Get E-Mail Updates

Jesus: We Interrupt This Execution to Bring You a Message of Grace

Duane Edward Buck (Photo from the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice)

Last night, death was interrupted when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of execution for a Texas man convicted of a double murder in Houston in 1995.

Duane Buck was set for execution by lethal injection sometime after 6 p.m., Thursday September 15 in Huntsville, Texas. His execution would have been the second this week and the 11th so far this year in Texas alone. Two more executions are scheduled for next week.

The Supreme Court issued its stay of execution in order to have time to examine further an appeal filed by Buck's attorneys that argued his rights were violated when, during his 1997 trial, an expert witness told jurors that he would be more dangerous in the future because he is black.

Buck's actual guilt in the murders of his former girlfriend and another man, for which he received the death penalty, is not being contested.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BUCK CASE HERE, HERE, AND HERE.

Buck's attorneys also had appealed to Texas Gov. Rick Perry to stay the execution, but Perry refused. When Perry, who is running for president, celebrated Texas' 234 executions last week in a televised candidates debate, the audience roared in applause. (Perry was campaigning in Iowa Thursday when the Supreme Court halted Buck's execution.)

As a Christian I found that deeply disturbing.

There is an incident in the gospels where Jesus is asked about the death penalty. Here's the scene: A woman has been humiliated and dragged before the town, ready to be killed. Her execution was legal; her crime was a capital one. But just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.

Jesus interrupts the scene -- with grace.

He tells all the men who are ready to kill the woman, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." And of course he reminds us all that if we have looked at someone with lust in our eyes we are adulterers. If we have called our neighbor a fool we are a murder.

You can hear the stones start to drop, as the men walk away. The only one who is left with any right to throw a stone is Jesus -- and he has absolutely no inclination to do so.

We can see that the closer we are to God the less we want to throw stones at other people.

It is this dual conviction -- that no one is above reproach and that no one is beyond redemption -- that lies at the heart of our faith. Undoubtedly it's why the early Christians were characterized by nonviolence, even in the face of brutal evil, torture, and execution.

The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer oil painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme,1883.

Of all people, we who follow the executed and risen Christ should be people who are pro-life, pro-grace, anti-death.

These last 2,000 years of Christianity have been filled with those interruptions of death. After all, many evangelicals believe that Jesus' own death on the cross was an interruption ("the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ" Romans 6:23.)

According to conventional evangelical wisdom, our sin would warrant us all the death penalty were it not for Jesus. How then can we who have been spared death so quickly become people who are ready to dish it out?

Besides, much of the Bible is written by murderers who have been given a second chance -- such as David (who committed adultery with Bathsheba and then had her husband killed).

How can we rejoice in death -- even the death of a "terrorist" like Osama bin Laden -- when half of the new testament was written by a terrorist named Saul of Tarsus (who went door to door trying to kill the early Christians before his radical transformation)? His conversion was so radical it was as if "scales fell from his eyes" (Acts 9:18) and so fundamental that he even changed his name.

The interruptions of death continue. I recently heard a friend of mine who is living in prison tell me his story, one very similar to Buck's.

My friend, admittedly and regrettably, committed a terrible crime. But the victim's family members were Christians, and so in court they argued against the death penalty. They insisted that we are all better than the worst things we do, and that no one is beyond redemption. And they knew that there is something wrong with killing someone to show that killing is wrong. Because of their persistent grace, my friend was spared the death penalty. In prison, he pondered their words, began reading the gospels

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 7:08pm

I'm clearly spending far too much time here, so I'm going to leave but first. There is a punishment hearing on the Georgia case of Troy Davis. There appears to be some doubt as to his guilt and Amnesty International is running a petition against Davis' execution. If you feel this case raises serious doubts, sign the petition and spread the word. The Amnesty report is here.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...

by: swrussel

09-20-2011 @ 6:35pm

Since Christians have taken up discussing the death penalty, it would be good to account for a case where Christianity was dead center in the death decision:
http://indiancountrytodaymedia...

by: lgfromillinois

09-16-2011 @ 8:27pm

I am opposed to the death penalty for the primary reason we are called to forgive and, that we may obtain mercy, be merciful. We do need protection from some who do harm others, but I pray they may have a turn of heart and find God.

by: Stephen431

09-16-2011 @ 9:07pm

I think it is safe to say that Jesus was opposed to his own death penalty conviction.

by: marlborough

09-16-2011 @ 9:32pm

choctaw_chris
You mention Albert Pierrpoint, the next to last hangman employed in England. There were two specific executions he performed which had a profound effect on him. One was the execution he performed on his aquaintance Corbett (aka Tish) with whom he performed in a pub. There was no doubt about Corbett's guilt, he confessed to the murder of his girl friend (who Pierrpoint also knew) but what bothered Pierrpoint was that he KNEW 'Tish' well. He was not just a 'job' who Pierrepoint intereacted with for the last 12 or so seconds of their life. The second I would offer was the execution of Timothy Evans one of the very few of his victims who tearfully professed his innocence to Pierrpoint in his last seconds. Three years later Pierrepoint hanged John Christie who was responsible for and confessed to,the murder Evans had been convicted and executed for. It was then abundantly clear to Pierrepoint that there could be no doubt that in at least one case he had hanged an innocent man. The executions of Nazi war criminals also effected him. He hanged about 43 in a week. It is hard to believe being involved in so many executions does not have a profound negative effect on a person. So not only does the execution effect the condemned it also has an effect on those who carry it out. Let me just address having a connection with the condemened. Some time ago I we received our monthly publication of a Christian journal. It seemd thicker than ususal. When I sat daoen to read it was clear that two copies had stuck together. One copy was mine the second was address to a prisoner #12345 Death Row State Prison. Death Row was right there on the label. This man very quickly became flesh and blood to me, he was reading the same literature as me. What else did we have in common? Well of course, he was a fellow human being, a creation of God, a person with a spiritual life in so many ways just like me. In spite of efforts otherwise he was indeed executed. The problem of over crowded prisons is severe, but we must find a way to impose life sentences without parole, thus leaving ourselves a window of opportunity to redress error when errors are inevitably made. Let us abolish the death penalty as soon as maybe.

