Christians and the Death Penalty - Just not Mandatory

I have been asked, and I would try to answer, should Christians support the death penalty? I am no biblical expert or theologian, but it won't be too far to say that much of the diverse views within the Christian community towards the death penalty has to do with different instances when death was dealt as a punishment in the Old and New Testaments.

There are many instances in the Old Testament where we see death as a punishment for sins against God. Genesis examples include the flood of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah while in Exodus we witness the destruction of Egyptian army in the Red Sea.

In fact, capital punishment was instituted by God in the Jewish law code. HOWEVER, the principle of capital punishment even PREcedes the Old Testament law code where capital punishment is meted out when an act transgresses against the sacred life given by God, "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." (Gen 9:6)

The conflict comes about upon inspection of the New Testament where compassion, forgiveness and repentance are central themes to the Passion of Christ; where we are taught to "turn the other cheek" and "he who was without sin cast the first stone".

However, one must make the distinction that capital punishment was made in the image humans who are of God and created by God ["Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man."] and enacted before the Old Testament theocracy law code. The principle of capital punishment is not rooted in the Old Testament (and hence, some argue, should go because of the New Testament); rather the principle was based on the creation order. This ought to be the broader philosopy that should be considered.

Some would argue that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was arguing against the principle of an eye for eye. But in fact, he was speaking to each individual Christian on the issue of a personal desire for vengeance. He is not arguing against the right to rule of government but telling them that they should not try to overthrow the government and rather, love thy enemy as I have loved you, to turn the other cheek.

And for the case of the woman caught for adultery that was not stoned, Jesus did not teach that henceforth there should be no more punishments meted out to adulterers. Jesus was trying again to teach us that every stone should be measured and weighed and not just thrown for a blind adherrence to laws. Contextually, Jesus was also being watched by the Pharisees. If Jesus had asked for the woman to be stoned, then he would have broken the Roman law and a outright refusal to stone would mean that Jesus had broken the theocracy laws. Hence, Jesus avoided the conflict by asking he who had not sinned throw the first stone. We have also seen that Jesus and his disciples did not specifically refute the Old Testament established order of capital punishment but preached that we punish with compassion and much thought.

And it is not only the Old Testament that sanctions death penalty. Romans 13:1-7 wrote on the authority of a secular government and the authority to mete out certain punishments for the government does not bear the sword in vain. [Romans 13:4 "For 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."] There is a cause for capital punishment because of the sanctity of human life and because we are created in God's image.

What we Christians must be clear about is that not every adulterer must be stoned and not every murderer must have life taken away. Compassion, the agent of repentance and mitigation of the circumstances surrounding the crime must be considered just as Jesus Christ has always given sinners a chance to repent and enter the Kingdom of God. And judges as the highest authority of and on our laws must have the power, the authority and the moral obligation to weigh every crime and mete out varying punishments. In this spirit, I am against the mandatory death penalty and its entailed draconian nature cast upon our legislation.

Yong Vui Kong loses appeal - It's up to the politicians now

Yong Vui Kong’s appeal was denied as Singapore’s highest judicial authority, the Court of Appeal, declared the mandatory death penalty is constitutional. I have earlier written about the harshness of the mandatory death penalty here. I really hope that the judiciary, the government and the law fraternity won’t stop at this juncture in terms of reviewing the mandatory death penalty. The burden of judicial discretion or mitigation should not only be borne by the narcotics officers and public prosecutors but also be shared by the judges, who btw are the highest legal authority on this land.

On 14th May 10, “in a landmark ruling, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong reaffirmed the line of decisions passed in Ong Ah Chuan and Nguyen. He ruled that Article 9 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which establishes that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, neither precluded ‘inhuman punishment’ nor did it embrace customary international law that prohibits the mandatory death penalty…Furthermore, he noted the lack of an explicit prohibition against inhuman punishment in the Singapore Constitution.”

Interesting, “the court also did not find applicable the Indian Supreme Court ruling that declared the mandatory death penalty inconsistent with their constitutional equivalent of Article 9 (1). CJ Chan found that to accept the Indian standard of a ‘fair, just and reasonable procedure’ would require judicial interpretation of the scope of ‘reasonable’ – thus potentially leading to a conflict with Parliament.”

With that I would think that CJ has put the ball into the politicians’ court or by saying that he meant that since Justices are appointed by the government of the day they should somewhat abide by their political view? In any event, it’s similar to what I have already said earlier that hope on the judges to rule in a controversial manner is mostly bleak – change has to come from the politicians.

Lastly, CJ sort drew down the curtain on the court’s role in the debate of the mandatory death penalty when he “observed that Yong’s appeal have had mustered the most substantive constitutional arguments against the mandatory death penalty. As such, the rejection of this appeal would mean that ‘under Singapore law as it stands, further challenges in court [against the mandatory death penalty] have been foreclosed.’”

A depressively sad reflective day.