Never will the time be more opportune than now for serious reflection and discussion of capital punishment and Christian ethics. The United States of America now holds the dubious distinction of being the world's leader in the area of homicides. General interest in the death penalty has never been greater than it is today as we witness the vicious killings of individuals by fellow human beings in almost every urban community in America. According to a Senate Judiciary Committee report recently released, it has been projected that more than 23,220 people will be murdered in 1990--about 2,000 more than in 1989 and higher than the national record of 23,040 murders in 1980. (Murder Rate Surges…..1990) Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-Del.), the Committee chairman, commented during the hearing: "The nation is faced with an immediate peril and the situation is doomed to get worse unless we take action today." He called for an "all-fronts assault on the drug epidemic" as well as swift House passage of a Senate-passed crime bill that would ban domestically manufactured assault weapons and impose the death penalty for thirty-four federal offenses. (Murder Rate Surges…..1990)

Franz Bockle and Jacques Pohier, in their book The Death Penalty and Torture, (Bockle & Pohier, 1979) identify two major factors that affect the public's current assessment of capital punishment. First, they point out the extraordinary emphasis placed upon crimes by the media and particularly the audiovisual media. Under the section entitled "The Part Played By the Media," they state: “It is particularly striking how many newspapers, for example, nowadays regard it as their special responsibility to give a full account of the facts of a crime, to conduct an inquiry in parallel with that of the police and in this way to involve their readers in their pursuit of the criminal. These newspapers reached perhaps several hundred thousand people. Information on the television, on the other hand, reaches millions, even tens of millions. The crime that is in the limelight at any given time is repeated in the newspapers and on the screen again and again, described in all its details and subjected to a great deal of comments, so that the readers, viewers and listeners' attention is captured and retained. Oftentimes, the media almost always fastens onto what is of secondary importance and neglect the essential aspects of a case; the reader is often given thrilling publications and revelations and information which has often the ability to broadcast the seeds of fear in the minds and hearts of many of the viewers and listeners.” (Bockle & Pohier, 1979)
Second, it is suggested that many public officials take a less than honest approach to the question of capital punishment. The authors boldly assert that “Unscrupulous politicians have a stake in exploiting uninformed public opinion while conscientious legislators are threatened with loss of election for being permissive and soft on crime if they do not join in the enactment of the death penalty statutes.” (Bockle & Pohier, 1979)

Arguments Against Capital Punishment
Championed by the likes of recently retired Justice William Brennan of the United States Supreme Court, the opponents of capital punishment raise equally forceful arguments. They first argue that the death penalty serves no legitimate utility, and, in fact, they assert, it has demonstrably failed to accomplish its stated objectives.

Second, they argue that notwithstanding the Supreme Court's opinion in Gregg v. Georgia, (1976) the evolving standards of decency have not reached a point where society as a whole condones State executions. They reject the notion of the majority on the theory that the majority has frequently been wrong throughout history. They argue that capital punishment is barbaric and very cruel and unusual in the sense that if we don't abuse the rapist, don't burn down the house of the arsonist, don't beat up the robber or the one who assaults, and don't cut off the hand of the thief, why should we kill the killer?

Third, the opponents argue that capital punishment is arbitrarily and capriciously inflicted as a punishment. It is beyond real debate that the underclass, the poor, and the black in the country disproportionately are the hardest hit and most often the target of capital punishment. Those without money to hire private attorneys and those not the favorite of police, prosecutors, judges, and governors are seen as the victims of discriminatory application of the death penalty. While no effort is being made to cast aspersions on public defender agencies, the reality is that inadequate funding and staffing problems give rise to shortcomings in the quality of representation with respect to the resources of the government.

There has also been statistical evidence established with reference to the discrimination of African Americans. The opponents of capital punishment cite the Baldus study (1990) presented by a black defendant who was convicted and sentenced to die in Georgia for the robbery and murder of a white police officer. In the majority opinion by Supreme Court Justice Powell, which held that the Baldus study did not establish that Georgia's capital punishment scheme violated the Equal Protection clause, the Court, nevertheless, referenced the study in detail: In support of his claim, McCleskey proffered a statistical study performed by Professors David C. Baldus, George Woodworth, and Charles Pulaski [the Baldus study] that purports to show a disparity in the imposition of the death sentence in Georgia based on the race of the murder victim and, to a lesser extent, the race of the defendant. The Baldus study is actually two sophisticated statistical studies that examine over 2,000 murder cases that occurred in Georgia during the 1970's. The raw numbers collected by Professor Baldus indicate that defendants charged with killing white persons received the death penalty in 11% of the cases, but defendants charged with killing blacks received the death penalty in only 1% of the cases. The raw numbers also indicate a reverse racial disparity according to the race of the defendant: 4% of the black defendants received the death penalty, as opposed to 7% of the white defendants. (Baldus et al, 1990)

Fourth, capital punishment, as a punitive measure, is final and irreversible, which the opponents advance as the strongest reason for rejecting the death penalty. There have been mistakes in convictions throughout history, and the death penalty precludes the opportunity to rectify a miscarriage of justice. Hugo Bedau, in his treatise The Death Penalty in America, emphatically asserts that the innocent have been executed and that there is no system of criminal jurisprudence that has on the whole provided safeguards against the conviction and possible execution of an innocent man. (Bedau, 1964)

