Myth: Murderers deserve death.
Fact: Only God or an omniscient being could determine that; Jesus argued against "an eye
for an eye."
Almost all societies have dispensed with the principle of "an
eye for an eye," and considered it a step toward more enlightened
civilization. Christians who cite "an eye for an eye" in their
defense of the death penalty are usually unaware of the strict criteria
that God imposed before it could be used to take human life. The Old Testament
also allowed the death penalty for crimes that today we consider less than
misdemeanors -- clearly, the Old Testament law is archaic. Finally, Jesus himself
argued against the principle of "an eye for an eye."
Most societies dispensed with the "eye for an eye" principle
of punishment centuries ago; indeed, it is considered one of the great
advances of civilization and criminal justice.
We do not punish rapists by raping them, or arsonists by burning their
houses down, or sadists by torturing them. Instead they are imprisoned,
isolated from society where they can no longer do harm. There are three
main reasons for doing so:
1. Any criminal justice system is inherently imperfect, and the human
beings within it are inevitably fallible. Courts have a rich history of
mistaken convictions; the Stanford Law Review has uncovered 350
cases this century where clearly innocent people were sentenced to death,
75 of them since 1970. Only God or an omniscient being would truly
know what another person "deserves." And that would apply not only to questions
of guilt, but questions of justness of punishment.
Imprisoning people allows us to reverse mistaken
convictions with the minimum of damage. For those inmates not sentenced
to life, it allows them to re-enter society without being bent on a terrible
2. Any society that responds to crime by committing more of the same
teaches people that it is not the act itself which is reprehensible, but
the enemy to whom you do it. But the classification of enemies is an intellectual
exercise, one that changes with changing group identification. The result
is the very moral relativism which conservatives and libertarians normally
3. A law based on revenge serves no purpose; the purpose of punishment
should be to reform the reformable and quarantine the unreformable. For
those who say revenge serves the purpose of satisfying the emotions of
the victim's families, there are several responses: 1) Life in prison is
a severe punishment in its own right, and should fulfill this need; 2)
Revenge does not bring the loved one back; 3) Revenge may make things worse
for innocent people -- not just the mistakenly convicted, but the future
innocents who fall victim to the higher murder rates that follow executions
-- which is surely not the family's intent; 4) Our laws should be based
on logic, not emotion, as overwhelming as the emotion might be. Laws based
on emotion lead to barbarism. Victim's families are superior to the criminal
precisely because they are not barbarians.
Some Christians point out that the principle of lex talion ("An
eye for eye") was commanded by God in the Old Testament. But if Christians
really knew the ins and outs of this law, they would never quote it in
defense of the death penalty. First, Jehovah ordered very strict criteria
to be used in determining whether a death sentence should be carried out.
"...but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one
witness." (Numbers 35:30)
This would invalidate the vast majority of death sentences handed out
in America today, since 98 percent are not even based on a single
eye-witness, but on circumstantial evidence!
"On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses he that
is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on
the evidence of one witness..." (Deuteronomy 17:6,7)
"A single witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime
or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed.
Only on the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a charge
be sustained." (Deuteronomy 19:15)
Most Christians would also greatly qualify their use of the Old
Testament in support of their pro-capital punishment views if they knew
the full range of circumstances in which it was allowed. Jehovah ordered
the death penalty for the following:
Obviously, many of these laws are archaic, and criminal justice has
evolved considerably since then. Few people seriously argue that these
laws should be replicated in today's world. For Christians, Jesus himself
signaled a change away from the legal philosophy of lex talion when
- A rebellious and disrespectful son. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
- A bride who cannot prove that she is a virgin on her wedding night.
- An adulterous wife and her lover (but not an adulterous husband!).
- Two lovers, if the woman was a virgin promised to be another man's
wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23,24)
- A fighting man who accidentally kills a pregnant woman. (Exodus 21:22-24)
- Any Israelite who sells a fellow Israelite into slavery. (Deuteronomy
- Sabbath-breakers (in this case, one collecting firewood on the Sabbath).
- Witches and spiritists. (Leviticus 20:27)
- Blasphemers of God. (Leviticus 24:16-22)
- Worshippers of other gods. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)
- Rapists. (Deuteronomy 22:25)
- Murderers. (Numbers 35:31)
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for
tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38,39)
Typically, pro-death penalty Christians counter this text with the
following quote, from the same sermon:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)
What Jesus meant by this is the subject of vigorous debate. However,
what is obvious is that many laws changed under the New Covenant; Christians
were freed from many of the ancient Jewish laws on circumcision, Sabbath-observance
and temple sacrifices. So it is not a question of whether the Talmudic
laws were changed or dropped; the only question is how many were.
If some Christians maintain that at least the civil and criminal laws of
the Talmud are still valid in their entirety, then we should expect that
they actually subscribe to all of them. This would include the commandment
requiring two or three eye-witnesses for a capital conviction, and the
initiation of the death penalty in all the above instances. Needless to
say, no Christian would ever agree to such a legal code.
Return to Overview