“An analysis on the purpose of the death penalty from a scriptural perspective and whether adherents of the aforementioned traditions are legitimate in their affirmation or rejection of capital punishment”
The Death penalty or capital punishment as it is more commonly known in the West is a controversial subject across the globe. It has been advocated by both members of an organised religion and the faithless to serve a purpose.
In order to present an unbiased view to the subject I have only mentioned authorities on the subject, whether it is from the Sanhedrin or the Church Fathers they are all mainstream scholars who are well respected, even if they have some disputed points of view.
This article is not meant to offend any particular faith group nor is it meant to offend someone who has no faith, it is simply an academic assessment of the subject.
I would like to thank those that have assisted me in my research and allowed me to gain a better understanding of the Tanakh, the New Testament Canon and the Islamic literature.
We begin in the name of God almighty, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful
Introduction:
The death penalty, often referred to as the ‘capital punishment’ in the West[1] is the punishment handed carried out for the most heinous of crimes. The method used by the State varies from time and place. The modern world has made it seem like the death penalty is draconian and no longer relevant today due to the notion of the ‘preservation of life’ and this notion will be addressed within this article.
Before getting into the religious standpoints on Capital Punishment, it is important to understand how the Western world views the death penalty.
The Western Viewpoint:
Amnesty International states that the death penalty is ‘the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, opposing it in all cases without exception and regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution’[2].
They argue on a secular level that the death penalty is to be abolished for the following reasons:
1. It is irreversible and mistakes happen
2. It does not deter crime
3. It is used within skewered justice systems
4. It is discriminatory
5. It is used as a political tool
An assessment of the argumentation set out by Amnesty International
To argue that the death penalty is to be abolished because it is irreversible and the accused may later be exonerated is a false dichotomy. Yes, execution cannot bring a person back to life if they were wrongly executed however lifetime imprisonment of 25 years will not bring them back to their age before imprisonment.
If someone is imprisoned at 21 for a crime they did not commit and are exonerated 15 years later (as Amnesty give the hypothetical example) then they would be 36 when they leave prison. The 15 years they lost cannot be brought back and an ex-convict mentioned after being imprisoned for 20 years that[3]:
· Due to the nature of the prison, he was used to eating with very poor plastic utensils and now struggles to eat with metal cutlery
· He views the criminal justice system as a failure, with the system locking more people in cages under harsher conditions
· He found it gobsmacking that funding for prisons has grown exponentially but social services like education and healthcare are terrible
The famous case of Otis Johnson is well known, being imprisoned in 1975 and released after a 44 year sentence for the attempted murder of a police officer (released in 2014). Marieke Liem, a researcher from Harvard Kennedy School interviewed prisoners who served decades behind bars and concluded the following:
1. There is a lack of resources for ex-convicts after prison, stating that there is barely any support for them. Modern technology, public transport, making simple life choices are a barrier for most ex-prisoners and Liem said that “How can you be expected to function as a member of society” after leaving the prison system
2. After leaving prison, Otis was given ID, $40 and two bus tickets and he is heavily dependant on the Fortune Society to survive
3. His saving grace was the local mosque which provided him with a source of guidance and local support from the Muslim community
How can one argue that life imprisonment and no support after the sentence is more humane than the death penalty, when the latter is a quick procedure and the other is psychological, mental and physical torture for the rest of their life. This is why nearly 1 in every 5 ex-prisoners committed suicide after release from prison[4].
The argument that the death penalty does not deter crime is twofold:
a. It does not deter criminals
A rational human being would acknowledge that the punishment for murder in a death penalty State is death. They would not act on it for fear of their own life being taken by the State however some argue that it can lead to murder.
b. It can sometimes lead to homicide
A counter argument to the death penalty is that it leads to murder. A case study where a man in the United States walked into a café and shot an innocent bystander only to be shot by police, when questioned stated that he was ‘tired by life’. This is a failure of the State for providing for its citizens and not the inadequacy of the punishment.
