This question has been frequently debated by pro-lifers and is the subject of a recent Washinton Post editorial. Here are two views that are listed:
Yes. Without getting into the debate about what the Old Testament and New Testament teach, I say look at the obvious. The person who is on death row awaiting execution is there as a result of his/her own actions. The unborn child who is aborted dies from the action of another. The child has not done anything warranting such a harsh penalty.What is your view?Michael Spenard, Columbia
My belief is that this is morally inconsistent. I'm Catholic, and my church teaches that human life is sacred. This includes unborn fetuses as well as adult criminals who have committed horrible acts.
The basic thought is, we as humans do not have the authority to decide who lives and who dies. In our belief, that decision is up to God alone. By having abortions or instituting the death penalty, we humans are arrogantly presuming an authority which simply is not ours.
Arthur Liu, Gaithersburg
You don't need to look to the Old Testament to see God sanctioning government use of the sword as an instrument of carrying out justice. Romans 13 says it's the primary purpose of the government.
As for consistency, it's fairly easy to pretend things are inconsistent when you don't understand the well-worked-out views of those who hold them. Philosophers have long justified capital punishment on the ground that certain crimes simply deserve death. I don't know how any opposition to abortion on the grounds that it's undeserved death should interfere with such an argument for capital punishment. Only if you hold the absurd view that killing is always wrong should you say capital punishment must be wrong with no exceptions. Anyone who allows killing in self-defense, in war, to pretect one's child from danger, to stop a criminal and enforce law has to say that killing a human being is sometimes ok. It's not then a question of whether killing a human being is ever ok but when it's ok, and you need to discuss principles behind why killing a human being is sometimes ok. If those allow a death penalty, then there's no inconsistency.
Quoted from post: My belief is that this is morally inconsistent. I'm Catholic, and my church teaches that human life is sacred.
The sacredness of life is the reason FOR the death penalty, not against it. In Genesis 8:6 God says, "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."
I think it is important to note, however, that God gives this responsibility to governments, not individuals (Hence individuals, for example, killing abortion doctors are committing murder, not executing justice.) and He also gives us very high standards for conviction (witnesses, due process, etc.)
What due process are the unborn given before they are deprived of life? Who is it who witnesses against them? What government authority is it that justly seals their fate? If we consistently applied the Biblical standards for capital punishment to the unborn, they would, of course be protected.
I have to say that I am not completely opposed to the death penalty. But I think it should be used in the rarest of circumstances. My view is based on #2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If the criminal has a real risk of escaping and repeating the crime on another victim (or the same victim if the victim wasn't killed), then the death penalty may be necessary. Beyond that, I do not feel it is appropriate. Why? The criminal does not always have as much of a chance to perform penance for his sin(s). He may not even have a chance for repentence. There is always the chance evidence will come up later which will reverse a conviction. From a secular concern (obviously, this is a lower concern than what I previously mentioned) there is always the chance that the criminal may have some knowledge that would be useful in a future investigation. If the criminal is dead, the knowledge is gone. Someone once told me "They have ways of asking questions and getting all the information they need." If the event takes place ten years after the death of the criminal, new questions might arise that cannot be asked of that criminal.
On another note, what I find really hypocritical is when those favoring legalized abortion claim to be against the death penalty. They don't mind giving the death penalty to innocent babies but have objections to giving it to criminals. Dory, very good points in your third paragraph.
If we take the belief that since human life is sacred, and thus no mortal can harm it, as an argument against the death penalty, then we also argue against any form of criminal punishment whatsoever. The sacred state of the individual life is what entails our liberty, that which incarceration imposes upon. If we, as humans, are incapable of imposing upon that human life, and by extension of self-ownership, that human liberty, then we have a good many prisoners that we're going to need to let out.
I agree with Dory:
{Quote}The sacredness of life is the reason FOR the death penalty, not against it. In Genesis 8:6 God says, "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."{/Quote}
This is the verse that Francis Schaeffer would usually quote when arguing in favor of the sacredness of life. Murder was an especially egregious affront to God, and the penalty was designed to fit the crime.
I'm so glad someone is bringing this issue to life....no pun intended. I consider myself a "true" pro-lifer, in that i do not support abortion or the death penalty.
