"The right of administering punishment is the right of the sovereign as the supreme power to inflict pain upon a subject on account of a crime committed by him. The head of the state cannot therefore be punished; but his supremacy may be drawn from him." Professor Immanuel Kant

"Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of life." Orrin Hatch

"We are concerned here only with the imposition of capital punishment for the crime of murder, and when a life has been taken deliberately by the offender, we cannot say that the punishment is invariably disproportionate to the crime. It is an extreme sanction suitable to the most extreme of crimes." Potter Stewart
 

Capital punishment: A Biblical and Secular Defense

First off, let me define capital punishment. Capital punishment is the executing of a criminal for such crimes as murder, perjury causing an execution and a few other serious crimes. What does the Bible have to say about it? Let's see.
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." — Genesis 9:6
"Thou shalt not kill." — Exodus 20:13
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." — Exodus 21:12
"And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." — Leviticus 24:17
"So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Numbers 35:33

In the Old Testament there is always the issue of Cain. Opponents of the death penalty bring this up often, claiming it is a proof of God’s forgiveness and that God doesn’t always demand capital punishment. In other words, God changes (see below section.) However, there is a logical explanation to this. Cain was never sentenced to death. However, there are certain aspects of this story that raises an eyebrow. 1) We are not told the context of the killing of Abel. It could have been self-defense; it could have been instigated by Abel. We are not told. 2) The first spoken ban against murder was after the Flood, in Genesis 9:6, after the time of Cain and Abel. 3) We do not see any authority that was there to impose the penalty. 4) Cain was cursed instead, forced to wander the earth. God marked Cain against people who wished to take the law into their own hands. God wished to protect against this kind of anarchy.[1]

Well, the Bible seems pretty clear on this, at least in the Old Testament. So why are there verses in the New Testament that "refute" capital punishment? Surely, this cannot be! Let look at some of these verses: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:17-21

This verse does not apply to capital punishment. 1) Because it is referring to personal relationships with unbelievers 2) capital punishment is not repaying evil with evil 3) murder is a crime committed against society and God.

 This verse applies only to personal relationships; it doesn’t apply on a state level. This is so because you are to treat him like you would a brother. Be kind to him and "heap coals on his head", coals of shame. It does not, however, apply on a state level. When murder is committed, it shames society and it is a sin against both society and God. Yes, God will take vengeance, but that does not mean that we should step aside and let the murderer go lose. God has clearly stated that He will take vengeance, and we are to carry out his commandments to bring murderers to justice. [2]

What if God changed His mind? "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." — Malachi 3:6 There are verses that illustrate the “fixity of God”. The one above is a perfect example. Matthew 18:6 further shows that Jesus can speak with the same “spirit of harshness” found in the Old Testament. It illustrates the justice of God.

"He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." — Revelation 13:10 This verse alludes to capital punishment. If you kill with the sword, you will be brought to justice.

This next verse is just another of the verses in the New Testament that support capital punishment. “1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Romans 13:1-7

            In verse four of this text, it states that the government does not bear the sword in vain, illustrating that the government has the power to execute criminals. If you do evil, you will be brought to justice. The sword is there to seek justice. If you decide to take another’s life, your life will be taken because the have the right to live too, you took that away, therefore you lose your right to live. Very simple and logical. There is concern by some that this passage was actually not written by Paul. This concern is groundless, and there is no evidence beyond pure speculation.

            There are several arguments that use the Jesus’ ministry to supposedly refute the use of capital punishment. One such argument is the abundance of love and forgiveness in the teachings of Christ. Don’t they refute the use of capital punishment? The Bible says—no. All these verses that speak of love and forgiveness are referring to personal relationships, the do not apply on a state level. If we were to employ the use of this philosophy, then all Christians would have to be against punishment as a whole, including the popular substitute for the death penalty, life without parole. The Christian would have to be against, fines, prison and community service, as these are forms of punishment. Every person that holds to such a belief revokes Law and Order, that which constitute a civilized society. The teachings of Christ in the New Testament say nothing about revoking the authority of Law and Order because of the statutes of love and forgiveness. On the contrary, the authority, with the right to punish, was completely accepted as a divine ordinance. This is illustrated in Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-14. In a civilized society, mercy must not come before right. Jesus message of love obviously is not aimed at the authorities.[3]

