Mr. Williams, an author and Nobel Peace and Literature Prizes nominee who was put to death on December 13, 2005 by lethal injection by the state of California, brought capital punishment back into prominent public debate.
Mr. Williams was convicted of four murders committed in 1979, and sentenced to death. Williams professed innocence of these crimes. He was also co-founder of the Crips, a deadly and powerful Los Angeles-based street gang responsible for hundreds of murders.
About five years after incarceration, Mr. Williams underwent a religious conversion and, as a result, authored many books and programs to promote peace and to fight gangs and gang violence. He was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize and four times for the Nobel Literature Prize.
Mr. Williams' was a self-admitted life of crime and violence, followed by genuine redemption and a life of uniquely and unusually good works.
The circumstantial evidence against Williams left little doubt that he committed the four murders, despite last-minute claims by supporters. There also existed no doubt that Mr. Williams posed no further threat to society, and would contribute considerable good.
- The case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams forced public reflection on the purpose of the death penalty:
- Is the purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more harm?
- Is the purpose to remove from society someone who is incapable of rehabilitation?
- Is the purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder?
- Is the purpose of the death penalty to punish the criminal?
- Is the purpose of the death penalty to take retribution on behalf of the victim?"
7 comments:
From the perspective of the Old Testament law, the purpose of the death penalty was not as a deterrent or to remove someone from society who would cause harm. It was a revenge thing - "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." If someone killed a member of another family, the "avenger of blood" - a member of that family - had a right and, it could even be said, an obligation to kill the murderer. The law even applied in situations of manslaughter or unintentional killings - though the law provided for cities of refuge to which someone guilty of an unintentional killing could flee to avoid the avenger of blood.
The New Testament is harder to get a handle on, as it seems as though Jesus is against the death penalty and for extending as much mercy as possible.
To answer the question about the purpose of the death penalty, I think many people would argue that it is intended to serve as a deterrent. Research has shown, though, that it does not function well as such.
In some cases, the death penalty does remove from society someone who poses a threat. Again, though, the Tookie Williams case mitigates that as "the" purpose for the death penalty.
Personally, what I think the death penalty still boils down to is the same reasoning as the Old Testament Law - avenging the victim. For Christians, then, the issue we have to address is whether that is an appropriate attitude to have in light of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.
In the case of Tookie Williams, a grievous mistake was clearly made. Here the law functioned in such a way as to cause more harm to society than to make society safer.
I would say that the death penalty serves to acknowledge that certain acts are so heinous as to deserve death. It is a collective statement about morality, and it illuminates the fact that there are indeed degrees of immorality if not also evil.
Any argument that tries to attempt to put the New Testament spin on it that Jesus called us to turn the other cheek, fails because it doesn't allow for God's final determination of all things. For some reason, we have this notion that this current human life is the ultimate existence; it is instead only the penultimate. To be out of this life is to finally be in the hands of the only One who is a just judge. Therefore, whether a human being leaves this earth as the result of the death penalty or old age, either way he or she ends up before a loving, just, and merciful God.
To claim that a person whose life ends via the death penalty (I hesitate to say "is cut short by the death penalty" because it may well indeed be that the moment of death via death penalty is the correct moment for that person's death--not a moment too soon! [or too late]) is not afforded any future opportunity for repentence does not admit that there exist opportunities for repentence exist in multifarious ways and places. Romans 1:18-32 seems clear on this point.
Finally, but not exhaustively, "Turn the other cheek" and "go the second mile" were more commentary on social and relational structures than universal, carte blanche axioms to be applied to any and every situation. They were more about how to live as Kingdom persons in an unjust, uncivil, and indeed unkingdom-like world.
Thanks Keith for wrangling me into this mess. Now what do you think?
Andy,
I didn't mean to imply that I think the "turn the other cheek" passage was about the death penalty. Only that there are texts that indicate that perhaps Jesus was "against" the death penalty. Another example might be the woman caught in adultery - a capital offense...
The issue is troublesome from the perspective of both testaments, but especially so - in my mind - in the New Testament.
That said, I tend to agree with your overall point about how Christians can (maybe even should) understand the death penalty.
One question - when you refer to the "multifarious" ways and places of repentance, are you hinting at a theology that would allow for post-death repentance (i.e., could someone in "hell" somehow repent and be saved)? This is an interesting line of thought...
Joe, I'm not saying someone could repent in hell (whatever "hell" is), I'm simply saying that God is the final arbiter of who does and doesn't make it into eternity with Him. In other words, we can't know with 100% certainty the state of someone's heart the moment of death, and we simply don't know with finality exactly how God will choose to apply Christ's redemption.
Keith, I still await your riposte.
Fool - I am confused by these two statements. Not about content, but how they can be coming from the same person.
"Personally, what I think the death penalty still boils down to is the same reasoning as the Old Testament Law - avenging the victim. For Christians, then, the issue we have to address is whether that is an appropriate attitude to have in light of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament."
and...
"That said, I tend to agree with your overall point about how Christians can (maybe even should) understand the death penalty."
Andrew James - Can you please explain what you mean by this paragraph:
"To claim that a person whose life ends via the death penalty (I hesitate to say "is cut short by the death penalty" because it may well indeed be that the moment of death via death penalty is the correct moment for that person's death--not a moment too soon! [or too late]) is not afforded any future opportunity for repentence does not admit that there exist opportunities for repentence exist in multifarious ways and places. Romans 1:18-32 seems clear on this point."
Also, I'm confused on this sentence:
"Any argument that tries to attempt to put the New Testament spin on it that Jesus called us to turn the other cheek, fails because it doesn't allow for God's final determination of all things."
How does anything we do change whether God has the final call on everything?
As for the first comment about the death penalty not affording future opportunity for repentence, I'm simply saying that I think it can be argued biblically that opportunities for repentence have certainly existed prior and right up the moment of execution.
As for the second comment I admit it wasn't very clearly stated. What I was trying to say is that when some Christians try to argue that turning the other cheek eliminates grounds for the death penalty on the basis that their judment is up to God not us (in this life) fails to admit that this life isn't the place of final judgment, therefore the death penalty is not enforcing final judgment.
Thanks for seeking clarification.
So, where do you stand?
This might be the longest sentence EVER.
"What I was trying to say is that when some Christians try to argue that turning the other cheek eliminates grounds for the death penalty on the basis that their judment is up to God not us (in this life) fails to admit that this life isn't the place of final judgment, therefore the death penalty is not enforcing final judgment."
I don't think that it is important where the final judgement takes place. I think that it is important that we allow as much time as possible for them to make that choice. God talk a lot about "hardened" hearts and "scales" over peoples eyes. He also talks about those scales falling off and people being able to see.
Maybe they need those scales to fall off before they can see. For those scales to fall off takes time. Time is the one thing that we are taking away from those people.
You say, don't worry about killing them here, because this isn't the final judgement. I think that is partially true. This is the place that we attempt to reconcile the human side of our person. How we finish this life, determines the final judgement.
Si,no?
Post a Comment