My reasons for not supporting the death penalty, however, are largely due to the infallibility of our justice system. As long as there are convictions being overturned on new technology, I don't see how we can put a human life in the hands of a very human jury.
In my opinion, we as humans have no business deciding who should live or die because we do not have infinite knowledge, like that of God.
Many Christians quote the Old Testament as support for the death penalty, but you must look at it in context. First of all, the decisions were made by judges appointed by God. Secondly, at that point in history God was interested in preserving a race to bring the Messiah to the world. He wanted that race to survive their 40 year desert wanderings intact. There are many laws and rules established during that time, for example forcing a man to marry his rape victim, that I believe do not necessarily apply today. They were created for the specific purpose of survival in that time in history.
I'm sure many will disagree with me, and I'm looking forward to reading their opinions.
Thanks!
Just something to think about: when the thief, who was crucified with Jesus asked Jesus to forgive him of his sin, Christ did indeed. But why didn't Jesus allow the thief to live. In my mind the thief was still guilty in the court of law that punished him and had to receive the just punishment. This day in age we don't put thieves to death BUT every crime has a consequence. You take the life of an innocent person you should know that there is a heavy consequence to that action. This is how we deter those folks who might consider murder. I think Jesus would forgive us in most any circumstance but He would want us to obey the law and accept our earthly fate. This is just my opinion of course.
Dory (above) has it just right - there is a distinct difference between a person being rightly executed and outright murder. (Murder is an illegal form of killing, while execution is a valid (legally and morally) form).
IMHO, of course.
/TJ
NIF
Dear Prolifeblogs,
A good question and it seems to be a wedge issue between prolife Catholics and evangelical protestant. For reason listed above--it's taking a life, human justice is fallible, it denies a future time for repentance--Catholics lean toward "no punishment" and evangelicals toward "capital punishment OK".
To me, the replete example of God's judgment through government and the scriptures cited above demand a pro-capital punishment position.
To my Catholic friends, I would argue that life is indeed cheapened when it can be taken without retribution.
Not that it matters, but I must be an anomoly...I'm a protestant.
future time for repentence? What are you talking about? This is simple stuff... You do the crime you do the time. If the crime is murder and the death penalty is the punishment the guilty has usually years for repentance on death row. How much time did Ananias and his wife Sapphira have to repent when they lied to Peter about their money? Not much. Executing a criminal is not murder, it's justice (fallible or not). ps... I am also one of them "Protestants"
The sacredness of life is NOT a reason to be for the death penalty, esp.for truly practicing Catholics.
When I heard recently that Scott Peterson received the death penalty, and also that, here in my state of CT, convicted murderer Michael Ross is set to die by lethal injection this January 26, I realized how once upon a time, I would have been among those glad to hear these decisions, but no longer.
Even though my Catholic faith allows for capital punishment "only if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" (think Hannibal Lecter, to use a fictional character example), my faith also teaches that capital punishment "definitively takes away from him the possibility of redeeming himself."
Those quotes are straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (not the Baltimore Catechism which is a totally different thing, no longer used; the real Catechism book can be bought on Amazon for about $10, I think)
So for that reason, that truly hardened people can repent and change, I don't support the death penalty anymore. Not after knowing that even abortionist and NARAL co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson could change his mind and become pro-life and Catholic. Not after knowing the story of Maria Goretti and her killer who repented after years in prison.
I think I understand how Laci's parents and the families of Ross's victims feel. One CT victim's relative was quoted saying, "What do you do with trash? You bury it."
I would feel as they do, were it my daughter and grandson.
When I was young, two of my teenage cousins were driving when they were hit head-on by a drunk/stoned driver who crossed the white line into my cousins' lane. One cousin was killed instantly, the other was in a deep coma for weeks. My mom went to the hospital to visit him. It so happened that the kid who caused the accident was also recovering from his injuries in that same hospital, and my mother happened to walk by his room by chance.
She confided in me years later, long after my other cousin also had died from his injuries, that she, a devout Roman Catholic, a cradle Catholic who said Rosaries weekly, wanted to go into that boy's room and quietly pull whatever plugs may have been helping him to heal, or helping him to stay alive.
I understand.
That act would not have been the same as capital punishment. I know. But the desire for revenge and/or for justice is the same.
