Revenge is not Justice
An article from The Bison, Harding University’s student publication, recently addressed the death penalty. The writer, Pete Davidson, attempts to argue for the death penalty from the Christian perspective.
His style is dichotomous and derisive, and he puts forth straw man arguments with ironically illogical conclusions. One of the issues that I have been thinking about for a while, though, is how revenge fits into a larger picture of justice.
I recognize that retributive justice has been a part of the western approach to the rule of law since time immemorial. No punishment embodies the sense of revenge more so than the death penalty. I once thought that the victims’ or their families’ interest in revenge was a legitimate state interest upon which to base an aspect of the justice system, but I not longer think that is valid. The desire for personal revenge on another individual is indeed a natural impulse, but it is one that our society should work to curb, not codify. These kinds of negative emotions and approaches to problems in general only lead to larger societal ills.
For criminals, even the worst of them, there are several valid approaches to justice. The primary goal should be protecting society from any deviants who cause harm. Incarceration for life may be the only way to effectively do this for some criminals who refuse to be reformed. But if a criminal can be reformed, then it would best serve society’s interest to put decent, law-abiding citizens out of the prison system and back into normal lives as productive citizens.
We have overcome a lot of societal traditions that date back to the ancient world. We no longer think slavery is morally acceptable, we view women as morally and legally equivalent to men, and we do not think that religious coercion should be forced on anyone. Now it is time for even our backwards view of justice to see that revenge is no longer valid.
Back in Davidson’s article, the most ironic element that underlies his presentation is the confusing visual image. Davidson muses that “for some reason unbeknownst to [him], after the murder of an innocent human, some Christians will leap to side of the guilty.” The picture he has of Jesus is one who doles out revenge in the form of an eye for an eye, refusing to rest until every offender has been punished. He would never stand in the way of angry crowds seeking retributive justice against a perpetrator. He would show no mercy and would give no second chances.
It almost makes me laugh. I am not sure what book that Jesus is from.
Davidson’s article and arguments are somewhat sloppy. However, I don’t believe that the death penalty is always wrong and I don’t believe that it should always be taken off of the table.
I believe that life imprisonment is a much harsher sentence for most people. I cannot imagine sitting in a jail cell for 30 or 40 years. However, there are some criminals who are so dangerous that prison is not much of a punishment. They hurt people while they were free and they will continue to do so once they are incarcerated – only this time their victims will be prison staff and smaller, weaker, or non-violent convicts. In some ways this is a result of our ridiculous standards of incarceration (including the totally unnecessary practice of jailing drug users) but it also reflects on the inability of seriously outnumbered prison guards to adequately police the prison population. What do you do with a murderer or rapist who just continues killing and raping once he is imprisoned. I suppose that Supermax or solitary confinement is an option, but those options raise still more ethical questions about the treatment of prisoners.
One thing that Jimmy Allen taught in his Romans class that I had never thought of before is that the Bible refers to God much more often as just than as loving. That being said, it’s God’s justice to have, not ours.
I am decidedly against solitary confinement and Supermax facilities and I believe our entire prison system needs a giant overhaul. Out justice system is far too imperfect to allow a death penalty. Recently DNA evidence exhonorated a wrongly convicted rapist who died while incarcerated in TX (my apologies, but I cannot find a link to that story).
iantrevor:
Here’s a link to the story to which I think that you are referring:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6365643.html
“For some reason unbeknownst to [him], after the murder of an innocent human, some Christians will leap to side of the guilty.”:
Some Christians leap there because that is precisely where Christ leapt.
‘But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.’
Ian,
I share your concern and the post that you linked to explains why better than I ever could.
Which brings us back to my earlier question: What do we do with the really dangerous, psychotic predators who will continue to prey on others after they are locked up? I am very curious about people’s thoughts on this.
Much like Ian alluded to, how can the conversation go any deeper until the system is scientifically exact?
Until then (and even after that), I’ll subscribe to the title of this post…
unlike many who read this blog (i assume), i don’t really have a moral problem with the death penalty as it is administered today. i, personally, don’t see much of an ethical difference in taking a life by way of lethal injection or life imprisonment without parole. I think current safe-guards and procedural due process requirements provided and observed by state and federal government are sufficient to assure more than reasonable certainty in the guilt of those sentenced to death (most of the cases we see today of death row exoneration are due to insufficiencies of less strict procedures no longer used). So, that being said, I am of the opinion that imprisoning a man until the day he dies is no less a “taking of a man’s life” than is the affirmative step of injecting poison into his bloodstream.
Nevertheless, I would still consider myself opposed to the death penalty. While I find the moral arguments against capital punishment unpersuasive, I do happen to find the cost-benefit arguments fairly convincing. Most studies show that it costs the system several million dollars more to convict a man, sentence him to death, and follow through on that sentence than it does to convict a man, sentence him to life without parole, and follow through on that sentence. So, we end up paying billions of dollars a year to fund a constitutionally compliant capital punishment system for what? Of course the Bison guy’s retribution argument is just plain dumb, but he does (just barely) provide another argument (as poorly as it may have been articulated/reasoned) that could possibly justify the excessive costs of capital punishment: Deterence.
If I believed that the possibility of receiving the death penalty prevented a significant amount of murders in this country I could possibly be persuaded that the costs of capital punishment were outweighed by its benefits. However, I seriously doubt that is going to happen. Like I said, I think locking someone up for the rest of their life is just as bad as killing them and, thus, I just don’t see the threat of a relatively imminent death serving as a significant more powerful deterrent than life without parole.
so whatever
Completely Unrelated To This Post Script:
does anyone know what the hell happened to the guys over at libertas exemplar? they just stopped posting all of the sudden! my best guess is that the rapture has come and left all us sinners behind.
I have a question for you death penalty supporter folks. How many of you think that abortion should be illegal? Show of hands.
Neffs,
Respectfully, this is an entirely bogus (though oft-repeated) argument. Equating the taking of an inherently innocent life with the taking of a proven guilty life is off base.
My problem with the death penalty stems from the fact that there have been cases where people were put to death who turned out to be not guilty (as referenced above).
For the sake of discussion, if you were absolutely certain of the guilt of an individual, I wouldn’t be opposed to the death penalty at all.
I don’t think that it’s bogus. If you can glean anything clearly out of the New Testament, it’s that we’re all, as you put it, guilty. There is noone who gets preferential treatment, at least in an eternal sense, so the need to kill adults who commit certain acts is from man. It’s not from God, at least the God of the New Testament.
Feeling like both the death penalty and abortion are wrong is at least consistent, as is the position that they’re both okay. What doesn’t make any sense whatsoever is the position that killing full-grown sentient adults is okay but killing a six-week embryo without limbs is not. That’s just applying your own morality or sense of justice. Also of man, not of God.
What do you guys do with the story of Jesus refusing to condemn the woman who’s been taken in adultery? Does that just magically not show up in your books?
In a moral sense, especially in view of the Old Testament, guilt comes from violating the Law of Moses. Infants (including unborn ones) have committed no violation, hence, no guilt.
In a legal sense, guilt comes from violating the laws of our country. Murderers are, therefore, guilty, while unborn infants are not.
Being okay with the punishment of guilt while being opposed to punishing those who aren’t guilty is not inconsistent.
neffs,
not sure if i am included in the “death penalty supporters” camp, but if so, in response to your query, both hands remain firmly down by my thighs.
i’m not really sure whether i believe in any of this “sanctity of life” stuff.