by: Caitlin Michele

09-16-2011 @ 10:17pm

Awesome article...well written Shane! You know, after reading that Amish story of how their children was murdered in a one room school house...and yet they turned around and showed an amazing example of forgiveness, grace and love to the murderers family. In my own life, I wonder if I could do that if someone murdered someone close to me. Could I just turn right around, forgive them and love them? Jesus did on the cross. I am a wicked sinner, undeserving of God's powerful and amazing grace, unworthy of His love. Yet, Jesus died in my place on the cross for my sin. If I truly believe that God's grace is sufficient for me, then shouldn't I be living that out? If we believe His Grace is sufficient for us, shouldn't our lives testify of it?

by: Ankaboot

09-16-2011 @ 10:36pm

And if the problem is with casting the first stone and not the gravity of the punishment, how do we begin to level any sort of punishment on anyone?

You don't. You insure restitution or retaliation or both, on a case-by-case basis. God does not "punish" ~ He provides a way to expiate certain offenses so that the wrong does not return to the wrongdoer in the next life, but in this life. In addition, He forgives in all cases of repentance, although this does not automatically obviate the need for expiation, restitution, or retaliation.

Notably, there are certain offenses for which He allows no expiation, restitution, or retaliation. From those, there is no escape from consequence other than firm and permanent repentance. Most of them are their own consequent, the offense itself is its "return."

His Judgment is final, and will not change or be overturned or escaped.

by: MickS

09-17-2011 @ 1:28am

Use to believe the death penalty was an important aspect of our criminal ystem that needed to stay . The belief I had was that it would be a deterent and also psotively make sure the person would never take another life. The taking of life is never a good thing , but I thought with it stopping the future taking of innocent life it was the closest thign we could come to justice .

With the revelation of innocence being proven in some cases by DNA to people on death role , the simple fact that the system is not fair in regards to those go through our system , the expense and of course the taking of another life regardless if it is guilt of a terrible crime I have changed my mind .

But the fact we need laws that make sure people serve mandatory sentences seems to be needed . I did not find the article persuasive , in fact such arguments use to leave me all the more sure my past death penalty views were correct . There is little concern about the victims of murder or crime . There is also apparently no conern about the families of those involved here .
I really believe using Jesus as a means to interfere in this case is insulting to those families . At least how it was done here .

The Lord's love and mercy is also directed to the families of the murdered victim , . For through forgiveness is about the only way they will be able to get through their lost . No justice or penalty of a human court system can ever make the wrong right in their eyes .
Why we leave the victim and families out of these conversations is bothersome .

by: letjusticerolldown

09-21-2011 @ 3:14pm

Seems to me the issue around the adulterous woman was not about the woman. It was about Jesus--and whether the religious authorities could back him into a corner.

I could be wrong--but it also seems to me there are lots of 'religious authorities' trying to back folk into the corner on this and other issues; and it might be time for us to stop taking positions on issues and align ourselves with Jesus.

I do like the "grace interruptions." But the grace interruptions are, in a sense, dependent on the view of the convictions/sentences as just. ie A just sentence is interrupted by grace.

I think it wrong to prejudicially conclude death penalty proponents have a lower amount of compassion or commitment to life. Can one truly defend sacred life without recognizing there are times when guarding that dignity will require the giving of life?

I do not trust the State as a just arbiter. I do not trust it with the power to carry out the death penalty. I also do not trust that the legal system finding technicalities to interrupt death--is an exercise of grace

by: hereforone

09-17-2011 @ 5:28pm

I know my reply will sound a little abstract but doesn't Genesis clearly discuss denial of freedom? Didn't God as the first arbiter of justice turn Adam and Eve away from their community, the garden of Eden, as punishment for their crime? Also, when Cain killed his brother, his punishment for the first capital crime of murder, wasn't the death penalty but again, being punished by removal of his support system, community and family. Isn't that one of the basic tenets of denial of freedom: removal from one's community?

by: Marco F

09-18-2011 @ 1:36am

The death penalty is the opposite of forgiveness. When a society refuses to forgive its enemies, it places itself under Jesus' curse: that if you will not forgive those who sin against you then neither will your Father in heaven forgive you your sins. That's some scary stuff to contemplate America!!!

by: Gentle Lamb

09-21-2011 @ 11:43pm

I like the argument of grace and I believe that Justice should be tampered by mercy in cases where the guilt is not established beyond a 100% certainty.

However, the comparison with the death penalty of the woman caught in adultery is rather difficult to sustain. Here the woman did not kill anyone. She probably had to engage in being a sex worker just to survive as women were not allowed to work and if she was a divorcee, she could not support herself.

In addition, the Pharisees did not bring the man who had sex with the woman to court indicating that justice were skewed and injustice meted out to the outcasts, the poor and the weak. Hence, the danger of death penalty is that your status makes you more likely to be condemned and sentenced to death.