The argument that it can be used as a political tool, or that the justice system is unfair is not a reason for the punishment to be outlawed but rather a problem in modern day society. If government prison systems are openly corrupt then how can it be argued that the system is fairer for convicts that death.
Discrimination against convicts is a sad reality but this is a part of the cruel system that is in place today. Black people are more likely to be penalised by the courts and usually face much harsher sentences. This failure of the Western justice system is not the fault of the death penalty but rather the governments in power.
Crime Statistics Comparison:
If we compare the two very different States – United States (West) and Saudi Arabia (East) for the following crimes:
The West Vs The East
Crime:
Saudi Arabia
United States
Homicide
1.04 (Per 100,000) – Ranked 86th
4.7 (Per 100,000) – Ranked 7th and 5 times more than Saudi Arabia
Prisoners per 1000
1.31 Prisoners – Ranked 67th
7.02 Prisoners – Ranked 2nd and more than 5 times higher than Saudi Arabia
Capital Punishment
Both the United States and Saudi Arabia are ranked 1st for capital punishment at 2,014
Total Crimes per 1000
3.88 – Ranked 71st
41.29 – Ranked 22nd and more than 11 times higher than Saudi Arabia
It is important to note that these figures are in context of their relevant population sizes. The United States is indeed much bigger but in comparison to its population the averages have been worked out to fairly match them against other nations.
What does the West think of murder?
The most common crime that calls for the death penalty is murder. Below are the following punishments by the West for murder[6].
§ United Kingdom - Up until 1957, the penalty for adultsconvicted of murder was death by hanging. This was slowly phased out through the Homicide Act which limited the circumstances in which murderers could be executed. The death penalty faced more restrictions in 1965 and was abolished completely in 1998 with the Human Rights Act
§ United States – The US Code states that whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or life imprisonment
§ France – The Criminal Code of France states that murder is punished by criminal imprisonment
§ Germany – The German Code states that whoever commits murder under the conditions of this provision incurs a penalty of imprisonment for life
§ Italy – The Italian Criminal Code mentions that anyone who causes the death of a man is punished with imprisonment of not less than twenty-one years
It is very clear that the punishment for murder two millennia ago is still the same two thousand years later. This is because the act of killing a human being is one of the greatest evils one can undertake.
The Juda’ic Position:
Judaism is based on the תָּנָ״ךְ (Tanakh[7]), which consists of 4 primary collections:
It is very easy to cite scripture out of context to prove a point, as is the modern-day trend in the polemical field. For the purpose of religious accuracy only reputable authorities will be cited alongside my own assessment of the subject.
The Talmud has a range of discussions on the above statements found within the Torah and the most perplexing to a liberalist secular individual is possibly the command that:
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear”[15]
A wayward individual with malice in their hearts would cite such scripture mockingly and state that the Tanakh is simply calling for the deaths of people at every turn. This is far from the truth and famous Rabbis have stated that the burden of proof is very difficult to establish. The reason being often overlooked but the ‘statements’ are to deter people from sinning and only to be enacted in the final stage.
אמר רב כהנא סנהדרי שראו כולן לחובה פוטרין אותו מ"ט כיון דגמירי הלנת דין למעבד ליה זכותא והני תו לא חזו ליה
“In a Sanhedrin where all the judges saw fit to convict the defendant in a case of capital law, they acquit him. It is since it is learned as a tradition that suspension of the trial overnight is necessary in order to create a possibility of acquittal”. [And as those judges all saw fit to convict him, they will not see any further possibility to acquit him, because there will not be anyone arguing for such a verdict. Consequently, he cannot be convicted]
He mentioned that a capital case (like murder) had to be decided by a Sanhedrin[17] of 23 judges. If the conviction was unanimous but decided too quickly then the accused was acquitted on the presumption that the judges were rash in their judgement.
