I’ve read from Jim Wallis that to be pro-life, one must also be against capital punishment in order to be consistent. A good Christian brother whose mind, life, and faith I admire also wrote a similar sentiment at http://notonmyquach.com/?p=15#comments.
Is it really inconsistent to be pro-life and allow for capital punishment?
Jim Wallis writes, “I am against the death penalty in principle. We simply should not kill to show we are against killing. It’s also easy to make a fatal mistake, as alarming DNA testing has demonstrated. The death penalty is clearly biased against the poor, who cannot afford adequate legal representation, and is outrageously disproportionate along racial lines. Few white-collar killers sit on death row, and fewer are ever executed. And there is no real evidence that it deters murder; it just satisfies revenge,” (God’s Politics, p.303).
Working towards solutions that try to answer “what’s right and what works,” something Wallis says throughout the book, he states this. “… I believe it is incumbent upon opponents of the death penalty to offer alternatives commensurate with the crime. To be against capital punishment does not require us to be against punishment for such a heinous crime. It was not only a moral contradiction to kill McVeigh for his killings; it was also not punishment enough,” (p.304). He also writes, “When someone takes other lives so deliberately, they should be deprived of any normal life themselves. The only adequate alternative to the death penalty is life without parole,” (p.305).
Let me begin by analyzing the first paragraph I cite in which Wallis states his view and then gives several reasons against capital punishment.
- Wallis opposes the death penalty in principle. He is not simply saying that the American form of the death penalty fails to do justice. Nor is he saying that he’d like to reform the current system to make it work. He is against killing.
- Wallis provides 4 reasons why he’ against the death penalty.
- It’s inconsistent (and therefore wrong) to punish an act by the same act.
- It’s faulty in the frequency to irreversibly punish someone who did not deserve that punishment.
- It’s unjust to (irreversibly) punish someone this way because a certain population (the poor) is unable to have the most costly (and effective) legal counsel.
- The outrageous racial disparity among those who are sentenced to death must indicate the system has tremendous flaws and bias against those races.
These four reasons make a case against capital punishment in 2 different ways. The first reason makes a case against the concept and use of capital punishment in all cases. (This seems to assume death is the greatest possible crime as well as greatest possible punishment. I may not agree with that, but we’ll address that another time.) And if the argument succeeds against capital punishment in principle, then no form of it should be used.
The latter three reasons make a case against the current US system. They point out systemic faults not in the usage of capital punishment as much as the conviction of crimes. Of course accurate conviction is important for all crimes, but presumably capital punishment has a uniquely irreversible finality. You cannot undo an execution. You cannot release a wrongfully convicted man who was already executed.
(Of course, you cannot undo any sentence fully. In the case of the death penalty, obviously the state does not have the power to give life back. But in the case of incarceration, neither does the state have the power to give time back. Sure, if the person is still alive, they can be released from prison, and even compensated financially. But frankly, that never would fully repay the lost time in prison. Perhaps the type of penalty that is most able to be repaid would be fines. The state can refund the fines, even with interest. But even in this case, it is impossible to repay the money factoring opportunity cost. Perhaps the monies seized as fines would have been used to invest in a breakthrough company, fund a valuable scientific discovery, or purchase a winning lottery ticket. One can never know. So let us be honest. No matter the sentence, it is imperative that our justice system gets it right the first time.)
The death penalty seems to stands alone in its finality. So, while these points have some validity, perhaps not as much so in light of all this. At best, one could make the case for massive reforms in the US justice system.
But what Wallis really wants to go for is the eradication of the death penalty, and not just in practice, but in principle. As we said above, he only provides one reason: “we simply should not kill to show we are against killing.”
Let me make a few points about this.
First, I understand that this is not a step by step argument. But at the same time, this book was meant to persuade people to his view, I’m sure. So, it seems fair and charitable to engage in a reasonable critique. Also, I know Jim Wallis’ work was not meant to be a scholarly treatment of the issue. But since I do not consider myself a scholar, I hope I have not acted uncharitably in my critique.
The most potent argument I can muster from his statement is this: it is morally and logically inconsistent and wrong to punish a person for an act by the very same act. In other words, it’s hypocritical to punish killing and declare killing is wrong by another killing.
This statement has some force to it. It would seem we’d be stooping to the level of the criminal if we killed. Is this not hypocrisy? Furthermore, as Christians, it doesn’t seem becoming of Christ to punish someone by killing.
I submit there is a view of capital punishment that is consistent with pro-life views. In fact, I would argue that to be against capital punishment is more difficult for a Christian to consistently hold. The consistency of these positions should be readily assessed regardless of how much one subscribes to Christian beliefs.
