The waning days of the Biden Administration were flooded with reports of commutations and preemptive pardons, even to members of Biden’s own family. One of his parting shots at Trump involved commuting the sentences of 37 federal death row inmates. This decision infuriated a great many people. The issue of capital punishment is perennially contentious, since it involves human rights and justice on a high personal and emotional scale.
Some pro-lifers who oppose capital punishment insist that it makes no sense to fight abortion but favour capital punishment—even though one victim is completely innocent while the other is a heinous criminal. Some advocates of the practice even insist that it fits perfectly the very definition of Old Testament justice:
Leviticus 24:17 ESV - Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.
There are reasoned arguments on both sides of this debate. One of the primary ones in favour is that it deters potential criminals. Someone contemplating murder may think twice if they risked execution themselves. There is however little proof that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other severe punishments such as life imprisonment without parole.
Another convincing argument is that an executed convict cannot reoffend, so that society is permanently protected from that person. Life imprisonment on the other hand leaves open the possibility of escape. This might not be as persuasive in first-world nations like Canada and the U.S., where prison escapes are less likely (a certain Clint Eastwood movie notwithstanding). However, acts of violence within the prison system remain commonplace, even in high security institutions—as Dahmer and Epstein both discovered.
Capital punishment can provide a sense of closure to families of victims. It is a form of justice matching the severity of the crime. However, executions can also have severe psychological impact upon everyone involved, including executioners, prison staff, jurors, and families. The process of sentencing an offender to death and then carrying it out can be emotionally devastating. One or more innocent people may have been murdered, but many others can be forever traumatized by the execution itself. In the immortal words of Ghandi:
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
-Mohandas Gandhi
Perhaps the most significant ethical concern is the possibility of mistakenly executing the innocent. Despite advancements in forensic science, there have been cases where persons were exonerated posthumously, highlighting the imperfection of human judicial systems.
Capital punishment also raises profound moral questions about the state’s right to kill. Many argue that homicide is inherently wrong, regardless of the justification, leading to debates about the sanctity of life and fundamental human rights. As Lord Blackstone once put it:
“It is better that 10 guilty men go free, than to have 1 innocent man convicted.”
Certain studies show that imposition of the death penalty can be influenced by such factors as race, socio-economic status, and the quality of legal representation. Are people of certain races being unjustly targeted? Do people of certain races commit more crimes? Is the death penalty imposed more often on those who are poor or middle-class, or are they more exposed to death sentences because they cannot afford the kind of legal dream team that spared O.J. Simpson? These are questions forming the basis of numerous studies and debates, and which clearly demand answers.
The U.S. is one of the few Western nations still imposing capital punishment. Most others, like Canada, seem to view it as a relic of less humane times. This suggests a shift in international human rights standards. Critics of the practice maintain that it eliminates any chance of the offender being rehabilitated, thereby contradicting the very goals of modern penal systems.
On the other hand, society tends to be less than welcoming to ex-convicts, especially violent ones. A study conducted by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that:
“…career offenders who committed a violent offense generally have a more serious and extensive criminal history, reoffend at a higher rate, and are more likely to commit another violent offense in the future compared to career offenders who received the designation based solely on drug trafficking convictions.”
Some may argue that capital punishment is less costly than life imprisonment and—while that may be true if the sentence is immediately carried out—death row inmates always appeal, causing repeated trials over many years that can exceed the cost of life imprisonment.
While capital punishment has certain arguments recommending it—particularly around retribution and closure for victim’s families—the ethical, practical, and judicial issues it raises continue to fuel intense controversy. Balancing the pros and cons often depends upon cultural values, legal systems, and the specifics of each case.
Canada is a country seriously opposed to the death penalty—at least for murderers. We once had capital punishment in this country; Louis Riel being the most notorious case. While still a French colony, a cynical policy of allowing a man to avoid execution by becoming an executioner was enacted. A woman could cheat death if the executioner agreed to wed her.
Such approaches to capital punishment show that hypocrisy and contempt for justice have ever been part of Canada’s judicial DNA.
Executions continued in B.C., where sailor Peter Cartcel was hung from the yardarm of his own ship as an edifying spectacle. Canadians had such disdain for the value of human life that we did not even bother to keep records of executions at that point in our history.