The stricter rule that two witnesses need to warn the accused before they commit the crime as stated by Rabbi Yosei[18]:
רבי יוסי אומר לעולם אין נהרגין עד שיהו שני עדיו מתרין בו שנאמר
“Transgressors are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him”
All these ‘barriers’ to capital punishment are in the spirit that the death penalty should be a last resort and that the court (referring to the Sanhedrin) that enacts the punishment is a destructive tribunal for 7 years.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya[19] stated that the 7 years mentioned in the Mishnah is symbolic and refers to 70 years whilst Rabbi Tarfon[20] and Akiva[21] held the position that if they were in the Sanhedrin then the trial would have been conducted to avoid the capital punishment due to its destructive (but necessary) nature.
The famous Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated regarding the Mishnah that the aforementioned approach of Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva is counterproductive as the criminal would know that there would be no actual execution and therefore the homicide rate would increase and that the punishment is to be enacted once all the barriers were overcome (i.e. the most serious cases).
Religious discussion:
Rabbi Louis Jacobs stated that the power of the Sanhedrin to impose the death penalty was ended by the Romans in the first century and that the discussions from the Talmud are theoretical. This indicates the possibility that the punishment is acting as a deterrent.
The Famous Rambam Maimonides stated in his commentary the Mishnah Toraah that:
“In the case where someone commits murder, but the accused cannot be convicted on a technicality then he/she is fed bread and water till he aches and then fed barley till his stomach implodes”[22]
Modern Jewish Views:
Modern Jewish views on the death penalty have changed drastically to match the western notion of ‘justice’. Gallup found that 54% of Jews questioned thought that the death penalty was morally acceptable, a stark contrast from Protestantism at 66% and Catholicism at 61% (see figure 1.2).
It needs to be noted that 38% of Jews said that suicide is morally acceptable and 1/5 thought that extramarital affairs were acceptable. The level of adherents to the Jewish law has dropped drastically and this outcome by Gallup is unsurprising as a result.
Conclusion:
To conclude on the Juda’ic position there is no better scholar to rely on than the Rambam himself who said that:
“It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death”[24]
A comparative study will follow later but the traditional Jewish understanding is that the death penalty is to be administered once all the barriers were overcome (i.e. the modern notion of guilty beyond reasonable doubt) and that the punishment is to be regulated and not handed out like western secular states[25] where racism and bigotry are rampant.
The Christian Position:
There are too many opinionated individuals in the modern day who have not studied the scripture through the traditional methods. This is unfortunately a trend in Christianity, Judaism and Islam and for this reason I will cite early authorities and scholars of the subject.
Due to the vast number of denominational differences, this assessment will solely focus on the biggest denominations (Catholicism and Protestantism) with mentions of other denominations when deemed relevant.
Whether a modern-day Karen believes in xyz is irrelevant as the mainstream Christian belief is that scripture is inerrant whilst humans are not. So a human being can be mistaken however the Word of God cannot according to the Church.
God is not dependant on what an individual thinks, whether one chooses to accept or reject his laws is independent of the fact that these laws exist.
Christian Authorities:
The Christian faith is based primarily on the:
1. The 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have become universally accepted however plenty more existed and some pre-dated the aforementioned gospels)
2. 13 Letters of Paul (epistles)
3. The Acts of the Apostles
4. The Letter to the Hebrews
5. 7 Epistles (affirmed by Catholics but rejected by Protestants)
6. The Book of Revelation
The total of 27 books compiled and considered the New Testament is found[26] by Saint Athanasius dated in the year 367 C.E. This compilation was ratified in the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa.
Pope Innocent I ratified the canon of 27 books in 405 C.E however some scholars have disputed this.
It is not precisely known when the four gospels were written however the scholars John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated the gospels to the years prior to 70 C.E This was heavily disputed by scholars like Stephen L Harris and Bart D Ehrman[27].