The story in the bible still happens to-date. Gays are sent to death by their thousands in Iran yet there are few reports in progressive christian circles lest it distort our idea that some religions are about peace. Countries based on dogmatic religious laws are often harsh and without mercy.

Likewise, in Texas, Perry is motivated by the Christian Faith for his liking of the death penalty which is difficult to understand since Christianity is about love rather than putting others on the Cross.

by: histrogeek

09-19-2011 @ 2:51pm

It's analogous yes, but not quite. Exile isn't exactly the same idea as a prison. Prisons, in the modern sense, are about eliminating a person's rights as payment for their "debt to society." It comes from an era when the rights of an individual were seen a more civilized means of exacting society's punishment on an individual (as opposed to corporal punishment).
Exile, or outlawry, asserts that a person's very presence in society is destructive so they must be removed, just as Cain was removed from his family. Cain was not expected to pay some type of restitution either in blood, time, or treasure. He was removed so he could do no further harm. At least that's one way of looking at it.
There are some more recent ideas in our legal system (three strikes law in particular) that are adaptations of this earlier idea, with prisons essentially be warehouses of exiles.
For an excellent description of the development of modern ideas of prisons (at least until the 1980s), read Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish.

by: ThaddeusMay

09-16-2011 @ 1:59pm

Yes, a stay of execution is very good news. The grey cloud, as usual, is that the state still maintains the authority to kill people based on flawed man's discernment of guilt or innocence. Without even getting into the moral quandary that is deciding appropriate punishment for crime, executing the death sentence is making the impossible-to-make claim that you know something with 100% certainty. There is no room for mistakes and attempted restitution after the person is dead. In Texas, the only issue is whether the proper procedures were followed, not the validity of the death penalty.

With that in mind, though, I do have a non-rhetorical question. In the example Shane gives with Jesus and the accused adulterous woman, if the punishment was something other than death, can we discern what Jesus' response would have been? Let's say the law of the land was 20 years of prison for adultery, would Jesus step in and utter the famous cast the first stone line? If we imagine he would, how do Christians then approach any sort of man-made judicial systems? I guess what I'm asking is ... is the problem with the punishment (death for the adulterous woman) or is the problem with casting the first stone? And if the problem is with casting the first stone and not the gravity of the punishment, how do we begin to level any sort of punishment on anyone?

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 2:48pm

Some years ago I was teaching law to high school students. We had a good discussion of the death penalty including a speaker from the neighboring divinity school who was also a lawyer (late life career changer). I remember telling the students, once they asked for my opinion, that I couldn't say that nobody deserved death for their crimes (Tim McVeigh was on people's minds at the time), but that was irrelevant as a legal question.
The legal question was and is, "Can the state administer the ultimate punishment in a fair and correct way so that there are no errors?" After going over the various places in the system where the death penalty can manipulated or unfairly applied, I concluded that there is simply no reasonable way to conduct executions in accordance with the values of American law. The same conclusion, I'm happy to say, of Justice Harry Blackmun who after helping to restore the death penalty, ended his career stating that the Court needed to end the illusion that the machinery of death could be made to work constitutionally.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 3:07pm

Two comments:
First the proper procedures issue. Because stays and appeals are conducted in the legal sphere, these are the only questions that can be asked. Is there an error of law that calls the verdict or sentence into question? That is the only grounds for appeal.
Second, Jesus' problem was then and in other cases with people presuming that they could judge others when they themselves were not free of sin (the speck in your brother's eye aphorism springs to mind).
Does this provide a problem for judicial punishment? Sure does. It's part of the troublesome dynamic of Caesar and God. In a heavenly system, forgiveness and mercy reign as the principles of justice. Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. In the human world, order is the supreme principle of law (not that forgiveness, mercy, and fairness aren't important, just not the ultimate goal). This means invariably that some sort of compromise is needed, but we as Christians need to be aware of that compromise and strive to reconcile the principles of God and Caesar to the greatest extent possible.
God can be merciful and forgiving in all circumstances because God cannot ultimately be harmed. We, as individuals and societies, can be harmed and so need some form of temporary protection. (Temporary not meaning short-term so much as not permanent or eternal)

by: Michael

09-16-2011 @ 3:33pm

If Buck is innocent, he does not merely need a reprieve from execution, he needs to be released from prison altogether. No one is arguing for this because his guilt of double murder is not at all in doubt.

The argument goes that the teachings of Christ are not compatible with killing and therefore as Christians we must oppose all executions. However, the teachings of Christ are not compatible with taking a man's freedom away for the rest of his life either (or even a poriton of his life.)

Therefore, those Christians who oppose the death penality on religious grounds need to explain on what grounds they favor any punishment for crime and why those grounds that permit the government to use either violence of the threat of violence to deny a convicted man his freedom do not also permit that same government to take his life.

by: pooch

09-16-2011 @ 4:19pm

In other news, the execution of thousands of babies in the womb continued yesterday as planned.