There is thus no way of knowing for certain how many persons ended their lives on a Canadian gallows. That is, of course, all in the past. Canada abolished the death penalty in 1963. We are so very proud of this that the Trudeau government issued its rather pompous statement on ‘World Day Against The Death Penalty’ on 10 October 2022:
“Canada is proud to be part of the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty…We continue to oppose the use of the death penalty in all cases everywhere…On this day, Canada joins with the global movement to abolish the death penalty in calling on the minority of countries where capital punishment still exists to ensure due process and fair trials, to pause any planned executions and, to completely end the use of the death penalty.”
The Liberal government really is serious about opposing the death penalty in all cases, everywhere. Canada will not even extradite anyone who would face the death penalty in another country. How strange amidst all this virtue signaling about the sanctity of human life that Canada is one of only 9 countries in the entire world that helps people kill themselves. This is through what our government whimsically calls “MAID” (Medical Assistance In Dying), now the 5th leading cause of death in our country. In the Province of Quebec, funeral parlors even offer a package taking the customer from life to death to coffin to cremation, all in one easy but final heart stop shop.
Jadyn Yelle, a spokesperson for Statistics Canada disputes that MAID is a properly defined cause of mortality:
“Medical Assistance in Dying is recognized as the manner of death and not the cause of death…As such, it is inappropriate to situate it among the leading causes of death.”
In other words, a person dying from a terminal disease and then euthanized is listed as having their life ended by that disease, even though it is the state which acts as the Grim Reaper. Hold on—it gets worse. Belgium and Holland have euthanasia, but they at least hold monthly commissions to review troubling cases. Canada has no such reflection or reviews. We are the only nation allowing nurse practitioners to end patient’s lives. Ontario and Quebec instruct physicians not to indicate euthanasia at all on death certificates. Canada is also the only nation permitting doctors to suggest self-murder to patients. Other countries do not allow this for fear that euthanasia might be seen as medical advice or even pressuring patients to end their lives. Unlike these other countries, Canada does not require patients to exhaust all other treatment alternatives before choosing their own final solution.
There is an ugly, evil trend emerging in Canada that sees patients who are not terminally ill or suffering unbearable pain being euthanized. One such patient was Alan Nichols, a mentally ill man who asked to be killed due to his hearing loss. His request was summarily granted. Some disabled Canadians have chosen euthanasia because they could not handle skyrocketing medical costs—even under our so called “publicly funded” healthcare system. Roger Foley suffered from degenerative brain disease. He was told by a hospital director of ethics that he was costing the hospital $1,500.00 per day. The “ethicist” then told him they had no idea about long-term care for him and asked if he had any interest in just ending it all instead. Strangely, an Alberta indigenous man who underwent full sex change surgery several years ago was denied MAID, despite the fact that these mutilating surgeries left him with constant pain and chronic genital infections. He described his own life as being ‘worse than death’.
Meanwhile, Canada also has the most permissive abortion laws of any developed nation. In fact, there are no abortion laws. So much so that when SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision a couple of years ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a public invitation to American women seeking abortion to come to Canada to kill their unborn babies. He called Dobbs an “horrific” development that threatens the rights of women to choose what to do with their own bodies.
Put simply, the life of a killer is so precious in Canada that it will be guarded at all costs. Conversely, the lives of the sick, the disabled, and the helplessly innocent unborn are of so little value that euthanasia and abortions are now publicly funded “healthcare”. There is plenty of money to take care of murderers, but Canadians crushed by medical bills are advised that they should choose death. Mothers are told to just kill their unborn babies and that their government is committed to “removing barriers” and “increasing access” to abortion. It is plain to see that cynicism, hypocrisy, and contempt for justice are alive and well in the failing Canadian state.
It is often asked how one can be pro-life but also pro-death penalty. The answer is that the term “pro-life” means pro-innocent life. By taking an innocent life, the murderer forfeits the right to his own. Thus there is no inconsistency in being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment:
Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life.