What can be agreed upon (mostly) is the statement in the New Oxford Annotated Bible that:
“Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching”[28]
The Church Fathers:
Like any faith, the earliest followers had a mixture of views, some of which were accepted and others deemed heretical. This led to a rise in what is now known as the ‘Church Fathers’.
Church Fathers were the scholars of Christianity from the earliest age and defended the faith ardently.
If an individual disagrees with a Church Father then there is no problem however if it is universally accepted by the corpus of Church Fathers then we accept their stance and reject the one disagreeing unless they can establish that they are more learned on Christianity than the earliest followers of the Church.
Saint Justin Martyr:
Saint Justin Martyr stated that the Christians of his time ‘refrain from making war and would rather die than take a life in self-defence[29]. Some might use this as an ultimatum that the death penalty should not be considered as a Christian should ‘refrain from making war and taking lives’ however the context of his statement is important.
He lived during a time of persecution and the Christians were in no position to retaliate against the Romans or enact the death penalty themselves. This could possibly be due to the weakness of the Christians at the time, as they could not fight back they made statements which made it seem like fighting back was not allowed.
Saint Athenagoras of Athens - Earliest Church Father to reject the death penalty:
He stated that:
“We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly”[30]
However this was in the context of the accusation that Christianity is a cruel religion, he was merely defending the faith by stating that it was a peace-loving faith.
Saint Clement of Alexandria:
Clement of Alexandria followed Athenagoras around 100 years later but held the diametrically opposite view and stated that:
“When one falls into any incurable evil, it will be for his good if he is put to death”[31]
The Father of Latin Christianity - Tertullian
A famous contemporary of Saint Clement was Tertullian who argued for pacifism. He went to the extreme that Christians should not serve in the military and garnered support from Hippolytus for his stance[32].
The Cicero of Christianity – Lactantius
Lactantius held a very interesting viewpoint on the death penalty. He stated in his work De Ira Dei (on the Anger of God) that:
“But if this is so, it follows that we have injurious laws, which enact punishment for offenders, and injurious judges who inflict capital punishments on those convicted of crime. But if the law is just which awards to the transgressor his due, and if the judge is called upright and good when he punishes crimes—for he guards the safety of good men who punishes the evil—it follows that God, when He opposes the evil, is not injurious; but he himself is injurious who either injures an innocent man, or spares an injurious person that he may injure many”[33]
Lactintius argues a more logical standpoint on the death penalty. He states that it is abhorred when conducted unjustly. He argued that ‘the prohibition that a man must not kill is in regards to the concept that life and death is at the discretion of God only. However God has granted the State power over life and provided the power is utilised properly the ability to enact the death penalty is permitted’ and sometimes necessary.
Saint Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine – The Right of the State
Saint Ambrose[34] stated that the normal man had the duty to refer from taking someone’s life however the State had the right to execute criminals however they should exhaust all avenues to exonerate the accused. He famously said to Studius:
“You will be excused if you do it, but you will be admired if you refrain when you were able to do it but refrained”[35]
Saint Augustine[36] held the position that a good Christian ruler was ‘slow to punish but quick to forgive’[37].
He wrote in another work that the capital punishment was allowed when all avenues were exhausted and perhaps extreme necessity would demand the killing of such people.
The Roman Catholic Church – Cardinal Avery Dulles
Cardinal Avery Dulles is a famous theologian of the Roman Catholic Curch and an ardent defendant of capital punishment. This was in response to the liberal catholic opposition from politicions and those who argued that the catholic teaching prohibited the death penalty.
He said in a seminar: “Self-defence of society continues to justify the death penalty”[38]
He went further to argue that Pope John Paul II and the bishops have followed the classical Catholic tradition that has allowed the death penalty. He is famous for stating that Catholicism never advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty”.
He distinguished between the Church and the State. The purpose of the Church is mercy and the purpose of the State is justice. In a Christian country the State should lean more towards mercy however the capital punishment must remain to keep people in check.