What Peterson and Ross did is and always will be hideous. I am glad that Peterson's son Connor was considered a human being whose life had worth. Yes, the killers acted like "monsters." In Peterson's case at least, he seems without remorse, psychopathic perhaps. They do not deserve compassion.
But I am not the only one who can grant undeserved compassion. I'm not the one to remove the dignity of human life, even from those who blacken that dignity by their heinous actions and thoughts.
I'm against the death penalty, knowing what I know now. I could never be for taking a human life again, having done it already by having had an abortion.
The difference between abortion and the death penalty is easy to define. Abortion is the killing of an innocent life that has never harmed anyone. This life is dependent on the womb to grow. Taking this life out of the womb is murder. The death penalty is punishment of a guilty person who murdered someone else. It is that simple. Arguments can go further than that, but that is the most simple definition of the two.
I have read the post of those who are for an against the death penalty. As a woman who had an abortion there is no comparison. My child was not out there committing any heinous crimes when I aborted him/her. My child without truely knowing trusted I would nurture and protect it. A man or woman on death row chose to take a life thus they forfeit their own. No where in the bible have I ever seen God punish those who take the life of those who have commited a crime. Especially those who harmed those weaker then themselves. There are countless stories where he has helped those who are afflicted to avenge themselves or loved one's.
After reading this people will quote things like God saying "vengence is mine" or something similar. Who is to say that God does not use man to punish those that have done wrong. In fact I believe there are numerous stories in the Bible where that is the case. The only true act of judgement where man has no place is judgement day. That is when the final judgement will occur. Till then God has used and still does use man to enact earthly judgement.
I am not Catholic, but embrace the consistency in opposing both abortion and the death penalty.
In support of being against abortion, people quote the innocence of the unborn and in support of the death penalty they quote Old Testament scripture or Romans claiming the guilt of the person condemns them, not the government.
Being a reformed Christian, I believe in predestination, so the innocence of the child from a sin-nature perspective is void. The innocence of the child from the prespective of being unable to defend themself and the words of scripture showing the child to be a gift of the God, taking the life of any person to be wrong in the eyes of God, are enough for me to accept abortion as being wrong and inconsistent with the nature of God.
Consistent studies show that the death penalty is not a deterent against crime. It is specifically a punishment; retribution to be exact. If "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" were followed, then there would be many people walking around toothless and blinded. The new covenant is forgiveness. Would it be easy to forgive someone who took the life of my child? No, but then there is much about the Christian life that is required of me to deny in order to embrace the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.
Taking life is for God to do and Him only.
Since God commands capital punishment in His law (See Exodus 21, and Romans 13:4, for example), it can hardly be unlawful. And, since He commanded it, the argument could be made that it is unlawful for a civil authority NOT to use it.
Since it is God who grants faith and repentance (See Acts 5:31, 11:18, 13:48, 18:27; John 6:44, 10:25-30; Ephesians 1:12, 2:8-9; Philipians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:25), then I doubt the decades-long death row and appeals process will thwart Him from bringing to repentance anyone whom He chooses. (A time crunch certainly did not stop Jesus from saving the thief on the next cross.)
God gave the responsibility to carry out capital punishment to fallible men, knowing that even the best-intentioned men will sometimes get it wrong. He gave us all the responsibility to evangelize the lost, knowing that many will never believe. He is all-wise and we are not. He will work all things, even our errors and shortcomings, for good to those who love God and are called according to His purposes. (Romans 8:28)
Excerpted from my blog.
By and large, the same people who choose to stand at the barricades defending the arbitrary termination of the lives of the innocent and unborn have likewise chosen to stand outside the barricades at San Quentin, protesting the execution of the guilty. (These are, not coincidentally, the same people who would deny others the choice to exercise their rights under Second Amendment; the right to defend oneself and one’s family against the Beardslee’s of the world.) There is an unsettling consistency in their positions. At the same time we observe an equally unsettling inconsistency in their judgement and their values.
It is to be hoped that those who subscribe to these beliefs came by them innocently, in other words were duped by those whom they should have been able to trust; parents, peers, professors or confessors. It is also to be hoped that they will, as did Norma, gain some wisdom and understanding in the course of their lives that will lead them to ask “what is right?” as opposed to “who is right?”.
Who should live and who should die is ultimately a decision best left up to God but if we are obligated in the course of events to choose, let us choose to defend the innocent.