent to murder, then wouldn’t it follow that any prison sentence must also be wrong because it is morally equivalent to kidnapping and confinement? Following this line of reasoning would lead to chaos.
The second premise—that everybody has a right to life and, therefore, we have no right to choose which lives are valuable and which aren’t—is also flawed. This reasoning seems to suggest that because everyone has a right to life, it is always immoral to end a person’s life. However, everybody also has the right to walk freely without fear of being kidnapped. We could ask, who are we to decide that some human beings should have their liberties infringed upon by being thrown in jail, while others should not? But our courts make the decision every day to throw some people in jail. In other words, they legally “kidnap and confine.” Capital punishment involves the same principle. This is the whole nature of punishment. It involves doing something to someone which would normally be wrong, whether it is putting an offender in jail, imposing a fine, or taking his life.
This means that in order to demonstrate that capital punishment is wrong, we need to do more than simply show that it involves violating a right that a person would normally have, whether it is the right to be free from being kidnapped, or a right to life. If someone were to claim that we, as fallen humans, have no right to decide whose liberty is more or less valuable, no one would take that person seriously; if we did, anarchy would ensue. Why do we give this objection the time of day when applied to capital punishment? The severity is changed, but the principle is exactly the same.
Yahweh freely gave the Israelites the right to punish, and allowed them to use the death penalty. Genesis 9:6 gives mankind the duty to punish murderers with death because of (not in spite of) the image of God in man. Human dignity, rather than undermining a harsh penal system, necessitates one.
After Moses received the Ten Commandments, one of which was the law against murder, God listed a number of capital crimes including murder, striking one’s parents, and bestiality (Exodus 21:12-22:24). Even in the New Testament, governments are given the right to punish evildoers “with the sword,” for they are the “avengers of God who bring wrath on the one who practices evil” (Romans 13:4). In view of this, the claim that humans have no right to decide who deserves punishment is misguided at best.
The bottom line is that imposing a fine in no way violates property rights, nor does imprisonment breach one’s right to liberty; there is no reason why the principle doesn’t also apply to capital punishment. The death penalty does not violate the right to life; therefore, capital punishment can be a part of a pro-life ethic.
Now you go...
4 Responses to “Capital punishment can be pro-life”
Got something to say?
Tyler, interesting arguments. I think the argument lacks cohesiveness, however, and requires some leaps in logic. Firstly, self-defense can safely be placed into a different realm as other killing. It is not murder, it isn’t capital punishment, and it isn’t a foreign war. Self-defense is strictly (“If I don’t’ kill this person they are going to kill me right now”). Despite the endless droning of Bush and his cronies, the Iraq and Afghan wars don’t qualify as self-defense, but I digress.
Your article uses some very dangerous rhetoric when it refers to fetuses as “innocent babies,” and those on death row as “heinous criminals.” The argument that all murderers are monster who have no respect for life is fallacious. Sometimes people make very poor choices; to write anyone off as heinous will get you nowhere, and make you thoroughly confused if you are ever in a situation where you get to know someone who has committed murder, and you discover their irrepressible humanity.
Third, to argue that we should murder murderers because we confine kidnappers won’t hold water. The most obvious difference is that execution is more than a little permanent, there is absolutely no chance for reconciliation, rehabilitation, or pardon in the event of a wrongful conviction. One of the few times when we pay back “tooth for tooth” is in the case of kidnapping, when the criminal is placed in jail. Justice only requires a proportional response, one which is in step with other responses: murder should be punished more severely than assault, which should be punished more severely than car theft. Execution is totally out of step with the whole nature of justice, one aim of which is always some form of rehabilitation. If we fleshed out that argument that since we put kidnappers in jail, we ought to execute murderers, perhaps we need to begin raping rapists, or torturing those who commit torture. We don’t because we like to believe that there are certain things that are not acceptable in a “civilized” society, no matter the circumstances. You are absolutely right about Yahweh having granted the Israelites the right to execute, and you do touch on the fact that they could do so not just for murder. The passage that you referred to also says that someone ought to be put to death simply for cursing their parents, and that a bride could be put to death if her new husband thought she wasn’t a virgin and she was unable to prove otherwise (i.e. a bloodied sheet). That passage even suggests that she should be stoned to death by the men of her town. I fail to see how we can maintain one small aspect of this passage in practice, but throw out the rest on humanitarian grounds.
Sven Heyde
“Execution is totally out of step with the whole nature of justice, one aim of which is always some form of rehabilitation.”
Another aim of justice is punishment. As you say, “a proportional response” for murder may be hanging by the state. I do not see this in conflict with Western civilized values in the least. Part of the justification for penalties of crimes was for people to serve, on earth, the time they would have served in purgatory in a jail cell. Hence, there was ultimate reconciliation with God through this method…although not necessary reconciliation with the community on earth, per se, through this punishment.
It is hard to escape the fact that death is permanent and as humans we are fallible. But I think there is a distinction to be made between reconciliation of the political community and reconciliation with God. Man may impede reconciliation with community, but ultimately no man can ultimately interfere with his relationship with God.
Tyler,
Interesting argument. Thanks for bringing up some points I’ve never considered before.
However, my problem with capital punishment as always been that it — much like abortion — determines who should be allowed to live and who shouldn’t upon a certain basis. Basically, it outlines a certain life that is desired and a certain life that needs to be exterminated. Simply, its basis is that those who commit such crimes are not worthy of life. Returning to abortion, it deems that only those who are wanted (for lack of a better term) are worthy of life. Of course, to argue that state sanctioned murder is wrong in the later case but perfectly acceptable for in case of a ‘heinous criminal’ is reasonable. However, I find both problematic because both give the state the ability to determine who gets to live and who does not upon a certain basis. To me this is not only questionable from a christian standpoint, but also disconcerning from the standpoint of the citizen. Personally, I am just wary of giving the state that power.
nevertheless, thanks for presenting this view
Sarah
Sven, there are a number of things which need to be said in response to your comment:
1. You say my argument requires a fallacious leap in logic. However, a leap in logic is when the conclusion does not follow from the premises, and you have not shown that to be the case. My point was simply that not all killing is wrong, and self-defense teaches us that. You even seemed to agree with me on that: “Self-defense can safely be placed into a different realm as other killing.” You just happen to think that capital punishment falls under the category of unjust killing.
2. Next, about my “dangerous rhetoric.” You, Sven, have no logical right to accuse me of using rhetoric, for it runs wild in your writings! The phrase “state-sanctioned murder” comes to mind. In your article, you made no attempt to demostrate how capital punishment is unjust killing, if I recall correctly. Even still, I’ll challenge your objection. You also branded my use of “innocent babies” as dangerous rhetoric; you’re not telling me I’m out in left field for calling fetuses innocent, are you?! You also missed my next point about “heinous” criminals. You accuse me of saying that all murderers are monsters with no respect for life; I absolutely did not say that! I was showing the immense dissimilarity, which you greatly minimized, between abortion and the death penalty. Abortion kills a fetus which did nothing to deserve it, capital punishment kills someone who committed a horrible crime. You are free to disagree with me, but again, please don’t accuse me of fallacious logic if you can’t back it up.
3. The rest of your comment deals with issues I didn’t even argue for. The purpose of my article was to caution people against the temptations of knee-jerk reactions to capital punishment. Capital punishment does not have to be intrinsically wrong; a good case may be made that it doesnt violate the right to life. I didn’t try to bring it into the legal sphere, and you are absolutely right in saying that my argument doesn’t get us that far. It wasn’t intended to. All I did was show, like it or not, that capital punishment can go hand in hand with a high view of human life, and Genesis 9:6 attests to this.