When is the Death Penalty Considered Just? Six Standards Required for Capital Punishment Sentencing

I was invited by the Center for Faith and Culture podcast to speak on the theology and practice of capital punishment. I believe the episode is scheduled for release Friday, October 16th (You will be able to check it out here). Think of this episode more like a discussion rather than a lecture between four theological ethicists–of whom, I am the least.

What Are We Talking About?

Capital punishment is an act that takes the life of someone who has committed an egregious crime against another person or persons–primarily through the unlawful taking (murder) of another human life. The death penalty has gained national attention with the execution, possibly by firing squad, of Nidal Hasan who shot and killed 13 people and injured over 30 others on Fort Hood in 2009. Maybe in the future I can provide a theology of capital punishment, but for this post, you should know that those who affirm this type of penalty do so from what may be called a retribution principle or an ethic of justice.

In the discussion, one of the comments that took me by surprise was that no principles have been laid out for performing capital punishment like there has been for just war theory or self-defense cases. If people are going to hold to the morality and practice of capital punishment, we must answer the question, “What are the standards for this punishment to be justly enforced?”

I admit that I am processing this topic in real time. Therefore, you are getting a front row seat into my thoughts–buckle up because it may be a wild ride.

The Six Standards for Capital Punishment Sentencing

Here are the six standards that I think set the appropriate boundaries for capital punishment cases based on the tenants of just war advocates. (Quick aside: Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin are theologians of the past who thought through these issues. Aquinas applied these principles to matters of self-defense. I am doing the same as him by applying them to capital punishment for those who believe this is a biblical option.)

• Capital Punishment must be sanctioned by a legitimate and recognized sovereign authority–i.e., the state. God, in Romans 13:14–15, assigns governing authorities the ability to wield the sword for the benefit of society. The betterment of society is a prerequisite for this principle. This means that individuals or families cannot seek out vengeance in their own power when their loved one is murdered. Neither can the church for that matter. Capital punishment can only be administered by legitimate and recognized sovereign states. They have the power, but this does not mean they are always obligated to use it.
• Capital Punishment can only be sentenced after the justice system through due process of the law renders a guilty verdict. The basis for the death penalty is retribution or justice for the person(s) who has been murdered. We must hold the legal precedent that one is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, capital punishment becomes a viable option after reasonable and sufficient evidence confirms one’s guilt in committing a crime against humanity.
• Capital Punishment requires morally praiseworthy intentions. Intentions are one of the most complex matters to determine. The point of this standard is that those with the power to sentence the death penalty should do so out of a desire for justice rather than vengeance, popularity, political advantage, or deterrence. The underlying motive is turning this person over to God’s judgment (As an aside, God can save people who are on death row because the gospel is always greater).
• Capital Punishment should be administered in a humane and reasonably successful way. The death penalty should not be torturous nor prolong death. The means employed should be quick and highly successful to prevent maiming or unnecessary suffering of the one being punished. (Note: Dr. Jones rightly claims that if a method is not effective that does not diminish the view of capital punishment as form of justice, but rather should be adjusted to fit the criteria I am proposing here).
• Capital Punishment should be proportional to the crime that was committed. The state should ensure that the way in which we bring about the guilty party’s death is not out of proportion with their crime. Think of this like rules of engagement in combat. The enemy shoots small arms weapons at a group of Marines, they are allowed to respond proportionally which means nuclear weapons would be an invalid option since this form of warfare is considered disproportionate to small arms fire. Same concept here. The method of administering the death penalty should be proportional to the crime.
• Capital Punishment should be considered as a last resort. The level and egregiousness of the crimes committed determines if the death penalty is the appropriate punishment after considering all other disciplinary forms. This should be reserved only for the worst of crimes against humanity. The decision should also be made with a reasonable amount of moral weight because the penalty is the killing of another human life. While justice is executed, we should still mourn that life was lost due to the sins that person committed.

Thinking About A System of Justice

All these principles correspond with the rules associated with just war theory. Like Aquinas (and I am not claiming to be in the same intellectual category as him) I believe this framework provides us with the appropriate boundaries for capital punishment verdicts. If all six moral stands have been met, perhaps we have a just system for determining when to sentence a person to experience the death penalty. Again, these are my initial thoughts as I process capital punishment through a theological grid.

Don’t miss Jeremy’s next post. Enter your email below to have it delivered straight to your inbox: