Death Penalty
Death Penalty
Addressing the issue of capital punishment is always controversial. It is unlikely that any two people will have the exact same opinion. These authors seem to suggest that for capital punishment to be effective, it must come from a religious perspective. Whether this is true or not, it raises the question, “If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” While it is obvious why a religious leader would want the religious perspective considered, from a governmental perspective, it is more an issue of enforcing the law. After studying a Christian, Protestant, and Jewish perspective on capital punishment, it can be concluded that (capital punishment IS in fact a controversial issue.) government enforcing the death penalty is an effort to preserve structure, whereas the theological perspective is redemption. Either way, the end result is the same.
John Howard Yoder’s article was written to the church, who has a clear, established position on the death penalty. He begins his article with an example explaining why he believes there are reasons to abolish the death penalty once and for all. He takes the right wing perspective, and says that there can never be justification for taking another man’s life. “The life of the neighbor is sacred because man is made ‘in the image of G-d.’ If we love G-d ‘whom no man has seen’ it must show in our love for our fellow man, and this love always includes a concern for his bodily welfare.” He adds that our fellowship with man is as close as we are going to get to G-d. Yoder’s opinion, which comes from a Christian perspective, is that no man has the authority to take another man’s life,. Furthermore, because Christ has the authority to forgive, there is no need for the death penalty. Because Jesus already died for our sins, there is no need for sacrifices to take place post-Christ. One main reason that people feel the death penalty is necessary, is because it acts as a deterrent. Yoder disagrees because all death sentences are taken care of behind closed doors. If their purpose were to act as a deterrent, why not make it as public and as repulsive and gruesome as possible? The death penalty has, more specifically, been said to turn future murderers away from committing crimes. Yoder says this is absolutely untrue. He believes that people are wrong in assuming that murderers are normal people. He adds that they are, on the contrary, irrational people, for they have engaged themselves in thoughts that disregard the law. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, forgiveness is a more effective resolution than deterrence.
Elie Spitz focused on the Jewish perspective in his article, “The Jewish Tradition and Capital Punishment.” In the text that is used to bind G-d and the Jewish people, it is never stated that capital punishment is an ethical issue. The main reason for this, however, may have been because the bible was not familiar with prison being an option for punishment, except for as a sort of waiting room for people who were on trial.
Spitz wrote that there are three main objectives for punishment that can be found in the bible. The first is the realignment of G-d with creation. This focuses on the necessity for the person who performed the sin to be punished, “to mark the offense as abhorrent.” He mentioned that something as simple as a stiff prison sentence would do the trick. The second objective for punishment in the bible is retributive justice. In order for the victim’s family and friends to be able to sleep at night, the wrongdoer is to be fairly punished. Deterrence is the third and final objective. It has been said that a quick trial is a whole lot more effective than a long, dragged out trial. Furthermore, Spitz wrote “There is no evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life in prison.” Spitz closed his article by making a proposal for our country’s future plans for altering the death penalty. He believes in following what the bible teaches to an extent, but with some alterations because times have, in fact, changed. “Today, with a developed prison system, we should tighten sentencing laws and enhance their speed to serve as a deterrent and as a substitute for the death penalty” In other words, Spitz believes in the death penalty, however only when absolutely, positively necessary.
Gilbert Meilaender, a follower of the Protestant faith, had a different position on the death penalty. He believes that it is critical that people understand that the act of capital punishment should be an act created and enforced by the government, and not an individual’s act of revenge. “The role of courts is to identify the crime, establish the extent of culpability, and impose punishment, but only for