FILTER BY:

Report on Capital Punishment

A. Report 29 (Capital Punishment) in the 1979 Acts of Synod was received by Synod and referred to all of our churches for study reflection and response to the Study Committee. All of our consistories are urged to study the report and to submit their response or suggestions to the Study Committee by Oct. 15, 1980. (Acts, Art. 39, p. 45).

B. The study committee recommended:

1. That the synod refer this report to the churches for study and guidance. 2. That the Synod declare:

a) that the Scriptures lay no mandate on modern states to exercise capital punishment;

b) that the Scriptures do permit modern states to inflict capital punishment;

c) that according to the spirit of Scripture capital punishment is prudently exercised only under extreme conditions and not as a general rule. In summary, it is the position of the study committee that the Biblical data a) do not require the administration of capital punishment for murder; b) do permit the administration of capital punishment for murder; but c) that the administration of capital punishment for murder is not desirable. Or, put yet another way, capital punishment for murder is a) not mandatory; b) permissible; but c) not prudent. A summary of their argumentation and reasoning follows:

a) The state is not unconditionally required to execute a person found guilty of murder in the first degree. Though the tradition of Reformed theology and ethics has affirmed the mandatory nature of capital punishment the committee concludes that neither the Old Testament, New Testament, Creeds, nor any fixed principle (such as “Justice” or the “sanctity of Life”) obligate the modern state to institute or practice capital punishment.

b) The state, under appropriate conditions, is authorized or licensed to deprive a citizen, not merely of his liberty, but also of his life. The sword (Romans 13:4) may be interpreted to embrace capital punishment. In agreement with this, our creeds also permit modern states to execute first degree murderers (L.D. 40, Q & A #105; Belgic Conf. Art. #36). Moreover, both the ideas of retributive justice and the right of the state to defend itself allow for the exercise of capital punishment.

c) It is not advisable that the death penalty be attached to the crime of murder under the circumstance prevailing in contemporary western society, and in view of our knowledge about criminal pathology. In practice, though capital punishment should not be abolished, its use should be severely restrained. The state’s permission or freedom to spare or take life must cause us to seriously consider the consequences, as well as the grounds, of such action. The ends of justice and the safety and stability of the state are best served by a sparing use of the destroying sword. Humane considerations point in the direction of judicial restraint, toward the minimal use of the sword, toward the bracketing of capital punishment as a rarely used weapon of last resort, namely, only when the very existence of the state is threatened.

   

C. The report is not above criticism. In fact, I believe its conclusions should be severely criticized.

1. “To reach these conclusions, the study committee was obliged, of course, to dilute the force of Genesis 9:6 which reads, bluntly, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image.’” (Editorial, Banner, March 14, 1980.) The committee spent most of its time and pages in the first part of its report in the study of Genesis 9:6 to conclude that capital punishment is not mandatory, though it admits (in the first sentence) “On its face this text does indeed seem to provide a clear mandate for the imposition of the death penalty upon murders” p. 475. For society’s protections, the murderer need only be suitably restrained or rendered docile today like a dangerous animal. The text, it is suggested, is more like a proverb than a categorical imperative. A text, which appears quite straightforward and understandable, is now clouded with suspicion and uncertainty. The committee never uses this text to support the permissibility of capital punishment; instead it “dilutes” its obvious meaning to conclude that capital punishment is not mandatory!

2. The section on the permissibility of capital punishment is very good and worth the time it takes to consider all of its evidence and arguments. On this question, the committee admits that it “joins the vast majority of Christians who throughout the ages have held that capital punishment is in accord with the Scriptures and, by that token, with the highest moral principles” (p. 496). Its blatant omission, however, is its failure to even mention Genesis 9:6, in this section of its report. 3. The final section of the report which deals with the desirability or the prudentiality of capital punishment is so very brief -out of all proportion to the weight of their argument which it is designed to carry. Without mentioning a single Biblical passage, the committee simply asserts that capital punishment today is not desirable, not prudent, and overridden by human considerations which impressed the committee! Though it disputes those who would abolish capital punishment, it virtually denies the possibility that the death sentence should ever be permitted. It seems to place the existence of the state far above the value to justice and the human lives which the murderer disregards. The extreme conditions which warrant capital punishment according to the report, are virtually non-existent, thus removing, in effect, even its permissibility.

D. The humane considerations with which the report concludes bring up four important issues. The reasoning of the committee, however, is far from convincing. Each of them are open to criticism, and should be looked at, I believe, from a different point of view.

1. The sixth commandment teaches that human life is sacred. Who can argue with that? The life of the murderer is also sacred. The death penalty, however, should not be regarded as a last resort—to prevent only the demise of the state, or even to protect its citizens—but as a testimony and deterrent to the citizens of the state and especially to would-be murderers. A state which practices capital punishment testifies that it regards the life of its citizens as sacred. This is not irony, but justice and obedience to the command of God. 2. The judgments of human magistrates are fallible. This too is true. It may happen that innocent persons are put to death. Such a mistake of justice cannot be reversed. But murderers are never convicted on mere suspicion, but on the basis of abundant evidence and a unanimous jury. If there exists any doubt concerning their guilt, a conviction is impossible. However, I would rather mourn the death of one innocent man, put to death because of mistaken justice, and by capital punishment, than mourn the deaths of a hundred others who died at the cruel hands of murderers who have been set free by a society that was too “humane” to carry out the justice which God commands of the state. 3. Capital punishment shortens the time in which the murderer can repent. This is obvious, but perhaps cuts both ways. I would take exception to what the committee implies-that the longer the time, the more likely the repentance. It strikes me that if a murderer does not confess his sin and find peace with God with the sentence of death over his head, these wholesome things are not more likely to occur if the murderer faces a 15 year or life sentence. The threat and approach of certain death may be the most effective incentive for sincere repentance. 4. Justice alone does not require the death of the murderer. Most will agree with this statement as well. The report goes on to suggest, however, that “justice will be served when the murderer is appropriately incarcerated” (p. 507). Only when this imprisonment causes others to kill or causes himself to kill again should capital punishment be considered, it implies. How many other deaths would finally warrant capital punishment? Certainly, justice alone does not require the murderer’s death there are many other factors which also require it, among the greatest of which is that murder is unique among crimes. The victim is dead—the crime of not only of degree; his life cannot be restored; and he cannot forgive the one who killed him. The only appropriate response of a state toward those who willfully murder one of its citizens is to obey the God given command, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image.

E. Using the study committee’s recommendations as a guide, I offer my recommendations for your adoption—recommendations which are Scriptural, I believe, and more in line with traditional Reformed theology and ethics:

1. The Scriptures permit modern states to inflict capital punishment. 2. The Scriptures mandate modern states to exercise capital punishment in cases of first degree murder. 3. Capital punishment for first degree murder ought to be judiciously applied as a general rule, but prudently restrained in warranting circumstances.

(The above report was prepared by Ronald Meyer, pastor of North Blendon CRC and sent to the consistories of Classis Zeeland and Holland. It is being reproduced here with his permission.)