While I am moved by the case Shane makes in this post, I can't help but think that we are focusing on the speck of capital punishment and ignoring the plank of abortion in this country. We can argue the proper response to the Mr. Buck's crimes, and we can argue a stay of execution being an act of grace. But what about the killing of a far greater number of innocents whose only offense was to be inconvenient?

by: scat

09-16-2011 @ 4:21pm

I am no theologian, but taking away one's life and taking away one's freedom are two different things. Imprisonment keeps society safe from this individual's criminal activity. If that is the primary reason for punishment, then imprisonment is adequate and justified. Imprisonment allows for the possibility of the prisoner's redemption, the death penalty does not.
If the purpose of punishment is to satisfy the public's hunger for revenge, then death is the ultimate revenge. But we all know what the Bible says about revenge. When we seek the death penalty, we are treading on God's turf. There can be no question that our judgment is often faulty. There are just too many instances of our execution of innocents. That is why we are not supposed to act out of revenge.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 4:28pm

Buck's innocence is not the issue. The question is the appropriateness of the punishment. The ugly and clearly wrong statements of one of the state's witness calls Buck's punishment into question. If his appeal is successful, his sentence will be commuted to life in prison (maybe without parole, I don't know the Texas system well enough to assert that). Not all people guilty of murder, even multiple ones, are executed even in Texas.

As far as your argument that to oppose the death penalty on religious grounds must necessarily mean opposing prisons, you're off base.
First I don't actually recall Jesus or any scriptural writer saying that you can't take away someone's freedom for a portion of their life. That may be an inference, and not a bad one truth be told, but it's not quite the same thing as a command. In any event the idea of using denial of freedom as a punishment is only about 200-250 years old, so Scripture doesn't really have much to say on the subject good or bad.
Second confinement or imprisonment can be done for many reasons. Denial of freedom as a punishment is only one possible desire. Confinement to allow for moral instruction, therapy, reflection, and penance are another option. Isolating criminals from the population so they cannot do harm is a third possible reason. The second option was the driving ideal behind the development of U.S. prisons during the Second Great Awakening, and much of the post-Attica reforms in the 20th Century.
Yes this all a bit abstract, but your question was how to justify prisons while opposing the death penalty.

by: CJ

09-16-2011 @ 4:36pm

I oppose the death penalty for two reasons. The first is that in the event of error, a person can be released from prison but they can't be brought back to life. The second is I believe that a dead person cannot be redeemed to serve God in this life but a person who is punished can.

Others may believe differently.

by: Ngchen

09-16-2011 @ 4:46pm

histrogeek wrote:
The same conclusion, I'm happy to say, of Justice Harry Blackmun who after helping to restore the death penalty, ended his career stating that the Court needed to end the illusion that the machinery of death could be made to work constitutionally.

While it may be true (debatable) that "there is simply no reasonable way to conduct executions in accordance with the values of American law," the constitutional issue's not really close. Here's why.

1. When the constitution was ratified, there was the death penalty, and no serious scholar thought that it prohibited such at that point, and
2. Amendment V reads "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...(emphasis added)" A plain reading of the text implies that with the due process of law, one's life may be taken.

It's the ever-present temptation to read and interpret texts to have them say what we want them to say, rather than what they plainly say, that leads to the kind of mischief that Justice Blackmun engaged in.

by: Samuel Lufi

09-16-2011 @ 4:56pm

I appreciate Shane's thoughts - and believe that seeing Christ as conquering and destroying Death itself has been erroneously replaced with a view of Christ paying a ransom to the Father who did not hold us captive. Clearly, this flawed theology is reflected in the Church's flawed approach to crime, punishment, and reformation.

Despite that agreement, I believe that your quandary highlights the poor exegesis used in the example. I believe that a better reading of the story is that the law was NOT being honored. The instructions for execution of adulterers stipulated death for both the man and the woman. Clearly, if she had be caught "in the very act," the other guilty party would have been present. Nevertheless, the rulers chose to selectively apply the law against those most vulnerable.

This more careful analysis of the story still highlights significant flaws in the US penal system, but it is not a good text to prove that Jesus was opposed to the Death penalty in all cases. It does prove that he was opposed to a system of law that brought harsh penalties against the weak while leaving the strong to continue their lives of sinfulness and indulgence.

by: choctaw_chris

09-16-2011 @ 5:00pm

I watched a film called 'Pierrepoint' about Britain's most prolific hangman. He later believed that hanging was carried out chiefly for the purpose of revenge. If you look at the US' record on executions it has been very biased against poor black people. The US has been happy to execute the mentally handicapped and minors. Keeping people on Death Row for years must violate their human rights.

I would find it hard to argue against the death penalty on the grounds of grace or mercy over judgement as the prospect of execution could, in a perverse way, be a means of grace just as could a terminal illness. It can even be argued that a sentence of death is more human than a lifetime of incarceration. But just as those Pharisees could not justify themselves, neither can the US penal system. So long as the guilty go free because they can afford expensive lawyers and the poor are denied justice because they are poor, any state that sanctions the death penalty must stand condemned in the sight of God. Sodom was more righteous.

by: Andy J. Funk

09-16-2011 @ 5:31pm

The call of the follower of Christ is not to preach the good news, making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them and making sure we find a way to protect ourselves in the process. By following Jesus, we may in fact be putting ourselves at odds with many "authorities" and "powers", which will leave us vulnerable. Our call is to build peace, returning evil with good. Christ followers are to live this life in every sphere of their existence. No greater love is there than the one who lays down his life for his friends...sometimes we find ourselves throwing self-preservation to the wind in order to do what's right.

by: Michael

09-16-2011 @ 5:26pm

CJ,

The reasons you give for opposing the death penalty are different from the one I addressed so I will make some comments on your reasons.

Regarding your first reason. Once a death sentence is carried out, it is irreversible. This is true. However, once carried out EVERY sentence is irreversible. Once a man spends the rest of his life in prison, his life sentence cannot be undone.

