MWR : Demise of the death penalty?

Last updated November 24.

Send letters to the editor, or suggestions for our stories or Web site, to MWR‘s editors.

March 8, 2010 issue

Demise of the death penalty?

Kansas Mennonites’ campaign to end the death penalty in their state this winter ended in disappointment. But capital punishment is losing ground nationally and around the world. Peacemaking Christians are adding their voices as the movement to end executions gathers strength.

Last year, New Mexico became the 15th U.S. state to abolish the death penalty. When Kansas senators in February debated whether their state should be the next, Mennonites had a new tool for speaking out. Delegates to the Western District Conference of Mennonite Church USA passed a resolution last August renewing their opposition to capital punishment.

“We believe that all human life is sacred, even the criminal, who remains a person before God capable of repentance and transformation,” the resolution states.

When Kansas lawmakers debated the bill, State Sen. Carolyn McGinn asked them to apply pro-life beliefs to the question of whether the state should kill.

“We pass abortion laws because we say ‘child of God,’ ” McGinn said. “Please, somebody — although these people become terrible people — tell me at what point in time did they lose that status, and who made that decision?”

Moral principles like this one are the most important reasons to end capital punishment. For Christians, moral guidance begins with the words of Jesus, who rejected the Old Testament’s eye-for-an-eye vengeance (Matt. 5:38-39).

Other arguments against the death penalty rise from ethical and practical considerations. In Kansas and other states, the practice’s financial cost is drawing scrutiny in an era of strained budgets. McGinn noted that it costs 70 percent more to try a death-penalty case than a life-without-parole case.

Examples of injustice bolster the case for abolition. These include wrongful convictions (139 U.S. death-row inmates have been exonerated since 1973) and the penalty’s inconsistent application. The poor and racial minorities are more likely to get death sentences.

After a 20-20 tie vote in the State Senate, capital punishment will stand in Kansas. But a wider trend is growing to restrict or end executions. In the United States, juries are imposing fewer death sentences — 106 in 2009, a record low since 1976. The number of U.S. executions fell to 37 in 2008, the fewest since 31 people were put to death in 1994 (though executions rose to 52 in 2009).

Internationally, the tide against capital punishment is even stronger. In the last 20 years, the number of nations that have ended the death penalty or put a moratorium on executions has grown from about 50 to 140. Ninety-three nations have abolished capital punishment. The leading holdout is China, which executed 1,718 people in 2008.

At the World Congress Against the Death Penalty last month in Geneva, a participant called abolition “an international trend that no one can stop.” Christ-centered ethics support this movement for justice without vengeance.

— Paul Schrag

Comments

Jesus,while here on earth did not abolish the death penalty. Romans 13 specifically addresses this issue. While Jesus and the two theives were hanging on the cross, Jesus had opportunity to address this but he remained silent. Jesus could have performed a miracle by taking those two off their crosses, healed them and set them free. But since Jesus was God in the flesh he could not do that. Scripture plain authorizes nations to apply the death penalty. What God ordains can not be called sin. In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus is addressing his followers and not Government. In His phraseology, Jesus is referring to scripture that had been twisted to mean something that was incorrect. Jesus was not changing the scripture.

I find it interesting, but not surprising that Mr. Schrag and many religious left leaders do not address the thousands of unborn living babies in the womb who are on death row awaiting a violent death in a matter of days. It is time for the churches to address this injustice that occurs against the unborn, but the resulting long-term mental tramua that confronts the mothers. Why does MC USA continue to ignore their cries and related distress? Where is true justice for these innocent little ones? Where are the lawyers to defend them? Where are the police to protect them? Our pet animals have more protection than the living unborn babies.

- Dale Welty (mar 17 at 11:36 p.m.)
Mr. Welty's arguments are deeply flawed. First, he implies that Mr. Schrag and the apparently conspiratorial "religious left" do not address abortion. Yet, the portion of this article that mentions abortion is clearly in opposition. Mr. Welty, folks are more in agreement than you might think on abortion, but you do the cause no favors when you use the abortion argument to trump and bludgeon other appeals to the sanctity of life.