The Protestant Church – Martin Luther
Martin Luther wrote regarding the act of execution that:
“the hand that wields the sword and strangles is… no longer man’s hand but God’s”[39]
He thought that executioners were ‘useful’ and ‘merciful’ as they stopped criminals and deterred crime from taking place.
Modern Christianity – Support For or Against?
YouGov conducted a survey of the United Kingdom[40] on the death penalty and concluded the following:
· 40% of Britons support the death penalty
· Conservative voters are more likely to support the death penalty than Labour voters
· Britons aged over 65 are twice as more likely to defend the death penalty[41]
Biblical Commentary:
The Book of Romans has a very interesting passage by Saint Saul[42], in which he says:
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For 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 you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience”[43]
Those that claim that the necessity of punishment is no longer required due to the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ are questioned with the passage above as:
1. It states that everyone is subject to the rulership of man
2. The rulership of man is through the ordinance of God
3. Whoever refuses to obey will bring judgement on themselves
4. Rulers are not feared by the good-doers however they strike fear in the criminals
5. Rulers do not ‘bear the sword’ for no reason, they are God’s agents of wrath to bring punishment to criminals
6. Submit to the rulers or face the punishment for rebellion against God and the State
Saint Saul is writing this letter much later after the alleged crucifixion so he knew that Christ died for everyone’s sins, yet he said that the authorities had the right to punish within their means.
Clarke’s Commentary (Protestant):
Clarke’s Commentary regarding verse 4 states that:
“He beareth not the sword in vain – His power is delegated to him for the defence and encouragement of the good and the punishment of the wicked and he has the authority to punish capitally when the law so requires”[44]
Matthew Poole’s Commentary (Protestant):
Matthew Poole’s commentary regarding verse number 4 states that:
“Here is another reason why evil-doers (as before) should be afraid of the magistrate; or rather, the same reason in other and plainer words; because he is God’s officer to execute wrath (punishment) upon him that doeth evil; he is in God’s room upon earth, and doth the work which primarily belongeth unto him”[45]
Wesley’s Notes Commentary (Protestant):
Wesley’s Notes commentary regarding verse number 4 states that:
“The sword - The instrument of capital punishment, which God authorizes him to inflict”[46]
Barnes’ Notes Commentary (Protestant):
Barnes’ Notes commentary regarding verse number 4 states that:
“…Vengeance is said to belong to God. Yet he "executes" his vengeance by means of subordinate agents. It belongs to him to take vengeance by direct judgments, by the plague, famine, sickness, or earthquakes; by the appointment of magistrates; or by letting loose the passions of people to prey upon each other. When a magistrate inflicts punishment on the guilty, it is to be regarded as the act of God taking vengeance "by him;" and on this principle only is it right for a judge to condemn a man to death. It is not because one man has by nature any right over the life of another, or because "society" has any right collectively which it has not as individuals; but because "God" gave life, and because he has chosen to take it away when crime is committed by the appointment of magistrates, and not by coming forth himself visibly to execute the laws”[47]
Haydock’s Commentary (Catholic):
Haydock’s commentary regarding verse number 4 states that:
“Let every soul, or every one, be subject, &c.[1] The Jews were apt to think themselves not subject to temporal princes, as to taxes, &c. and lest Christians should misconstrue their Christian liberty, he here teacheth them that every one (even priests and bishops, says St. Chrysostom) must be subject and obedient to princes, even to heathens, as they were at that time, as to laws that regard the policy of the civil government, honouring them, obeying them, and their laws, as it is the will of God, because the power they act by is from God. So that to resist them, is to resist God. And every Christian must obey them even for conscience-sake”[48]
Conclusion:
To conclude on the Christian position is difficult as the theological differences make it hard to provide a solid argument. The vast majority of commentaries and scholars (aforementioned) have affirmed that the death penalty is the right of the State and must be applied fairly.