This is just a thought. I too understand the comfort than comes from knowing that there is some hope that someday some partial reparation may be made to an innocent man who sits in prison where no such hope would exist if he were dead. But I am also far more concerned about the potentially innocent men condemned to life in prison than I am of the fate of one man who is clearly guilty.

Regarding your second reason. This is true.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 5:44pm

I did not say that the Constitution didn't allow for the death penalty. BTW at the time of the Constitution corporal punishment and exile were widespread punishments, with only limited opposition to the former and none for the latter. Yet the Supreme Court in 19th Century (long before Earl Warren was a gleam in his parents' eyes), found both to violate the 8th Amendment, and no serious legal scholar has questioned those opinions.

So the Constitution does support the death penalty and every legal scholar who opposes the death penalty agrees.
The issue is with everything else that the Constitution, especially the due process, equal protection, and the cruel and unusual punishment clauses, is the EXISTING system of capital punishment constitutional. More specifically did a person convicted under the existing system receive all the protections they are entitled to.
That is what the Furman case was about. That's what the dissidents in the Gregg case were about. That's why George Ryan commuted all the death penalties in Illinois.

Blackmun did believe that the Constitution allowed capital punishment. He also believed for most of his career that a system that was fair and constitutional could be developed. But like the Court decided in Brown, there comes a point where a hypothetical doctrine (separate but equal, a fair system of executions) just doesn't work in the real world and continuing to fiddle with it to see if can be made to work denies legal protection for too many people.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 5:51pm

"sometimes we find ourselves throwing self-preservation to the wind in order to do what's right."
I don't disagree with you. But it is important to see if we can justly and rightly have both order, mercy, justice, freedom, and peace, not just resign ourselves that one or more of them must innately contradict the others.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: ThaddeusMay

09-16-2011 @ 1:59pm

Yes, a stay of execution is very good news. The grey cloud, as usual, is that the state still maintains the authority to kill people based on flawed man's discernment of guilt or innocence. Without even getting into the moral quandary that is deciding appropriate punishment for crime, executing the death sentence is making the impossible-to-make claim that you know something with 100% certainty. There is no room for mistakes and attempted restitution after the person is dead. In Texas, the only issue is whether the proper procedures were followed, not the validity of the death penalty.

With that in mind, though, I do have a non-rhetorical question. In the example Shane gives with Jesus and the accused adulterous woman, if the punishment was something other than death, can we discern what Jesus' response would have been? Let's say the law of the land was 20 years of prison for adultery, would Jesus step in and utter the famous cast the first stone line? If we imagine he would, how do Christians then approach any sort of man-made judicial systems? I guess what I'm asking is ... is the problem with the punishment (death for the adulterous woman) or is the problem with casting the first stone? And if the problem is with casting the first stone and not the gravity of the punishment, how do we begin to level any sort of punishment on anyone?

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 2:48pm

Some years ago I was teaching law to high school students. We had a good discussion of the death penalty including a speaker from the neighboring divinity school who was also a lawyer (late life career changer). I remember telling the students, once they asked for my opinion, that I couldn't say that nobody deserved death for their crimes (Tim McVeigh was on people's minds at the time), but that was irrelevant as a legal question.
The legal question was and is, "Can the state administer the ultimate punishment in a fair and correct way so that there are no errors?" After going over the various places in the system where the death penalty can manipulated or unfairly applied, I concluded that there is simply no reasonable way to conduct executions in accordance with the values of American law. The same conclusion, I'm happy to say, of Justice Harry Blackmun who after helping to restore the death penalty, ended his career stating that the Court needed to end the illusion that the machinery of death could be made to work constitutionally.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 3:07pm

Two comments:
First the proper procedures issue. Because stays and appeals are conducted in the legal sphere, these are the only questions that can be asked. Is there an error of law that calls the verdict or sentence into question? That is the only grounds for appeal.
Second, Jesus' problem was then and in other cases with people presuming that they could judge others when they themselves were not free of sin (the speck in your brother's eye aphorism springs to mind).
Does this provide a problem for judicial punishment? Sure does. It's part of the troublesome dynamic of Caesar and God. In a heavenly system, forgiveness and mercy reign as the principles of justice. Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. In the human world, order is the supreme principle of law (not that forgiveness, mercy, and fairness aren't important, just not the ultimate goal). This means invariably that some sort of compromise is needed, but we as Christians need to be aware of that compromise and strive to reconcile the principles of God and Caesar to the greatest extent possible.
God can be merciful and forgiving in all circumstances because God cannot ultimately be harmed. We, as individuals and societies, can be harmed and so need some form of temporary protection. (Temporary not meaning short-term so much as not permanent or eternal)

by: Michael

09-16-2011 @ 3:33pm

If Buck is innocent, he does not merely need a reprieve from execution, he needs to be released from prison altogether. No one is arguing for this because his guilt of double murder is not at all in doubt.

The argument goes that the teachings of Christ are not compatible with killing and therefore as Christians we must oppose all executions. However, the teachings of Christ are not compatible with taking a man's freedom away for the rest of his life either (or even a poriton of his life.)

Therefore, those Christians who oppose the death penality on religious grounds need to explain on what grounds they favor any punishment for crime and why those grounds that permit the government to use either violence of the threat of violence to deny a convicted man his freedom do not also permit that same government to take his life.

by: pooch

09-16-2011 @ 4:19pm

In other news, the execution of thousands of babies in the womb continued yesterday as planned.