-Orrin Hatch
In 2018, Pope Francis declared the death penalty to be “inadmissible”. He claimed that it is cruel and unusual punishment which “attacks the dignity of the person.” This reflects post-modern sentiment that the death penalty diminishes our inherent value; that reliance upon it degrades us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. On the contrary, the death penalty elevates us. What better reflects the value we place on human life than the punishment we apply for extinguishing it? It is precisely our disavowal of capital punishment that reveals a softening attitude toward the evil of murder and a cheapening of humanity. As A.I. Goodheart put it:
“Retribution in punishment is an expression of the community’s disapproval of crime, and if this retribution is not given recognition then the disapproval of crime may also disappear. A community which is too ready to forgive the wrongdoer may end up condoning the crime.”
That is why, even if every other argument against it were valid, justice alone still demands that we impose the death penalty. For it is the only just and compassionate response to murder. As Dennis Prager points out:
“Nearly all people would deem it terribly unfair if I were to steal my neighbor’s car and be allowed to go on using my car while he is deprived of his. Why does this fundamental tenet of fairness not hold true concerning life? On grounds of justice and fairness alone, why should I be allowed to keep my life after I have deliberately taken someone else’s away?”
Failure to enact justice also diminishes goodness. As Walter Berns explains:
“Punishment…makes the criminal unhappy and it makes the law-abiding person happy. It rewards the law-abiding by satisfying the anger he feels at the sight of a crime. It rewards, and by rewarding, teaches law-abidingness.”
In other words, achieving justice rewards goodness. Indifference to justice is apathy toward goodness, and a society unwilling to execute those who deserve it shows disrespect to the latter and disregard for the former. For the sake of a good and just society, capital punishment is necessary.
What then does the Bible have to say on this question?
During a recent church service, I was directed to Joshua chapter 24 but mistakenly read chapter 20 instead. I was surprised by the topic of chapter 20, which prompted me to write this commentary. It must be remembered that this is both the Jewish Torah and the Christian Old Testament. The heading for that passage in my Bible was “Six Cities of Refuge.” Despite reading the Bible daily, this chapter for the first time impacted me deeply and differently.
Why?
Well, because it reveals how far our system of justice has strayed from the Judeao- Christian understanding of God’s justice.
In this passage, a depiction of genuine and true justice appears:
“Then the Lord spoke to Joshua saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, Designate the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses, that the manslayer who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of blood.” (Joshua 20: 1-3)
So they appointed six cities for the Israelites and sojourners to flee for anyone who kills unintentionally.
This record reveals God’s justice to be mixed with mercy when it comes to manslaughter. Not all deaths caused by another are counted or punished identically.
Manslaughter is distanced from murder due to its not being intentional, premeditated, or with hatred. Further on in the passage it states that if the ‘avenger of blood’ pursues the manslayer into their city of refuge, the elders of the city ‘shall not deliver the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor unintentionally and did not hate him beforehand.’ (Joshua 20:5). It is important to recognize here that hatred could not be involved.
Since this ordinance separates a guilty party as to consequence from one who struck another with intention, premeditation, and or hatred, the implied punishment for one who kills unintentionally is to be treated with mercy. It is also indicative of the justice of capital punishment.
According to both Jewish and Christian Scripture, this is divine justice. God-blessed genuine, legitimate, true justice. Such a perspective emphasized the gravity of killing intentionally, with premeditation, or hatefully, i.e. first-degree murder. Capital punishment may thus be seen as rightfully avenging the victim’s loss of life. In other words, it is fair and righteous punishment and redress of the most evil and vile act against another.
An eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is basically total equivalence. In our society and justice system, we have unreasonably discounted and devalued the lives of victims by not applying the only just consequence to such malevolence. In the rare instances where capital punishment is executed, it is generally close to a lifetime later and in a more merciful, gentler manner than how the victims were killed. The condemned are not subjected to cruel or unusual punishment; they are even sedated beforehand. The executions should best occur closer in time to sentencing in order to be a general crime deterrent. Surely, anyone who has repeatedly killed must face capital punishment. This may appear harsh, but justice must be equal to the crime if it is to be just. The victims and their families deserve at least that much. We as a society also deserve it, since we are taxed with financially supporting the guilty parties for many years while criminals fear no just repercussions for their crimes—and society is less protected as a result.
We might be tempted to reject religious principles on this subject in favour of social justice or political correctness; but moral issues are dealt with in religion, particularly the Judeao-Christian tradition. Joshua Chapter 20 testifies to the fairness and mercy applied to the manslayer, and to the impartial true justice that the manslayer must necessarily face.