Fifth, similar to assertions by the proponents, there is ample authority in the scripture replete with suggestion for compassion, condonation, and remorse as well as for retribution, which the opponents dismiss as primitive and animalistic.
Sixth, the opponents stress the fiscal impact and argue that the $1,000,000 amount per execution (which includes the entire legal process) is too costly and the sum should be placed elsewhere to meet the State's pressing demands on the treasury from its citizens. Last, the death penalty, many observers have claimed, has made securing convictions more difficult and has often resulted in the acquittal of obviously guilty defendants. In other words, unpunished criminals are walking the streets because juries won't convict them of capital crimes knowing that they would get mandatory death. In short, many are satisfied that mandatory capital punishment does indeed have a deterrent effect: It deters jurors from convicting probably guilty men. (Bedau, 1975) To recap, it is the sacredness of life, the criminal as a victim, and the discriminatory application of the death penalty that undergird the basic position of the opponents to capital punishment.

Arguments in Favor of Capital Punishment
It has been said that "The right of administering punishment is the right of the sovereign as the supreme power to inflict pain upon a subject on account of a crime committed by him." (Endres, 1985) This statement is at the foundation of all arguments favoring capital punishment.

The proponents of capital punishment vigorously support the imposition of death as a punishment for heinous offenses. First, they raise the question as to why law-abiding citizens have to suffer at the hands of law breakers. Inasmuch as the public is outraged and disgusted with violence perpetrated against innocent victims and citizens, it is perfectly legitimate for the State to express this anger and vent this outrage by imposing capital punishment. (Langan, 1993)
Second, it logically follows that retribution and vengeance should be, and have long been, valid purposes of the criminal justice system. If private acts of vengeance (recent trends in New York suggest that private citizens are now seeking vengeance on their own) and vigilante groups are to be suppressed, citizens must have some assurance that the State will seek retribution on behalf of its citizens. (Yoder, 1996)

Third, capital punishment serves as a general deterrent to others who will come to realize what will happen to them if they engage in this kind of violent behavior. The argument here is that although there is no empirical data to verify the role of deterrence, those who claim that it does not deter have the burden to prove their position. It is further insisted that those with that burden cannot themselves prove that it does not deter. Moreover, as the proponents posit, the death penalty serves as a special deterrent. It is beyond dispute that the execution of the offender is the most effective and certain method by which the offender is incapacitated or prevented from perpetrating additional crimes against society. (Tushnet, 1989)

Fourth, the proponents of the death penalty argue that the majority of people in this country support capital punishment and America have always followed the democratic notion of the majority and consensus as a principle of operation. In support of this argument they point out that approximately thirty-seven state legislatures, representing most of the people in this country, have enacted legislation to impose capital punishment. Candidates for political office campaign on that issue and are elected over those who do not so favor. (Armstrong, 1966)
Fifth, proponents insist that biblical text supports capital punishment, and, in fact, during the medieval period even the Church recognized the right of the State to execute for the common good. Lex talionis, the Law of Retribution, they claim, has long been the basis upon which the State is authorized to protect and defend the common good by using violent means to repel the vicious. (Bockle & Pohier, 1979)

The retributive aspect of the proponents' position has been often repeated by any number of authors. The proponents believe that most of these murderers never express regret for the heinous crimes they commit, nor do they feel the slightest sympathy for the victim or their families. The proponents approve of the Supreme Court's recent attempts to streamline, curtail, and quicken the appeal mechanisms in order that the criminal justice system can become better balanced toward providing more justice to victims rather than always focusing on expanding the rights for criminal defendants. (Bedau, 1964)

What do the Churches say on Death Penalty?
Generally, with the exception of African American Protestants, the religious community (McHugh, 1978) (a part of the American majority who favor capital punishment) has taken a position of support for capital punishment. (Conuse, 1982) There are some who disagree and argue that the Christian position should be against capital punishment.
The general African American religious and church community (although there are signs this may be changing) pretty much still adhere to its pre-Gregg v. Georgia (1976) position. The traditional and lingering statement of the American Baptist Convention serves as today's protocol for many churches and denominations:
1. Because the Christian believes in the inherent worth of human personality and in the unceasing availability of God's mercy, forgiveness, and redemptive power, and
2. Because the Christian wholeheartedly supports the emphasis in modern penology upon the process of creative, redemptive rehabilitation, rather than on punitive and primitive retribution, and
3. Because the deterrent effects of capital punishment are not supported by available evidence, and
4. Because the death penalty tends to brutalize the human spirit and the society which condones it, and
5. Because human agencies of legal justice are fallible, permitting the possibility of the executing of the innocent.
We, therefore, recommend the abolition of capital punishment and the reevaluation of the parole system relative to such cases. (American Baptist Convention…1960)
The time has now come for the church to enter the debate and address the theological and ethical arguments raised by the proponents and opponents of capital punishment. Anything less is a disservice of great magnitude. (Hutchinson, 1984)