While I am moved by the case Shane makes in this post, I can't help but think that we are focusing on the speck of capital punishment and ignoring the plank of abortion in this country. We can argue the proper response to the Mr. Buck's crimes, and we can argue a stay of execution being an act of grace. But what about the killing of a far greater number of innocents whose only offense was to be inconvenient?

by: scat

09-16-2011 @ 4:21pm

I am no theologian, but taking away one's life and taking away one's freedom are two different things. Imprisonment keeps society safe from this individual's criminal activity. If that is the primary reason for punishment, then imprisonment is adequate and justified. Imprisonment allows for the possibility of the prisoner's redemption, the death penalty does not.
If the purpose of punishment is to satisfy the public's hunger for revenge, then death is the ultimate revenge. But we all know what the Bible says about revenge. When we seek the death penalty, we are treading on God's turf. There can be no question that our judgment is often faulty. There are just too many instances of our execution of innocents. That is why we are not supposed to act out of revenge.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 4:28pm

Buck's innocence is not the issue. The question is the appropriateness of the punishment. The ugly and clearly wrong statements of one of the state's witness calls Buck's punishment into question. If his appeal is successful, his sentence will be commuted to life in prison (maybe without parole, I don't know the Texas system well enough to assert that). Not all people guilty of murder, even multiple ones, are executed even in Texas.

As far as your argument that to oppose the death penalty on religious grounds must necessarily mean opposing prisons, you're off base.
First I don't actually recall Jesus or any scriptural writer saying that you can't take away someone's freedom for a portion of their life. That may be an inference, and not a bad one truth be told, but it's not quite the same thing as a command. In any event the idea of using denial of freedom as a punishment is only about 200-250 years old, so Scripture doesn't really have much to say on the subject good or bad.
Second confinement or imprisonment can be done for many reasons. Denial of freedom as a punishment is only one possible desire. Confinement to allow for moral instruction, therapy, reflection, and penance are another option. Isolating criminals from the population so they cannot do harm is a third possible reason. The second option was the driving ideal behind the development of U.S. prisons during the Second Great Awakening, and much of the post-Attica reforms in the 20th Century.
Yes this all a bit abstract, but your question was how to justify prisons while opposing the death penalty.

by: CJ

09-16-2011 @ 4:36pm

I oppose the death penalty for two reasons. The first is that in the event of error, a person can be released from prison but they can't be brought back to life. The second is I believe that a dead person cannot be redeemed to serve God in this life but a person who is punished can.

Others may believe differently.

by: Ngchen

09-16-2011 @ 4:46pm

histrogeek wrote:
The same conclusion, I'm happy to say, of Justice Harry Blackmun who after helping to restore the death penalty, ended his career stating that the Court needed to end the illusion that the machinery of death could be made to work constitutionally.

While it may be true (debatable) that "there is simply no reasonable way to conduct executions in accordance with the values of American law," the constitutional issue's not really close. Here's why.

1. When the constitution was ratified, there was the death penalty, and no serious scholar thought that it prohibited such at that point, and
2. Amendment V reads "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...(emphasis added)" A plain reading of the text implies that with the due process of law, one's life may be taken.

It's the ever-present temptation to read and interpret texts to have them say what we want them to say, rather than what they plainly say, that leads to the kind of mischief that Justice Blackmun engaged in.

by: Samuel Lufi

09-16-2011 @ 4:56pm

I appreciate Shane's thoughts - and believe that seeing Christ as conquering and destroying Death itself has been erroneously replaced with a view of Christ paying a ransom to the Father who did not hold us captive. Clearly, this flawed theology is reflected in the Church's flawed approach to crime, punishment, and reformation.

Despite that agreement, I believe that your quandary highlights the poor exegesis used in the example. I believe that a better reading of the story is that the law was NOT being honored. The instructions for execution of adulterers stipulated death for both the man and the woman. Clearly, if she had be caught "in the very act," the other guilty party would have been present. Nevertheless, the rulers chose to selectively apply the law against those most vulnerable.

This more careful analysis of the story still highlights significant flaws in the US penal system, but it is not a good text to prove that Jesus was opposed to the Death penalty in all cases. It does prove that he was opposed to a system of law that brought harsh penalties against the weak while leaving the strong to continue their lives of sinfulness and indulgence.

by: choctaw_chris

09-16-2011 @ 5:00pm

I watched a film called 'Pierrepoint' about Britain's most prolific hangman. He later believed that hanging was carried out chiefly for the purpose of revenge. If you look at the US' record on executions it has been very biased against poor black people. The US has been happy to execute the mentally handicapped and minors. Keeping people on Death Row for years must violate their human rights.

I would find it hard to argue against the death penalty on the grounds of grace or mercy over judgement as the prospect of execution could, in a perverse way, be a means of grace just as could a terminal illness. It can even be argued that a sentence of death is more human than a lifetime of incarceration. But just as those Pharisees could not justify themselves, neither can the US penal system. So long as the guilty go free because they can afford expensive lawyers and the poor are denied justice because they are poor, any state that sanctions the death penalty must stand condemned in the sight of God. Sodom was more righteous.

by: Michael

09-16-2011 @ 5:26pm

CJ,

The reasons you give for opposing the death penalty are different from the one I addressed so I will make some comments on your reasons.

Regarding your first reason. Once a death sentence is carried out, it is irreversible. This is true. However, once carried out EVERY sentence is irreversible. Once a man spends the rest of his life in prison, his life sentence cannot be undone.