Some have disagreed and stated that the love propagated by Jesus Christ supersedes the punishment for death however Saint Saul (from whom we gain our information regarding the belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins) in the text clearly states that:
“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”[49]
It is well known that Saint Saul recognised the State’s authority to capital punishment through the aforementioned verses and as explained by the Church Fathers and theologians.
The famous Catholic Saint Thomas Aquinas defends the use of the death penalty in civil law cases. He views the death of an individual criminal who is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as for the good of the community in order to preserve the common good.
He states:
“Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump”[50]
The Islamic Position:
The Islamic position on capital punishment is based on four primary sources of religious information:
1. The Holy Qur’an – It claims to be the direct word from God almighty and therefore the highest liturgical scripture in Islam
2. The Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad[51] - These are the statements, actions and tacit approvals of the Prophet (and by extension the Sahaba[52])
3. Ijma’ – A source of Islamic Law is the consensus of Religious Scholars (of a School of Thought)
The two biggest Schools are the Sunni and Shi’a methodologies however the Sunni School is the earliest and dominant (85%+ adherents of the total Muslim population) school so only this school will be discussed.
4. Qiyas – Analogical Reasoning – This was used as a logical approach when inferences are made using logic
The Holy Qur’an:
The Holy Qur’an is very clear on crimes which are recognisable as capital offences (known as Qisas) like murder. The scripture says:
“O you who believe (addressing the Muslims), it has been ordained for you retribution in (cases) of murder. The free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female (i.e the guilty party is executed regardless of their status in society)[53]
The aforementioned verse is in alignment with the Tanakh’s teaching of an eye for an eye. However, God almighty in the scripture then states:
“Whoever pardons his brother (figurative meaning the accused) and provides a suitable follow-up (i.e. compensation for the crime to the deceased’s family and given a chance to reform). This is an alleviation from your Lord and (from) his mercy”
The aforementioned verse is clear that capital punishment is permitted in cases of murder however Islamic Law is clear that this responsibility is down to the State and not any individual.
The Responsibility of an Individual and The State:
The role of an individual and the State is very clearly defined in Islamic Jurisprudence.
The Responsibility of an Individual:
The Holy Qur’an states the following regarding the responsibility of an individual with regards to the law on the sanctity of life:
“Whoever kills a human being except for a soul (i.e retaliation for murder – an eye for an eye) mandated by God through the State) or due to them causing corruption on the earth, it is as if they have killed the entire human race, and whoever saves a life, it is as if he has saved the entire human race”[54]
The Holy Qur’an is very clear that an individual cannot kill on his or her own accord. To do this atrocity is as if they have destroyed the entire human race. The punishment for murder can only be handled by the State.
The Sunnah of the Prophet:
The primary notion that many fail to understand that Islam is not a pacifistic faith. Unlike some Church Fathers mentioned earlier who argued for pacifism in all cases, the Prophet of God understood that evil exists and that a completely pacifistic approach is not sensible.
The Responsibility of the State:
God almighty always instructed for peace and harmony and the Prophet followed this example practically. It is not always feasible to forgive as the harm to society is more important than an individual life.
For example, the Prophet of God was informed that a women was brutally attacked, her head was smashed open and her body dumped in a well – all for her jewellery[55]. The murderer was not the brightest as he dumped the body whilst in plain view of others. He was brought before the Grand Court of Madinah in Masjid al-Nabawi and after hearing the claim and the evidence he passed the capital punishment for stoning on the murderer.
What was the crime of the women for her to be brutally attacked and killed. Those that argue that the murderer should be allowed to live whilst the women is dead is unfair and contrary to the justice of God.
It is important to note that the burden of proof is very difficult for capital punishment cases. They require witnesses who must attest to the crime. If the witness is caught lying then they themselves face a punishment and are no longer deemed a valid witness until the court deems so.
