Let’s Be Honest
In his article From the Death Penalty, Van Den Haag attempts to use exceptional cases to advocate for capital punishment. In Haag’s view, because the condemned person poses a potential threat to many such as fellow prisoners, the death penalty, Haag argues, can have a deterrent effect. Haag continues, “At any rate, without his fellow prisoners, the correctional officers can and will be victimized with impunity should he decide to murder them.” Similarly, Haag adds, “If a prisoner already convicted of a crime sufficient to send him to prison for life commits a murder, the death penalty seems likely to be well deserved.” Haag sees nothing wrong with the death penalty, for, according to him, capital punishment derives from a moral argument.
In Haag’s view, it is moral and just to apply capital punishment when it is a question of certain crimes like premeditated murder. At first glance, Haag seems to be correct since the Mosaic law sets it clear that “If someone injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so shall it be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, just as he has injured a person, so shall it be inflicted on him… but one who kills a person shall be put to death” (Lev. 24:19-21 NASB). This old testament principle of “life for life” resonates with the retentionist view of capital punishment and also echoes Haag’s argument to the fullest.
However, since the mosaic law is no longer in vogue, since capital punishment violates the condemned person’s right to life and is fundamentally inhumane, and since capital punishment is inconsistent with the fundamental values of democratic systems, since mistakes such as racial bias in death sentencing are often the case, one can raise serious concerns like Marquis de Lafayette did against the excesses of the french revolution “I shall ask for the abolition of the punishment of death until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me.”
Moreover, it is not always true that modernity favors justice, especially when criminals have equal access to technology, just as regular people do. A condemned person can be subjected to many procedural concerns today, as mistakes seem inevitable when discrimination, for instance, mixes the already complex procedural concerns. Nevertheless, Haag seems to show little concern about the irreversible effect of capital death victims. As Dr. Rae explains, “If the court makes a mistake in a death penalty case, nothing can be done for the person who was wrongly put to death” (Rae, 2018, p. 281). Disastrously, capital punishment becomes an eternal loss; it precludes an opportunity for the condemned person to experience redemption. Certainly, Haag does not consider the eternal destiny of a condemned person, nor is he concerned about the irreversible mistakes of capital punishment. It seems like Van Den Haag’s argument for capital punishment serves best as capital revenge than anything else.
Now, one may ask, “Is there not any place for gaining wisdom from the Mosaic law? The laws regarding the death penalty seem to be in align with the pre-Mosaic element found in Genesis 9.6. Might there not be some wisdom to be gleaned from the Mosaic law?
In response, I will advance the claim that since the Old Testament is God’s eternal word, there is absolute wisdom to gain from the law of Moses. However, when it comes to the application of Mose’s law, in today’s society, we must not dodge the question but answer in today’s new testament’s context: “Should Christians obey the law of Moses regarding capital punishment?” If we answer “yes,’ then abolitionists will raise a concern about our inconsistency with the new testament teaching. They may ask for example, “Do you really believe that God’s will is for everybody -including the condemned- to be saved? I guess we will answer ‘yes’ without a doubt in light of 1 Tim 2:4 “God wants all people (emphasis added) to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Similarly, abolitionists would then argue, “How could you preclude the condemned murderer’s right to life (eternal life)?” Are there examples of persons in the new testament whom we must not give a chance to hear the gospel and to be saved? Jesus himself made no exception and set the example by offering redemption and paradise to the repentant crucified thief.
Therefore, the lex talionis was more a policy of restraint but also a moral principle of proportionality. As a divinely ordained punishment, we cannot overlook its historical and penal relevance. The modern retentionist must remember that the law of Moses was not biased with all sorts of conjectural and projectural concerns but was the expression of a perfectly proportional justice with God as King of Israel. For instance, in our modern systems, monetary compensation prescribes for bodily injury, and in some cases even applies for death.
From the perpetrator’s perspective, writing a check with several millions of dollars is definitely less significant than paying his life as the death penalty. Has that possibility existed in Moses’ times? I am still determining. It is a modern practice; hence, momentary compensation is another misuse that shows we are not that serious about the principle of proportionality (life for life) that the retentionist argues in favor of. On the contrary, in the following situation, the two lying witnesses in 1 Kings 21 are an excellent example of a perfectly proportional ideal justice with God as Israel’s Sovereign King. The punishment of the house of Ahab did not wait, for God Himself sent His prophet Elijah to Ahab, starting from verse 18 of chapter 21, in which the house of Ahab had a taste of his own medicine.
If you enjoy this article, let’s connect on LinkedIn and invite someone else to https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7469591605251997696