We are all familiar with the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The Hebrew is lo' tirtsach. The verb refers to taking the life of an innocent human, whether intentionally (Num. 35:16-21) or accidentally (Deut. 19:3-6). The Old Testament uses different verbs to describe other kinds of killing, such as in sacrifice, hunting, warfare, and law enforcement. Nevertheless, most Bible interpreters will acknowledge that the commandments embody broader principles, in this case, a general respect for all life. Does this include the life of the criminal?
The first basis for the sanctity of life is that God is sovereign over life and death (Deut. 32:39); since we belong to God, only He has the right to decide the conditions under which a person should live or die. It is in the Bible that God reveals those conditions to us: killing in defense of self and household is permitted, but only at the time one is in jeopardy (Exod. 22:2-3); otherwise, a human life can only be taken by God and those to whom He has delegated that authority.
Human life is sacred because humans are created in God's image (Gen. 1:26-27; Psalm 8). Therefore, as I have written in the abortion article, how we treat one another reflects our attitudes toward God. So serious is this issue that the first recorded institution of human government is the following command: "And surely I will demand justice for your blood which is for your souls. From the hand of every beast I will demand it. And from the hand of man, from the hand of each man's brother I will demand justice for the soul of man. The one who sheds the blood of a man, by man let his blood be shed. For it is in the image of God that He has made man" (Gen. 9:5-6). This was part of a covenant God established with Noah and all his descendants, as well as all creation (Gen. 9:9-11); it was not restricted to Israel or any particular time or culture.
When God set down laws for Israel, capital punishment was assigned for a number of crimes, not all of them violent, but all destructive to society. Surely if governments did not have such authority, or if execution was morally equivalent to murder, God would not have required it of His people. It is notable that God restricted killing to designated individuals under the supervision of authorities, and that retribution was limited to a punishment equitable to the crime ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth," etc.). This stands in stark contrast to vigilante justice or to the overly harsh codes of the surrounding nations (cf. Hammurabi's code).
The debate about capital punishment often gets tied up in the purposes of the criminal justice system. Statistics show that execution, as it is done under our current system, is not a significant deterrent, and obviously an executed criminal cannot be reformed. But the primary reason for execution is to serve justice, as Old and New Testament alike testify. Paul upholds the authority of governments to punish with violence in Romans 13:4: "For it [the government] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Jesus also implies Pilate's rightful authority to execute in John 19:10-11.
What of love and forgiveness? What of turning the other cheek? We should remember that the entire Bible teaches a forgiving lifestyle for the individual (e.g., Prov. 24:29). But Romans 13 is clear that authorities are given the specific obligation to punish evil and protect their constitutents. "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh" (Prov. 17:15).
Our concern with the current system in America has to do with inequities and ineffectiveness in the system. The law considers extraneous "mitigating" circumstances such as fits of anger, drunkenness, mental state or ability, age at the time of the crime (though the execution might not take place for ten years). . . . To make matters worse, race, gender, and the perceived importance of the victim (e.g., police officer or celebrity) also seem to make a difference. In most cases, simply confessing to the crime is enough to escape the death penalty. When we read Exodus 21, Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, and other passages, we see that all that matters is intentionality. The one who chooses to kill an innocent deserves to die, and the responsibility for carrying out justice falls on rightful governments.
The question inevitably arises, is it enough to give a heinous villain a peaceful death through lethal injection in a sanitized chamber? The U.S. Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment," and the prevailing interpretation of that phrase rules out public or painful executions, or any kind of physical punishment as a legal sentence. Incarceration has served our system well, and humanely, so that if anything we err on the side of leniency. It may or may not be wise, or permissible under the Constitution, to carry out executions in such a way as to make them a deterrent; this does not mean that governments have no moral authority for more unpleasant modes of punishment. When God prescribed stoning to Israel, it was not because God was "primitive" and is more humane now. Under a democratic government, of course, public opinion limits the degree to which officials can satisfy justice. But we should at least allow our government the use of the sword in its role as a God-instituted authority.
For a concise statement of my beliefs about human life, see my Declaration of Faith.