There are plenty of cases where the Prophet tried his very best to preserve the sanctity of life. The famous case of an adulterer who came to the Prophet and admitted his crime to the Prophet. The Prophet turned away and the adulterer went around and the Prophet turned away again. This happened a few times till the Prophet asked if ‘the man is insane’. He was told that the man was sane and when the man was questioned he said ‘I am guilty of the crime’, so the Prophet passed the judgement for him to be stoned.
Conclusion:
The death penalty in Islam is a deterrent and not a punishment to be handed out at every turn. The judge in Islamic Law looks at the commands of God almighty in the Holy Qur’an and the precedents set out by the Prophet and the Sahaba.
The Capital Punishment according to the Sunni School of Thought is justified for the most heinous of crimes. Only after a fair trial and when they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is doubt regarding a murderer then the option to forgive and pay compensation to the family of the murdered (even if they are not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, if there is a chance they are innocent then this method is mandated by the Shari’a).
The Holy Qur’an speaks about capital offences and almost always mentions the standpoint that mercy is to considered when discussing law, as the 2nd Caliph Umar said that the one who does not show mercy, mercy will not be shown to him[56].
The fundamental point in Islamic Law is that capital punishment is only for publicly advertised crimes. The crime of adultery is only capitally punishable if made public by the individual or by a witness (as is the case if they flaunt themselves out of arrogance). Any sins that a person does in private is their own covenant between them and God and the State cannot get involved.
This is because a public display of a capital sin is considered rebellion against the State and this is treason. Treason is still punishable by death in many western countries and for the greater good of society the capital punishment is mandated to prevent others from considering treason.
To conclude, Islam allows for the capital punishment in extreme cases when the crime is publicised and retribution is called for. The Shari’a allows for forgiveness depending on the crime and limits the authority of the State in handing out punishment but recognises that evil exists and must be controlled. The actions of a modern day State that claims to be ‘Islamically run’ do not represent the faith in anyway whatsoever. Actions from terrorist factions like Isis are as Islamic as the KKK are Christian. The key is to go to the scripture and not the people, as the Scripture is inerrant and infallible whilst human beings are fallible.
Summary Conclusion:
YouGov did a survey on the capital punishment for heinous crimes and what Britons thought of in terms of punishment and they concluded the following
The most common opposition to the death penalty is that it is inhumane or unfair. In cases where multiple murders happen or the murder of a child and the culprit is guilty beyond reasonable doubt then people chose to support the punishment.
The pick and choose mentality is problematic as the essence of morality becomes questionable. For this reason religion by and large has allowed for the death penalty, however with its restrictions and rulings.
I would argue that the Orthodox position of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are fundamentally the same, if not similar. The death penalty is permitted in cases where society is put at risk. For the greater good, the life of a criminal is not as important as the lives of the community. However the State should do everything to ensure that other avenues are first explored and proper support is provided in order to preserve life and the community.
The Western stance that it is inhumane, unfair or cruel is ironic as the punishment of ‘lifetime imprisonment’ is psychological, emotional, physical and mental torture. The death penalty is usually quick depending on the method and the suffering is limited however cruel systems can easily make the punishment more barbaric. This is not the fault of the punishment but due to a failed system or society.
In a cost of living crisis for many people across the world, taxpayers money is used on criminals for their survival, when they are deemed a threat to society.
This is the reason why the capital punishment was allowed, not encouraged and anyone who claims that a particular faith advocates for it is either mistaken or lying. It is simply the final resort and if a State claims to follow a particular faith but then acts in contrary to it, the faith and its teachings are free from blame but the State or society is to blame.
So adherents to the aforementioned faiths should accept that the death penalty is part of the faith, whether they agree with it or not is their own personal choice and not what is mandated by God almighty. There is room for disagreement on how it is carried out in the modern world but the three faiths all allow for capital punishment in controlled environments, under the authority of the State.
