From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most major world religions take an ambiguous position on the morality of capital punishment. Religions are often based on a body of teachings and the standards of present-day Western civilization, and the Old Testament contains mances of criminals being executed. (See Execution in the Bible).

Christians reasoning from the New Testament and/or Sacred Tradition have come to a range of conclusions about the permissibility and social value of capital punishment. While some hold that a strict reading of certain texts^[1] forbids executions, others point to various verses of the New Testament which seem to endorse the death penalty's use.^[2]

Roman Catholic Church

The Church classes capital punishment as a form of "lawful slaying", a view derived from the thought of theological authorities such as Thomas Aquinas, who accepted the death penalty as a necessary deterrent and prevention method, but not as a means of vengeance. (See also Aquinas on the death penalty). The Roman Catechism states this teaching thus:

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.^[3]

This teaching was evident in the writings both of Pope Innocent I and Pope Innocent III, with the latter stating that "the secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude."^[4] In an address given on September 14, 1952, Pope Pius XII made clear that the Church does not regard the execution of criminals as a violation by the State of the universal right to life, arguing that:

When it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.^[5]

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II suggested that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, opining that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."^[6] The most recent edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church restates this view.^[7] That the assessment of the contemporary situation advanced by John Paul II is not binding on the faithful was confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger when he wrote in 2004 that,

if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.^[8]

While all Catholics must therefore hold that "the infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians", the matter of "the advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations."^[9]

Some Catholic writers, such as the late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin of Chicago, have argued against the use of the death penalty in modern times by drawing on a stance labelled the "consistent life ethic". Characteristic of this approach is an emphasis on the sanctity of human life, and the responsibility on both a personal and social level to protect and preserve life from "womb to tomb" (conception to natural death). This position draws on the conviction that God has "boundless love for every person, regardless of human merit or worthiness."^[10] Other Catholic writers, such as Joseph Sobran and Matt Abbott, have criticised this approach, contending that it minimizes the issue of abortion by placing it on the same level as the death penalty - the latter of which the Church does not consider intrinsically immoral.^[11][12] The Bernadin approach also exalts the life of a convicted murderer and fails to give proper respect to the murderer's victim.

Anglican and Episcopalian

The Lambeth Conference of Anglican and Episcopalian bishops condemned the death penalty in 1988:

This Conference: ... 3. Urges the Church to speak out against: ... (b) all governments who practice capital punishment, and encourages them to find alternative ways of sentencing offenders so that the divine dignity of every human being is respected and yet justice is pursued;....^[13]

Other Protestants

Several key leaders early in the Protestant Reformation, including Martin Luther and John Calvin, followed the traditional reasoning in favour of capital punishment, and the Lutheran Church's Augsburg Confession explicitly defended it. Some Protestant groups have cited Genesis 9:5–6, Romans 13:3–4, and Leviticus 20:1–27 as the basis for permitting the death penalty.^[14]

Mennonites, Church of the Brethren and Friends have opposed the death penalty since their founding, and continue to be strongly opposed to it today. These groups, along with other Christians opposed to capital punishment, have cited Christ's Sermon on the Mount (transcribed in Matthew Chapter 5–7) and Sermon on the Plain (transcribed in Luke 6:17–49). In both sermons, Christ tells his followers to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies, which these groups believe mandates nonviolence, including opposition to the death penalty.

Mormonism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) presently takes no position on capital punishment, but until the mid-20th century there was a controversial doctrine called blood atonement, holding that the blood of Jesus' Atonement does not remit certain serious sins, and the only way that a Mormon sinner could pay for them would be to have their blood spilled on the ground as an atonement. There is no direct evidence that this doctrine was ever practiced by clergy in their official capacity, although the doctrine was blamed for a number of killings in the Utah Territory, and was made famous because of the Mountain Meadows massacre. The doctrine is cited^{[citation needed]} as a reason why, until recently, Utah gave convicts sentenced to death a choice to be executed by firing squad rather than other methods such as hanging.