This is just a thought. I too understand the comfort than comes from knowing that there is some hope that someday some partial reparation may be made to an innocent man who sits in prison where no such hope would exist if he were dead. But I am also far more concerned about the potentially innocent men condemned to life in prison than I am of the fate of one man who is clearly guilty.

Regarding your second reason. This is true.

by: Andy J. Funk

09-16-2011 @ 5:31pm

The call of the follower of Christ is not to preach the good news, making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them and making sure we find a way to protect ourselves in the process. By following Jesus, we may in fact be putting ourselves at odds with many "authorities" and "powers", which will leave us vulnerable. Our call is to build peace, returning evil with good. Christ followers are to live this life in every sphere of their existence. No greater love is there than the one who lays down his life for his friends...sometimes we find ourselves throwing self-preservation to the wind in order to do what's right.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 5:44pm

I did not say that the Constitution didn't allow for the death penalty. BTW at the time of the Constitution corporal punishment and exile were widespread punishments, with only limited opposition to the former and none for the latter. Yet the Supreme Court in 19th Century (long before Earl Warren was a gleam in his parents' eyes), found both to violate the 8th Amendment, and no serious legal scholar has questioned those opinions.

So the Constitution does support the death penalty and every legal scholar who opposes the death penalty agrees.
The issue is with everything else that the Constitution, especially the due process, equal protection, and the cruel and unusual punishment clauses, is the EXISTING system of capital punishment constitutional. More specifically did a person convicted under the existing system receive all the protections they are entitled to.
That is what the Furman case was about. That's what the dissidents in the Gregg case were about. That's why George Ryan commuted all the death penalties in Illinois.

Blackmun did believe that the Constitution allowed capital punishment. He also believed for most of his career that a system that was fair and constitutional could be developed. But like the Court decided in Brown, there comes a point where a hypothetical doctrine (separate but equal, a fair system of executions) just doesn't work in the real world and continuing to fiddle with it to see if can be made to work denies legal protection for too many people.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 5:51pm

"sometimes we find ourselves throwing self-preservation to the wind in order to do what's right."
I don't disagree with you. But it is important to see if we can justly and rightly have both order, mercy, justice, freedom, and peace, not just resign ourselves that one or more of them must innately contradict the others.

by: histrogeek

09-16-2011 @ 7:08pm

I'm clearly spending far too much time here, so I'm going to leave but first. There is a punishment hearing on the Georgia case of Troy Davis. There appears to be some doubt as to his guilt and Amnesty International is running a petition against Davis' execution. If you feel this case raises serious doubts, sign the petition and spread the word. The Amnesty report is here.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...

by: lgfromillinois

09-16-2011 @ 8:27pm

I am opposed to the death penalty for the primary reason we are called to forgive and, that we may obtain mercy, be merciful. We do need protection from some who do harm others, but I pray they may have a turn of heart and find God.

by: Stephen431

09-16-2011 @ 9:07pm

I think it is safe to say that Jesus was opposed to his own death penalty conviction.

by: marlborough

09-16-2011 @ 9:32pm

choctaw_chris
You mention Albert Pierrpoint, the next to last hangman employed in England. There were two specific executions he performed which had a profound effect on him. One was the execution he performed on his aquaintance Corbett (aka Tish) with whom he performed in a pub. There was no doubt about Corbett's guilt, he confessed to the murder of his girl friend (who Pierrpoint also knew) but what bothered Pierrpoint was that he KNEW 'Tish' well. He was not just a 'job' who Pierrepoint intereacted with for the last 12 or so seconds of their life. The second I would offer was the execution of Timothy Evans one of the very few of his victims who tearfully professed his innocence to Pierrpoint in his last seconds. Three years later Pierrepoint hanged John Christie who was responsible for and confessed to,the murder Evans had been convicted and executed for. It was then abundantly clear to Pierrepoint that there could be no doubt that in at least one case he had hanged an innocent man. The executions of Nazi war criminals also effected him. He hanged about 43 in a week. It is hard to believe being involved in so many executions does not have a profound negative effect on a person. So not only does the execution effect the condemned it also has an effect on those who carry it out. Let me just address having a connection with the condemened. Some time ago I we received our monthly publication of a Christian journal. It seemd thicker than ususal. When I sat daoen to read it was clear that two copies had stuck together. One copy was mine the second was address to a prisoner #12345 Death Row State Prison. Death Row was right there on the label. This man very quickly became flesh and blood to me, he was reading the same literature as me. What else did we have in common? Well of course, he was a fellow human being, a creation of God, a person with a spiritual life in so many ways just like me. In spite of efforts otherwise he was indeed executed. The problem of over crowded prisons is severe, but we must find a way to impose life sentences without parole, thus leaving ourselves a window of opportunity to redress error when errors are inevitably made. Let us abolish the death penalty as soon as maybe.

by: Caitlin Michele

09-16-2011 @ 10:17pm

Awesome article...well written Shane! You know, after reading that Amish story of how their children was murdered in a one room school house...and yet they turned around and showed an amazing example of forgiveness, grace and love to the murderers family. In my own life, I wonder if I could do that if someone murdered someone close to me. Could I just turn right around, forgive them and love them? Jesus did on the cross. I am a wicked sinner, undeserving of God's powerful and amazing grace, unworthy of His love. Yet, Jesus died in my place on the cross for my sin. If I truly believe that God's grace is sufficient for me, then shouldn't I be living that out? If we believe His Grace is sufficient for us, shouldn't our lives testify of it?

by: Ankaboot

09-16-2011 @ 10:36pm

And if the problem is with casting the first stone and not the gravity of the punishment, how do we begin to level any sort of punishment on anyone?