You must remember that if a murderer ends up in hell for his crime after being executed, he is there by choice. He refused the gospel, and went to hell. After murdering, there is no good reason to let a murderer live. If he want’s God’s forgiveness, he can ask for it and it will be granted. But forgiveness does not free you from the consequences of your actions. It merely makes your actions void in God’s eyes, if you’ve accepted Christ as your savior, and only if you’re a Christian.

What about Jesus himself? Would He be pro capital punishment? I say yes. In Matthew 18:6 Jesus says, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”(KJV) Obviously, Jesus was not a pacifist and was in favor of capital punishment. He wasn’t exaggerating either. Drowning by a millstone around the neck was very common and accepted among the Greeks and Romans. According to Jesus, such a person did not deserve to live. In Matthew 22:7, which reads, “But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.”  This is a parable about God’s invitation to man to come to heaven. Some were killed by murderers, and the king was so mad, he demanded their blood in retribution. Jesus has no intention here of illustrating this as an act of hate or sin. He does not condemn, it in other words, He supports it further on in the text. There are other verses as well that illustrate this sort of thing, such as Luke 12:42-48 and Luke 19:27.[4]           

One argument asks why capital punishment still applies, when crimes punishable by death in the Old Testament, do not. The answer is quite simple. The principle of capital punishment came before the Mosaic Law. In Genesis 9:6 it says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man.” The basic principle of “a life for a life” came earlier, and it is based on the man created in God’s image. Man is set apart from animals because he is created in God’s image (Righteousness, holiness, knowledge and dominion is the image of God. Not a physical image). Because the principle came before the other commandments, the other verses applying to capital punishment for murder, also apply. Once established that capital punishment came before the Mosaic Law, it makes perfect sense to use the other verses in support of an argument.

There is also the argument that the command “Thou shalt not kill,” refutes the use of capital punishment. But, the command in Exodus 20:13 translates to literally mean “do not murder” or “do not kill violently and unjustly”. It obviously doesn’t apply to the actual process of capital punishment. Rather, it enforces it by demanding a penalty for murder.

Some also say that Jesus refuted the use of capital punishment in his Sermon on the Mount. However, this, like Romans 12:17-21, is referring to personal relationships with unbelievers. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is not arguing against the principle of a life for a life. Rather He is speaking to the issue of our personal desire for vengeance.         He is not denying the power and responsibility of the government. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is speaking to individual Christians. He is telling Christians that they should not try to replace the power of the government. Jesus does not deny the power and authority of government, but rather He calls individual Christians to love their enemies and turn the other cheek.

There is one more verse I'd like to address, and that is John 8:7,"But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." I assume you're all familiar with the story of the adulterer. The argument is that since the state cannot be without sin, we aren't worthy to "judge" the murderer and execute them. Well, this verse is taken out of context. The Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus. They said she was an adulterer and according to OT laws, she must be stoned. But, according to OT laws, the husband had to be there to accuse the woman, and there was no man. So, Jesus got around it by saying,” If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Jesus got the Pharisees to leave, in accordance to law, and He was still sinless.

One must also take into consideration the difficulty of the situation. If Jesus said, “Let her be stoned!” He would have broken Roman law, which decreed that only the authorities could pronounce such a sentence. But, if He did not sentence her to be stoned, He would have broken Mosaic Law, for such a crime was punishable by death. When studying this situation, one must take into account five things concerning this. 1) Jesus did not grant the adulteress complete, unconditional freedom. He gave her a strict command, to “go, and sin no more”. This was a serious statement, almost a threat! 2) Jesus did not come to earth to judge. He came to save. John 3:17 says that Jesus came to save, not condemn. He would have committed a mistake if He condemned the woman. 3) It is mainly through the governing authorities that God imposes the death penalty. He does not use individuals often, and Christ was not there as judge. Rather, He was there as an atoning sacrifice. 4) If Jesus condemned her, He would have been arrested by the Romans for violation of Roman law. Only the authorities could pronounce such a severe sentence. 5) It is not possible to use the principle of “let him without sin throw the first stone” in the judicial system. Since neither judge nor juror is without sin, it would be impossible to pass a sentence with this principle in effect. Obviously, these words are not to be used in context to the judicial system.[5]