Islam

Islamic scholars state that whilst the Qur'an professes the basic principle that everyone has the right to life, this principle allows for an exception when a court of law demands it. Their precept is "Do not kill a Soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law". This exception authorises the administration of capital punishment when Islamic law dictates. This is the line taken by most countries in which Islam is the state religion or the principal religion. One notable characteristic of Sharia is that the family of a murder victim can pardon the murderer. In Islam, the victim and/or the victim's family are the judges for all crimes; they decide what the punishment shall be under the supervision of a jurist who knows the Qur'an.

One verse which clearly illustrates the possibility of capital punishment is in the Qur’an verse 5:32. “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.” Other verses reinforce the idea that, for example, in a case of murder, the victim's family decides the punishment- with the death penalty as a possibility. Verse 5:32 notes that compassion is the best choice. "Mischief in the land" (e.g. treason) is also punishable by death. Verse 2:178 further discusses capital punishment, in the case of murder; “O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.”

Here, it is further clarified that capital punishment is only just with the rule of equality (slave for slave, etc., a man killing a woman would not be justly punishable by death), and the idea of the victim's family receiving a payment to spare the murderer's life is presented. This payment, some Muslim thinkers hold, is more constructive in a case of a father being murdered- the murdered father's family has a better chance of survival without him if there is monetary compensation, whereas capital punishment would leave them without a breadwinner.

List of cases in which the transgressor is required to be killed by well established Sharia views

* Murder

* Fasaad fi al-ardh (spreading mischief in the land) This can cover treason, terrorism, piracy and rape, and in some cases adultery.

Crimes that have fallen under this description have included: (1) Treason, when one helps an enemy of the Muslim community; (2) Apostasy, when one leaves the faith; (3) Land, sea, or air piracy; (4) Rape; (5) Adultery; (6) Homosexual behaviour.^[15]

But others point out that the Quran says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (2:256)^[16] The relationship between religion and the death penalty is further complicated by the fact that it is common for the followers of a religion to disagree with its official teachings on the subject.

Buddhism

There is disagreement among Buddhists as to whether or not Buddhism forbids the death penalty. The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states:

Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill.

Chapter 26, the final chapter of the Dhammapada, states, "Him I call a brahmin who has put aside weapons and renounced violence toward all creatures. He neither kills nor helps others to kill." These sentences are interpreted by many Buddhists (especially in the modern humanistic West) as an injunction against supporting any legal measure which might lead to the death penalty. However, as is often the case with the interpretation of scripture, there is dispute on this matter. Historically, most states where the official religion is Buddhism have imposed capital punishment for some offenses. One notable exception is the abolition of the death penalty by the Emperor Saga of Japan in 818. This lasted until 1165, although in private manors executions continued to be conducted as a form of retaliation. Japan still imposes the death penalty, although some recent justice ministers have refused to sign death warrants, citing their Buddhist beliefs as their reason.^[17] Other Buddhist-majority states vary in their policy. For example, Bhutan has abolished the death penalty, but Thailand still retains it, although Buddhism is the official religion in both.

The Buddhist concept of lethal self-defense is subtly non-linear and based on the criterion of prevention of greater suffering. The Bodhicaryavatara of Shantideva (8th century AD), authorizes violence if it is necessary to prevent suffering: "One should always strive for the benefit of others. Even that which has been prohibited has been permitted for the compassionate one who foresees benefit"; "May I be a protector for those who do not have protectors"; and "If the suffering of many disappears because of the suffering of one, then a compassionate person should induce that suffering for the sake of others."^[18] Upaya-kaushalya sutra (Skillful Means) tells the story of a Bodhisattva who saved hundreds of people by killing a murderous thief.^[19] Other Mahayana scriptures explain that such a defensive killing prevents the murderer from bringing more bad karma on himself, and creates good karma for the defender, providing that the defender acts in the spirit of compassion.^[20] This is known in Japanese Buddhist tradition as issatsu tasho, "killing one (aggressor) in order that many (innocents) may live" and is a manifestation of "skillful means". Nor should it be forgotten that, in considering the non-linear attitude of Buddhism towards "chivalrous" violence, the blue-eyed great Buddha Bodhidharma, not only brought Zen Buddhism from India to China around 520 A.D., but was also, according to universal tradition, the founder of the martial arts and kung fu.^[21] In mystical Zen Buddhism (as reflected in Japanese Bushido), there is a traditional expression: "the sword that (justly) kills is the identical with the sword that gives life".