Reference List:
[1] The West referring to countries like the United Kingdom, United States etc
[2] Amnesty International – The Death Penalty available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/
[3] Slate – “How is life outside after being in Prison for over 20 years” available at: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/01/life-in-prison-what-life-is-like-after-being-in-prison-for-decades.html
[4] This is data collected from 2005 – 2009, National Library of Medicine, Research paper by Axel Haglund et al, available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4520329/
[5] Figure 1.1 – Available at https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Saudi-Arabia/United-States/Crime#saudi%20arabia
[16] Rabbi Kahana [290-320 C.E] (III) was a student of Rav Yehudah b. Yechezkel and then of Rabbah b. Nachmani in Babylonia. He studied under the latter together with Rav Safra, with whom he moved to Israel, where they studied under R. Abahu. Rav Kahana however moved back to Babylonia and established an academy in Pum-Nahara. It is there that he taught Rav Ashi.
[18]Rabbi Yose b. Chalafta learned from many teachers but was a disciple of R. Akiva. Preserving many traditions from his father, he served as an authority in transmitting them to his younger contemporaries. He is credited with the compilation of Seder Olam, the classical compendium of traditional history
[19] Rabbi Elazar b. Azaryah was among the scholars in Yavneh at the time of Rabban Gamliel. When the Sanhedrin temporarily deposed Rabban Gamliel, they installed R. Elazar as his replacement. Beyond his scholarship, he was also known for his great wealth and generosity
[20] Rabbi Tarfon was a priest who lived at the time of the Temple's destruction and continued the practice of eating tithes even afterwards. He was a great scholar who frequently disagreed with R. Akiva, but was still his friend and ally. He is also known for his strong opposition to early Christianity
[21] Rabbi Akiva was a student of R. Tarfon, R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, but quickly became their colleague. Coming from a simple family of converts, he started his studies at 40 at the behest of his wife, Rachel. At the height of his glory, he is reputed to have had 24,000 students. Yet these students died prematurely, and his prolific teachings were passed on by a small elite following. In the face of Roman persecution, he supported Bar Kokhva's revolt and ultimately died as a martyr
[22] Mishnah Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 4
[23] U.S. Religious Groups Disagree on Five Key Moral Issues by Gallup, available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/191903/religious-groups-disagree-five-key-moral-issues.aspx?g_source=position2&g_medium=related&g_campaign=tiles
[27] It is important to note that Bart D Ehrman is no longer Christian and for this paper to present a fair depiction I have mentioned this note
[28] Cousland, J.R.C. (2010). Coogan, Michael David; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom, Carol Ann; Perkins, Pheme (eds.). The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Oxford University Press. p. 1744. ISBN978-0-19-528955-8.
[32] Baelor Breakwind, Apostolic Tradition 16.9-11 and the Military Oath, available at: https://www.academia.edu/38077677/Apostolic_Tradition_16.9-11_and_the_Military_Oath
[34] He is Ambrose of Milan, known famously as Saint Ambrose. A famous theologian who served as the Bishop of Milan during the years 374-397 C.E. He is well known for his defence of Christianity against the heretical movement of Arianism and paganism
[36] He is Augustine of Hippo, known famously as Saint Augustine and a theologian and philosopher in the Roman controlled North Africa. His writings influenced the Western sphere of Christianity and is considered one of the most important Church Fathers of the Latin Church
[42] He is more famously known as Saint Paul, a Jewish man who originally persecuted the followers of Jesus until he saw him on the road to Damascus (through a vision). He then went on a spiritual journey and began preaching what is now the ‘theological beliefs of Christianity’
[43] The New Testament, Romans 13 – Verses 1-5, New International Version (NIV) Translation, available at: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013%3A1-7&version=NIV
[51] The final messenger of God almighty according to Muslim tradition
[52] The word Sahaba literally translate to ‘Companions’ however in a modern sense they are his students and learnt the religious knowledge from him. This includes his wives who taught primarily on female related issues and to be considered a ‘Companion’ they must have met the Prophet (whilst being Muslim) and died on the faith