When anti-death penalty advocates argue, they assume that capital punishment is wrong and it's murder. Obviously God doesn't think so, and neither does the dictionary or society! The assumption is that the death penalty is revenge. However, revenge and justice are extremely different. Revenge is, "To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge. To inflict punishment in return." Revenge is personal retaliation. Whereas justice is,” The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. The quality of being just; fairness."[6]  The two are on opposite ends of the spectrum. They are the exact opposite of each other.

Aside from the Bible, why support the death penalty? Well, it is proven to deter crime. (See below stats) To say otherwise is saying that criminals are immune to fear. Let me explain. When a cop points hi gun at a criminal, the criminal obeys the cop. Why? He fears the cop and his weapon. It makes perfect sense that a murderer would at least take into consideration the possibility of the death penalty.

“During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank.”[7] Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University

Also, the death penalty defends the inviolable right. The inviolable right states that every human is worth something, and they are all equal in value. When a criminal murders someone, he forfeits his inviolable right. Because he has no regard for life, he forfeits his own "right to life". He has no claim to such rights. He gave his inviolable right to the victim, and gave away his own, so the state is no longer in danger of committing murder. He gave the state is implied consent to have him executed. The state is executing justice.[8]

Also, some say that you're guilty of committing the same crime if you execute the murderer. But, murder is the highest form of injustice; capital punishment is the highest form of justice. It only makes sense to execute a murderer. The victim had a right to live. The murderer took it away, therefore he forfeited his right to live; very simple logic.

 The death penalty acknowledges to society that the victim was worth actually something.[9] It tells the family of the victim that society cares for them and they sympathize with them. To give a criminal "life without parole" is a direct insult to the victim's family and the victim's memory. At that point, society says, "We don't care about your family member. He put this poor murderer on death row!"  This is just insulting and shouldn’t be tolerated.

Another point to be considered is that, life without parole is not, in any way, justice. When kidnappers kidnap, they forfeit their right to live in peace, and they live in prison. When thieves steal, they lose their freedom. So why should a murderer keep his life once he's taken another's? The death penalty is the only form of justice for murderers. People assume that criminals will "regret" their behavior once on death row. We have been shown time and time again, that a lot of them don't. You can't trust a murderer to be human. (Example: In 1985, 13-year-old Karen Patterson was shot to death in her bed in North Charleston, S.C. Her killer was a neighbor who had already served 10 years of a life sentence for murdering his half-brother Charles in 1970.[10])

Also, there is no such thing as "life" in prison. It is a set number of years, not an actual life term. So a murderer could, outlive his life sentence and go killing again, if at all likely. And what would the state do, anyway? Give them another 50 years? Better to take care of it earlier.

The most obvious aspect of the death penalty is that is eliminates the possibility of re-offense. Obviously, the murderer is dead, so he can’t go killing again. Think of all the murderers who could have been stopped by the death penalty, only to be released and go on a killing rampage again. Such examples include Joe Atkins, Jeffrey Barney and Robert Massie.

In summary, we have seen that capital punishment is biblical and humane. It is an eternal moral principle. If man was worth something in the Old Testament, he is worth something in the New Testament, and the penalty remains. The value of man cannot be abolished.  I personally don’t see how people can oppose this crystal clear judgment. The murderer brought it upon himself. He must pay the consequences, at whatever cost. Some Christians claim that they are preaching love by denying the validity of the death penalty. But, if that is true, how is that preaching love to the victim’s family? Rather, that is sending a message of shunning and it could come off as hate. If you must preach love, preach it to everyone, not just the murderer.