You don't. You insure restitution or retaliation or both, on a case-by-case basis. God does not "punish" ~ He provides a way to expiate certain offenses so that the wrong does not return to the wrongdoer in the next life, but in this life. In addition, He forgives in all cases of repentance, although this does not automatically obviate the need for expiation, restitution, or retaliation.

Notably, there are certain offenses for which He allows no expiation, restitution, or retaliation. From those, there is no escape from consequence other than firm and permanent repentance. Most of them are their own consequent, the offense itself is its "return."

His Judgment is final, and will not change or be overturned or escaped.

by: MickS

09-17-2011 @ 1:28am

Use to believe the death penalty was an important aspect of our criminal ystem that needed to stay . The belief I had was that it would be a deterent and also psotively make sure the person would never take another life. The taking of life is never a good thing , but I thought with it stopping the future taking of innocent life it was the closest thign we could come to justice .

With the revelation of innocence being proven in some cases by DNA to people on death role , the simple fact that the system is not fair in regards to those go through our system , the expense and of course the taking of another life regardless if it is guilt of a terrible crime I have changed my mind .

But the fact we need laws that make sure people serve mandatory sentences seems to be needed . I did not find the article persuasive , in fact such arguments use to leave me all the more sure my past death penalty views were correct . There is little concern about the victims of murder or crime . There is also apparently no conern about the families of those involved here .
I really believe using Jesus as a means to interfere in this case is insulting to those families . At least how it was done here .

The Lord's love and mercy is also directed to the families of the murdered victim , . For through forgiveness is about the only way they will be able to get through their lost . No justice or penalty of a human court system can ever make the wrong right in their eyes .
Why we leave the victim and families out of these conversations is bothersome .

by: hereforone

09-17-2011 @ 5:28pm

I know my reply will sound a little abstract but doesn't Genesis clearly discuss denial of freedom? Didn't God as the first arbiter of justice turn Adam and Eve away from their community, the garden of Eden, as punishment for their crime? Also, when Cain killed his brother, his punishment for the first capital crime of murder, wasn't the death penalty but again, being punished by removal of his support system, community and family. Isn't that one of the basic tenets of denial of freedom: removal from one's community?

by: Marco F

09-18-2011 @ 1:36am

The death penalty is the opposite of forgiveness. When a society refuses to forgive its enemies, it places itself under Jesus' curse: that if you will not forgive those who sin against you then neither will your Father in heaven forgive you your sins. That's some scary stuff to contemplate America!!!

by: histrogeek

09-19-2011 @ 2:51pm

It's analogous yes, but not quite. Exile isn't exactly the same idea as a prison. Prisons, in the modern sense, are about eliminating a person's rights as payment for their "debt to society." It comes from an era when the rights of an individual were seen a more civilized means of exacting society's punishment on an individual (as opposed to corporal punishment).
Exile, or outlawry, asserts that a person's very presence in society is destructive so they must be removed, just as Cain was removed from his family. Cain was not expected to pay some type of restitution either in blood, time, or treasure. He was removed so he could do no further harm. At least that's one way of looking at it.
There are some more recent ideas in our legal system (three strikes law in particular) that are adaptations of this earlier idea, with prisons essentially be warehouses of exiles.
For an excellent description of the development of modern ideas of prisons (at least until the 1980s), read Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish.

by: swrussel

09-20-2011 @ 6:35pm

Since Christians have taken up discussing the death penalty, it would be good to account for a case where Christianity was dead center in the death decision:
http://indiancountrytodaymedia...

by: letjusticerolldown

09-21-2011 @ 3:14pm

Seems to me the issue around the adulterous woman was not about the woman. It was about Jesus--and whether the religious authorities could back him into a corner.

I could be wrong--but it also seems to me there are lots of 'religious authorities' trying to back folk into the corner on this and other issues; and it might be time for us to stop taking positions on issues and align ourselves with Jesus.

I do like the "grace interruptions." But the grace interruptions are, in a sense, dependent on the view of the convictions/sentences as just. ie A just sentence is interrupted by grace.

I think it wrong to prejudicially conclude death penalty proponents have a lower amount of compassion or commitment to life. Can one truly defend sacred life without recognizing there are times when guarding that dignity will require the giving of life?

I do not trust the State as a just arbiter. I do not trust it with the power to carry out the death penalty. I also do not trust that the legal system finding technicalities to interrupt death--is an exercise of grace

by: Gentle Lamb

09-21-2011 @ 11:43pm

I like the argument of grace and I believe that Justice should be tampered by mercy in cases where the guilt is not established beyond a 100% certainty.

However, the comparison with the death penalty of the woman caught in adultery is rather difficult to sustain. Here the woman did not kill anyone. She probably had to engage in being a sex worker just to survive as women were not allowed to work and if she was a divorcee, she could not support herself.

In addition, the Pharisees did not bring the man who had sex with the woman to court indicating that justice were skewed and injustice meted out to the outcasts, the poor and the weak. Hence, the danger of death penalty is that your status makes you more likely to be condemned and sentenced to death.

The story in the bible still happens to-date. Gays are sent to death by their thousands in Iran yet there are few reports in progressive christian circles lest it distort our idea that some religions are about peace. Countries based on dogmatic religious laws are often harsh and without mercy.

Likewise, in Texas, Perry is motivated by the Christian Faith for his liking of the death penalty which is difficult to understand since Christianity is about love rather than putting others on the Cross.