Therefore, few (if any) Buddhist groups issue blanket decrees against Buddhists being soldiers, police officers, or farmers (which in Buddhism is classified as a profession involved in destruction of life), and some argue that the death penalty is permissible if it is used for preventative purposes. In general, Buddhist groups in secular countries such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan tend to take an anti-death penalty stance, while in Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan, where Buddhism has strong political influence, the opposite is true. Almost all Buddhist groups, however, oppose the use of the death penalty as a means of retribution.

Hinduism

A basis can be found in Hindu teachings both for permitting and forbidding the death penalty. Hinduism preaches ahimsa (or ahinsa, non-violence), but also teaches that the soul cannot be killed and death is limited only to the physical body. The soul is reborn into another body upon death (until Moksha), akin to a human changing clothes. The religious, civil and criminal law of Hindus is encoded in the Dharmaśāstras and the Arthasastra. The Dharmasastras describe many crimes and their punishments and calls for the death penalty in several instances, including murder, the mixture of castes, and righteous warfare.

However the Mahabharata contains passages arguing against the use of the death penalty in all cases. An example is a dialogue between King Dyumatsena and his son Prince Satyavan (section 257 of the Santiparva) where a number of men are brought out for execution at the King's command.

Prince Satyavan says: Sometimes virtue assumes the form of sin and sin assumes the form of virtue. It is not possible that the destruction of individuals can ever be virtuous.

King Dyumatsena replies: If the sparing of those who should be killed be virtuous, if robbers be spared, Satyavan, all distinction between virtue and vice will disappear.

Satyavan responds: Without destroying the body of the offender, the king should punish him as ordained by the scriptures. The king should not act otherwise, neglecting to reflect upon the character of the offence and upon the science of morality. By killing the wrongdoer, the King kills a large number of his innocent men. Behold by killing a single robber, his wife, mother, father and children, all are killed. When injured by wicked persons, the king should therefore think seriously on the question of punishment. Sometimes a wicked person is seen to imbibe good conduct from a pious man. It is seen that good children spring from wicked persons. The wicked should not therefore be exterminated. The extermination of the wicked is not in consonance with the eternal law.

On the other hand, such a liberal interpretation of the texts is not so absolute: in the same text, in the Bhagavad Gita, righteous destruction of the wicked is commended as meritorious and fulfillment of caste duty:

“Taking as equal pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, gird thyself for the battle; thus thou shalt not incur sin.” (II. Verse 38)

"When justice is crushed, when evil is triumphant, then I come back. For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, and for the establishment of dharma, I am born age after age." (VI, Verses 7-8)

In spite of liberal sentiment, death punishment for conscienceless murderers and sexual deviants has always been part of the Hindu sanatana dharma. The Indian fundamentalist teacher A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada sums up his views on "righteous lethality" and "detached violence":

"...violence also has its utility, and how to apply violence rests with the person in knowledge. Although the justice of the peace awards capital punishment to a person condemned for murder, the justice of the peace cannot be blamed, because he orders violence to another person according to the codes of justice. In Manu Smriti, the lawbook for mankind, it is supported that a murderer should be condemned to death so that in his next life he will not have to suffer for the great sin he has committed. Therefore, the king’s punishment of hanging a murderer is actually beneficial. Similarly, when Krishna orders fighting, it must be concluded that violence is for supreme justice, and thus Arjuna should follow the instruction, knowing well that such violence, committed in the act of fighting for Krishna, is not violence at all because, at any rate, the man, or rather the soul, cannot be killed; so for the administration of justice, so-called violence is permitted." [2]

Judaism

The official teachings of Judaism approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent, and in practice, it has been abolished by various Talmudic decisions, making the situations in which a death sentence could be passed effectively impossible and hypothetical. "Forty years before the destruction" of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, i.e. in 30 AD, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment, making it a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment, fitting in finality for God alone to use, not fallible people.^[22]

Thus, it can be argued that Judaism is essentially anti-death penalty.

While allowing for the death penalty in some hypothetical circumstances, scholars of Judaism are broadly opposed to the death penalty as practiced in the modern world. The Jewish understanding of Biblical law is not based on a literal reading of the Bible, but rather through the lens of Judaism's oral law. These oral laws were first recorded around 200 CE in the Mishnah and later around 600 CE in the Babylonian Talmud. The laws make it clear that the death penalty was used only rarely. The Mishnah states:

A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says: they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel. (Mishnah, Makkot 1:10).

