Do ancient laws have any relevance in our modern world? What do the Torah, the New Testament, and the Qur’an say about capital punishment? Which crimes were considered offensive enough to carry the death penalty? Why were courts reluctant to carry out the ultimate punishment? Discover how religious leaders grappled and continue to grapple with a moral dilemma as controversial then as it is today.
|
Anyone, however, who strikes another with an iron object so that death results is a murderer; the murderer must be put to death.
— Numbers 35:16
The Torah lists 18 offenses, ranging from Sabbath desecration to kidnapping to murder, that . . .
| |
Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.
— Genesis 9:6
From the very beginning of time God forbade humans to kill one another, yet . . .
| |
There is life for you in requital, you who are reasonable, so you may be conscientious. — 2:179
The Qur’an admonishes, “if anyone kills a person — unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land — it is as if . . .
| |
|
Bringing Connections To Light: Capital Punishment in Modern Times
The dilemma that capital punishment poses is real for people of faith. Even the most rigid traditionalists acknowledge that scriptures do not always speak unambiguously on such a sensitive matter, and that religious sources outside of scripture, especially in the Jewish and Muslim faiths, have a lot to say that tempers the “original” revelations that helped form the religious communities in the first place. These sources include written texts, such as the Talmud and the Hadith, as well as their human interpreters. In Christianity, the law governing a church, known as canon law, does not have the same unchallenged standing, but sometimes fills a similar role, especially for Catholics who follow the papal canon.
All three religions make it quite clear that God — as the God of justice — controls all matters of life and death over the entire creation. Questions traditionally began to arise, however, as to when humanity, acting through the state or another organized community such as the Ummah (the worldwide community of believers in Islam) can take the life of another human being by claiming divine sanction.
The modern view of the death penalty has become more complicated in a variety of ways. The establishment of modern Israel has meant that Jewish thinking must now take into account a self-described Jewish state which can, and does, provide for capital punishment in a very limited number of instances. By contrast, Christian nations have gradually disestablished their national churches, some quite clearly and deliberately (the United States and France) and others have done so in all but name (Britain and Sweden). In Islam the picture is even more mixed, from decidedly secularist nations such as Turkey to the Islamic Republic of post-revolutionary Iran.
The lack of unanimity among and within these three religions has occasioned many discussions as to the place (if any) that capital punishment should have.
Religious traditionalists in all three faiths tend to favor some role for capital punishment. The basic attitude is that while laws made by humans might change through the centuries, there is an unchanging core of divine justice and wisdom that precludes a complete elimination of directives from God that sanction the taking of human life to preserve a sense of social cohesion, orderly justice, and a reassurance to the powerless.
Others who see God as unchanging note that the human situation is constantly in flux. They can thus propose that divine justice can be met in different ways at different times in human history: It is the face of justice that is unchanging, not the means by which justice is meted out. This is certainly the stance of Reform Judaism in the United States, which has formally called for the elimination of capital punishment. Not all other groups have taken such a stand, calling instead for a moratorium on capital punishment with a view to its possible elimination at some future point.
Christian churches are even more varied in their approach to this issue. While many mainline churches are in favor of at least a moratorium on use of the death penalty, more conservative religious bodies are not as opposed to capital punishment. Of course, such bodies as the Southern Baptist Convention, which is one of the largest conservative church groups in the United States, are hesitant to make statements that are binding on their individual congregations, which are effectively independent of outside control by any denomination. So even within this Protestant body representing close to 20 millions people, there is room for considerable differences of opinion.
Islam’s major schools of law all make provision for the death penalty. However, the role and application of Sharia (Islamic law) is hotly debated within Islamic circles. Some Muslims, such as the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, have called for the abolition of the death penalty altogether, saying that Sharia makes provision for its elimination through the payment of diya or “blood money” to the victim’s family. While this group might not represent a majority of Muslims today, its presence signals that opinions range widely on this question.
Capital punishment seems to be retreating in the world today. It has been abolished within the European Union, where no new member state can join that still has capital punishment laws on the books. Many members of the British Commonwealth have also eliminated the death penalty, including South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. However, many of the world’s most populous countries, including India, China and Russia, along with the United States, still provide for the death penalty, as do many developing nations in Africa and Asia. Capital punishment has largely disappeared from Latin America, with a few exceptions.
|
Another View
A topic like capital punishment is bound to carry strong opinions both for and against — and some that strike middle ground. We’ve compiled a few thought-provoking statements for you. Be sure to join in the discussion in our forum.
From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored — indeed, I have struggled — . . . to develop procedural and substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle the Court’s delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved . . . , I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. – Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, in his 1994 dissent on the case Callins vs. Collins
Those who commit such atrocities . . . forfeit their own right to live. We tarnish the memory of the dead and heap needless misery on their surviving families by letting the perpetrators live.
Still, it’s one thing to feel and another to do. It’s one thing to give advice to a judge and quite another to be the judge signing the order that will lead to the death of another human being—even a very bad one. – Ninth Circuit Court Judge Alex Kozinski, from “Tinkering With Death,” The New Yorker 2/10/1997
I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don't think it's human to become an agent of the Angel of Death. – Elie Wiesel, author and Nobel Peace Prize recipient
It is a matter of great consequence to me, therefore, whether the death penalty is morally acceptable. As a Roman Catholic--and being unable to jump out of my skin--I cannot discuss that issue without reference to Christian tradition and the Church's Magisterium.
[. . .]
That is not to say I favor the death penalty (I am judicially and judiciously neutral on that point); it is only to say that I do not find the death penalty immoral. – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, from remarks made at the University of Chicago Divinity School in 2002.
|
|