The Last Mile: Finding Peace without Ending Life

“We each owe a death—there are no exceptions,” Tom Hanks declares in The Green Mile. It is with this thought that we enter into discussion on capital punishment. I am not here, however, to talk about if lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, if the death penalty fails to deter crime, or even if innocent people are on death row. Those are logical arguments that are easy to place on a scale, weighing the pros and cons on the death penalty.

Instead, I want you to consider what we are told biblically, an argument that does not mean much to the rest the world. Logic is useful when we are trying to convince the secular culture, but Christians cannot center their beliefs around this logic. Otherwise, when people like Timothy McVeigh are on trial, we will fall to worldly logic saying, I usually oppose the death penalty, but execute this one because he is a monster, a response that is not only sinful but hypocritical.

When we have firm beliefs set in God’s truth we are then able to enter the broader discussion with the secular world, but without recognizing God’s will, our arguments on His behalf are filthy rags. I have struggled with this issue for a few years, considering different arguments, but it was not until I found biblical evidence that I felt satisfied.

The foundation of the argument must be biblical, or our belief will crumble when others’ logic counters our own.To illustrate, I will tell you two stories: a biblical story of an adulteress and the story of Elizabeth Morgan to show the biblical command as well as a method of peace in a contemporary situation.

Transition: First of all, accepting that God’s Word is the truth, we must examine it with discernment.

John 8 is the only instance where Jesus directly discusses the death penalty (Belousek 376). The religious leaders brought a woman before Jesus and a crowd saying, “‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’” (John 8:3b-5).

The religious leaders were attempting to trap Jesus in his decision. His only response to their pestering was “‘Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her”’ (John 8:7). The crowd and leaders left, until none remained to condemn the woman. Jesus then released her with his forgiveness, saying ‘“Go now and leave your life of sin’” (John 8:10-11).

In the article “Capital punishment, Covenant Justice and the Cross of Christ,” Darrin Snyder Belousek examines Jesus’ response. Jesus did not question the woman’s conviction on “evidential, procedural or substantive grounds” (Belousek 379). He could have argued that the man was also guilty, cross-examined the witnesses, or challenged whether death was the appropriate punishment. But Jesus did not seek a legal contradiction as simple way out.

While the previous passage implicitly provides new standards, the Sermon on the Mount is more direct. In this sermon, Jesus abolished lex talionis, or the Jewish law of retribution, declaring ‘“You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” However, I tell you, do not resist an evil person”’ (Matthew 5:38-39). But even the old law is not justification for our contemporary death penalty.

 

The purpose of this law was to stop blood feuds, limiting “human vengeance,” not setting the death penalty as an “absolute principal” (Belousek 397). According to Belousek, there were strict stipulations, including that a person can only be put to death if they are unrepentant (Belousek 398). The law required much to justify the death penalty, but still in Matthew 5 Jesus puts an end to it.

 

Furthermore, Jesus goes to Calvary to take our death penalty on himself. As New Testament scholar Christopher Marshall says, if we use the “language of atonement” to justify the death penalty, we end up in a “theological quagmire” where God requires “dual atonement for murderers,” in essence saying Christ’s death is not enough for their sins, but is enough for our own (Marshall 222). To provide the opportunity for redemption we must restrict retribution, seeking a form of justice without death (Belousek 398).

 

Transition: Even if we can agree that capital punishment is wrong, what can we say, then, to the victim’s family who is in so much pain?

 

Elizabeth Morgan’s niece, Cait, was closing a Starbucks in Washington D.C. with two coworkers one Fourth of July weekend. A man entered with two guns, and because the workers resisted, he killed all three of them. The FBI took over the investigation, and after a long year, they captured the suspect, Carl Cooper.

 

Morgan admits that when the Attorney General decided to seek the death penalty in her niece’s case, her family was divided. Morgan, her sister, and her mother decided they did not want Cooper put to death. She suggests that victim’s families who seek the death penalty hope for three types of compensation: closure, justice, and peace.

 

But Morgan does not believe any of these reparations can come from execution. While the arrest of Cooper relieved her, she does not want closure on Cait’s life or death because Cait’s death reminds her of the world’s nature and what needs to be done to protect others (Morgan 30).

 

Likewise, justice cannot be received, she says, because killing everyone on death row would not mend the injustice of these three deaths. Lastly, executions give no peace. In the end, Cooper confessed and was given life without parole. If they had waited until Cooper’s execution for peace, Morgan says they would be “troubled people indeed” (Morgan 30). Instead, her family sought peace in Cait’s prayer service. Cait’s mother said ‘“I can only think on [the memorial service] with pleasure: turning destructive hate/venom into love and forgiveness”’ (Morgan 31).

 

Although, the court did not sentence Carl Cooper to death, the option was available. If the family waited for his execution to bring them peace, they may never have found it and completely missed the peace Cait’s memorial service gave them. Their family and friends gathered around and comforted them. Cait’s family forgave Cooper, and did not need to dwell on Cait’s death to remember her life.

 

The reason we should oppose the death penalty is because of our love for God and for one another. A community breaks enough with one murder that another death only divides it more. Some injustices cannot be reconciled by human law, and the law should not try (Morgan 30).

 

Instead, we need to sit down and hold our friends who are mourning. We need to understand their pain, but we also need to encourage them to forgive. Cait’s mother said ‘“I have no idea how to redeem [Cooper], to correct his hurts and terrible passions,”’ but ‘“I may try to visit him someday”’ (Morgan 31).

 

This is a woman who has forgiven and who may become the best witness Cooper ever has. We cannot say this man should die, because he now has another chance to ask for forgiveness, and to be told by Jesus “Go and sin no more.”

 

Transition: I have told you these stories, not because I am asking you to decide whether these two people deserved to die, but because I want you to think critically with me.

Barker, Kenneth L., and Donald W. Burdick. Zondervan NIV Study Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Print.
 

Belousek, Darrin W Snyder. "Capital punishment, covenant justice and the Cross of Christ: the death penalty in the life and death of Jesus." Mennonite Quarterly Review 83.3 (2009): 375-402.
 

The Green Mile. Dir. Frank Darabont. Perf. Tom Hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan. Warner Bros., 1999. Videocassette.
 

Marshall, Christopher D. Beyond Retribution: a New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2001. Print.
 

Morgan, Elizabeth. "Crime and punishment." Christian Century 123.20 (2006): 30-33.