Mr. Welty uses Romans 13 to argue that the state is ordained by God to keep order, therefore capital punishment ought not be challenged. Romans 13 upholds the rule of law--if we act unlawfully, we must accept the consequences--but it also provides the imperative that we work within the law to rectify injustices of the state. Seems like the folks mentioned in the article were doing precisely that. Is Mr. Welty arguing that we have no business lawfully working to change aspects of laws we find to be objectionable? If so, would Mr. Welty apply the same logic toward lobbying to end the legally protected activity of abortion? I do not like the hypocrisy. Mr. Welty, you are not arguing a matter of faith or of principle. Merely arguing that specifically those changes you disagree with are un-biblical, regardless of the contortions the Bible must go through to support the argument.

Mr. Welty uses the crucifixion of Christ to justify the death penalty. Yet Jesus was more than clear in His stance on the fallacies of redemptive violence and vengeance. Sure He could have escaped, but it would have made the statement that one need only obey God until the going gets tough. Jesus's choice to allow His crucifixion to proceed demonstrated that obeying God might well bring death, but such a death ought not be feared. He made no statement about the death penalty while on the cross. Mr. Welty, how does the one case where the death penalty was clearly misapplied support the "sanctity" of the death penalty? If we go with that argument, would you, Mr. Welty, support following the full example of scripture in releasing the murderers and putting the innocent to death?

- JPR (mar 19 at 12:45 a.m.)
One more example of where Jesus had opportuntity to protest wrongful death was Herod's excution of John the Baptist. At least Jesus could have sent his disciples to Herod's palace to give Herod a stern protest against the death penalty. What a missed opportunity. Or better yet, Jesus could have gone to the tomb and brought John back to life and then accompanied him to Herod's palace with a with a message of protest. Perhaps Jusus was deeply fearful of confronting both Herod and his wife because Jesus was aware John had confronted Herod living in adultery with his brother's wife.

It is also quite probable there were frequent crucifixions during Jesus' ministry, yet no word of protest from his mouth. At least, Jesus could have taken his disciples to witness a crufixion for a teaching moment to be recorded in one of the Gospels for us today. To me and other likeminded people, this is clear evidence Jusus respected government's authority to impose the death penalty as ordained by God.

I would strongly support Singapore style caning be a form of punishment for criminals who commit violent crime. There is Biblical support for that, therefore we can likely conclude this form of punisment would be acceptable to Mennonites.

- Dale Welty (mar 20 at 1:35 p.m.)
Mr. Welty, I find it "interesting, but not surprising" how much nonsense you can put into one posting! Based on what Mr. Welty writes about John the Baptist and Jesus' lack of protest against crucifixions, one can only conclude that Mr. Welty's interpretation would call us to put everyone to death (except murderers and the unborn) and let God sort it out.

In fact, Jesus did speak out against the death penalty. When asked to participate in stoning a woman who had committed adultery--which the law mandated at that time--Jesus simply said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The woman was spared. (John 8) I find it "interesting, but not surprising" that Mr. Welty would miss scripture that does not support the outlandish narrative he wishes to present us with.

Based on this and other postings, one must wonder if Mr. Welty has even the slightest idea what being a Mennonite, what being a follower of Christ is. Again, it is "interesting, but not surprising" just how much self-contradicting nonsense Mr. Welty can produce in one posting!

- JPR (mar 20 at 2:32 p.m.)
As a Mennonite, I have a hard time arguing against the concept of the government using death penalty as a sentence for murder. It was commanded by God for use in the Old Testament.

I do argue that the way it is practiced in the USA is unjust and wrong. Many people have been found innocent after being sentenced to death. How many more are innocent, but we never find out?

In the Old Testament, there were safeguards in place to ensure justice. If a person falsely accused another of a crime, then the accuser received the punishment.

If the government would start executing the prosecuting attorneys who brought false murder charges, then there would be a much higher probability of justice in the USA. Until then, I'll argue against capital punishment.

- E. Miller (mar 20 at 10:25 p.m.)

Comment on the article Demise of the death penalty?

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.