Rabbinic tradition describes a detailed system of checks and balances to prevent the execution of an innocent person. These rules are so restrictive as to effectively legislate the penalty out of existence. The law requires that:

• There must have been two witnesses to the crime, and these must conform to a prescribed list of criteria. For example, females and close relatives of the criminal are precluded from being witnesses according to Biblical law, while full-time gamblers are precluded as a matter of Rabbinical law.
• The witnesses must have verbally warned the person seconds before the act that they were liable for the death penalty
• The person must then have acknowledged that he or she was warned, and yet then have gone ahead and committed the sin regardless.
• No individual was allowed to testify against him or herself.

The 12th-century Jewish legal scholar Maimonides famously stated that "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice." Maimonides was concerned about the need for the law to guard itself in public perceptions, to preserve its majesty and retain the people's respect.^[23]

Today, the State of Israel only uses the death penalty for extraordinary crimes. The only execution ever to take place in Israel was in 1962, against convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. However, Israeli employment of the death penalty has little to do with Jewish law.

In Orthodox Judaism, it is held that in theory the death penalty is a correct and just punishment for some crimes. However in practice the application of such a punishment can only be carried out by humans whose system of justice is nearly perfect, a situation which has not existed for some time.

Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Edelstein writes

"So, at least theoretically, the Torah can be said to be pro-capital punishment. It is not morally wrong, in absolute terms, to put a murderer to death ...However, things look rather different when we turn our attention to the practical realization of this seemingly harsh legislation. You may be aware that it was exceedingly difficult, in practice, to carry out the death penalty in Jewish society ...I think it's clear that with regard to Jewish jurisprudence, the capital punishment outlined by the Written and Oral Torah, and as carried out by the greatest Sages from among our people (who were paragons of humility and humanity and not just scholarship, needless to say), did not remotely resemble the death penalty in modern America (or Texas). In theory, capital punishment is kosher; it's morally right, in the Torah's eyes. But we have seen that there was great concern—expressed both in the legislation of the Torah, and in the sentiments of some of our great Sages—regarding its practical implementation. It was carried out in ancient Israel, but only with great difficulty. Once in seven years; not 135 in five and a half." (Rabbi Yosef Edelstein, Director of the Savannah Kollel)

Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes:

"In practice, however, these punishments were almost never invoked, and existed mainly as a deterrent and to indicate the seriousness of the sins for which they were prescribed. The rules of evidence and other safeguards that the Torah provides to protect the accused made it all but impossible to actually invoke these penalties…the system of judicial punishments could become brutal and barbaric unless administered in an atmosphere of the highest morality and piety. When these standards declined among the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin...voluntarily abolished this system of penalties" (Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in Handbook of Jewish Thought, Volume II, pp. 170-71).

In Conservative Judaism the death penalty was the subject of a responsum by its Committee on Jewish Law and Standards:

"The Talmud ruled out the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases which involved a capital crime. Two witnesses were required to testify that they saw the action with their own eyes. A man could not be found guilty of a capital crime through his own confession or through the testimony of immediate members of his family. The rabbis demanded a condition of cool premeditation in the act of crime before they would sanction the death penalty; the specific test on which they insisted was that the criminal be warned prior to the crime, and that the criminal indicate by responding to the warning, that he is fully aware of his deed, but that he is determined to go through with it. In effect this did away with the application of the death penalty. The rabbis were aware of this, and they declared openly that they found capital punishment repugnant to them… There is another reason which argues for the abolition of capital punishment. It is the fact of human fallibility. Too often we learn of people who were convicted of crimes and only later are new facts uncovered by which their innocence is established. The doors of the jail can be opened, in such cases we can partially undo the injustice. But the dead cannot be brought back to life again. We regard all forms of capital punishment as barbaric and obsolete..."

Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Statement on capital punishment, 1960. Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards 1927-1970, Volume III, p. 1537-1538

Notes

• ^ For a detailed discussion on the Roman Catholic Church's view on capital punishment see chapter 3 of Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Evangelium Vitae.