Let us be clear on what we are against. Wallis says we are against killing. He seems to equate capital punishment with killing. But it is not sufficient to say we’re against killing. We need a moral transgression in order to consider such an act a crime. I think it’s more accurate to say we are really talking about wrongful killing. At least, wrongful killing of another human being. (I don’t know if Wallis would want to incarcerate those who hunt, eat meat, fight diseases, or kill bugs in the shower.) Let us call the wrongful killing of a human being as simply “murder.”
Thus, for the death penalty to be hypocrisy, we really need to argue against “using murder to show that we’re against murder.” But what would make a killing wrong? To put it another way, what has to be true about a killing to qualify as murder? Surely killing in and of itself is not always wrong. If the self defense of a father protecting his family from a malicious armed intruder led to the death of that intruder, would we punish the father with a life term in prison? If we say “no,” then we must allow that there are killings that are wrong and killings that– though tragic and preferably avoided– are justified.
Well, the next question is this: is the execution of a murderer wrongful or justified? That remains to be answered. But we can no longer simply say it is wrong by appealing to the mere fact that it is a killing. No, it seems we must make a case for the wrongness of that. This seems to render Wallis’ argument incomplete. It’s not enough to simply say it’s wrong to punish killing by killing. Now, to be fair, this does not make the case for allowing for the death penalty either. But my point is that it’s not clear that it is categorically wrong to use it simply because it involves killing. The act is not categorically wrong in and of itself.
For example, if someone was caught taking money from another person, does it follow that it would be wrong to punish that perpetrator by taking money from him? Do not criminal and civil laws allow the levying of fines for taking someone’s money? Is it wrong for the government to take money away from a person whose crime was to take money away? Our practices seem that we see no problem with that. Our government fines people who evade taxes. We levy penalties and fines against those who steal. It would be wrong for a government to steal. But to fine someone for breaking the law is not stealing.
And for evangelicals it seems there are biblical reasons in support of capital punishment. The New Testament book of Romans 13:4 speak of God’s granting that government authorities bear use of the “sword.” In my studies, the sword represents God’s granting government the use of capital punishment. But not to be bogged down in the interpretation of that passage, there is a bigger problem for those against capital punishment in principle. How would opponents address the idea that God is a killer? As an evangelical with a historic view of God, Wallis presumably believes in the moral perfection of God. Then how can he oppose killing if God does it, and not infrequently but regularly? God regularly used Israel to kill the pagan peoples in Canaan. There are those who argue that capital punishment was tolerated in the OT, but not in the NT. Well then, we would need those fresh arguments in favor.
It would be fair for the reader to ask of me to put forward my own views, and so I shall. I would submit that allowing for capital punishment is consistent with high view of life within a Christian framework. The wrongful taking of life is such an offense that it must bear the highest offense possible: the taking of another life. Again, that may seem hypocritical, but let us remember that God Himself orchestrated just that. In a gracious reversal, God took the life of His own Son on a cross. Furthermore, life consists of not only the physical life, but the spiritual as well. The fact that the NT in Revelation speaks of a resurrection of all peoples allows the Christian a consistent platform to be pro-life on abortion and allow for the death penalty. For in the biblical view, execution in this earthly life is an incarceration of sorts which will be reviewed and addressed at the final judgment. For those who were wrongly executed, God will make things right on that last day. For those who were accurately convicted, they will have had their just sentence.
Practically, I do think our current system shows signs of significant flaws. If enough doubts are raised, I would support a moratorium on executions, as well as a thorough investigation into revamping the system. And it seems prudent that a system of appeals be made, even if it takes a long time to finally execute someone. I also believe we should process criminal allegations with the perspective that people are innocent until proven guilty and place the burden of proof upon the prosecution. I would rather have a system in which some murderers go free and have no innocent people executed than the other way around.
But in actuality, the evangelical view is that all people who have hated someone or wished evil upon another have already committed murder in their hearts (Mt. 5:21-22). I stand guilty as one of them. It is God’s grace that will cover our sins through Jesus’ substitution on the cross. And the final outcome of reward or condemnation will be wrought through the wisdom, knowledge, and justice of God.
In conclusion, I’ve tried to show that it’s not necessarily inconsistent for a person– including a Christian– to have a consistent view of life while be against abortion but not necessarily against capital punishment. Killing itself is not automatically always wrong. There must be cases where killing is justifiable, such as in self-defense from an armed assailant intent on murder. So we must labor to discern what killings are justified and which are not.
The point of this article was to show that it’s possible to consistently be against abortion and not against capital punishment. My goal was not to argue for what constitutes the legitimate use of capital punishment. Rather, it was to show that in the past and in principle, there have been times when capital punishment has been employed legitimately. Whether we as a society can ever reproduce such discernment and a jurisprudence system is another matter entirely.
Recent Comments