By Rev. Mark H. Creech
May 19, 2003

(AgapePress) - Intense lobbying by religious leaders, churches and death penalty opponents in North Carolina, has resulted in Senate Bill 972 -- Moratorium on Executions for Two Years. The bill, sponsored by Senator Ellie Kinnaird, a Carrboro Democrat, would halt executions in the Tar Heel State for two years while the General Assembly studies alleged flaws in how the death penalty is administered. The measure passed the North Carolina Senate by a 29-21 margin and has been sent to the House.

Supporters of the moratorium say there are too many concerns about racial bias and convicting the innocent not to stop executions while a study is conducted. But opponents say a moratorium is just "the camel's nose in the tent" toward ending capital punishment. If the House approves the moratorium proposal and the Governor signs it into law, North Carolina would be the third state along with Illinois and Maryland to enact a death penalty pause.

So the debate is under way. And a key question is whether the state has a moral right to execute. Opponents of the death penalty equate execution and murder, believing if two acts have the same ending, then those two acts are morally equivalent. But this position isn't morally tenable. Is the legal taking of property by the state the same as robbing a bank? Both result in the loss of property. Are kidnapping and putting someone in jail the same? Both result in imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self-defense and war the same as capital murder? Both end in the taking of human life. Please! This kind of logic is absurd and it's the centerpiece for anti-death penalty arguments.

Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Abe Fortas, in the New York Times Magazine, once said, "Why, when we have bravely and nobly progressed so far in the recent past to create a decent, humane society, must we perpetuate the senseless barbarism of official murder?" Is capital punishment the perpetuation of official murder? Where did capital punishment begin?

What we call the death penalty today is as old as the human race. It started during the days of Noah, when there were no more than eight souls on the earth. God had destroyed a wicked and violent civilization. In Genesis 9:6, God set forth the standard under which human life would make a new beginning: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Often referred to by scholars as the Noahic Covenant, this command antedates Israel and the Mosaic code; transcends Old Testament Law, per se, and advocates legislation that is binding for all cultures and eras. How remarkable that at the very foundation for all human government is the imperative for capital punishment.

Nearly every religious scholar agrees the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is correctly translated as a prohibition against individual cases of murder. There is no biblical prohibition against the government imposition of the death penalty. In fact, the government is required to impose capital punishment for deliberate murder.

No doubt this is why St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions "frivolous," citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live." He explicitly states, "The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state." Not to inflict the death penalty is a flagrant disregard for God's law, which recognizes that the sacredness of human life must be vigorously protected.

Of course, some will contend that capital punishment isn't a deterrent. But this position is also morally untenable. In his book, Worthy of Death, Dr. William H. Baker speaks of retribution, a term meaning "the dispensing of reward or punishment according to the deserts of the individual." Dr. Baker says, "Retribution is properly a satisfactor or according to the ancient figure of justice and her scales, a restoration of a disturbed equilibrium. As such it is a proper, legitimate and moral concept."

In other words, when someone dares to take human life, that person violates a principle of right and wrong as real as the law of gravity. And when this happens, the state has a moral obligation to once again balance the scales of justice by taking the life of the one who violates life. In this sense, the criminal executed has been effectively deterred from ever committing another capital crime.

Therefore, Christian leaders shouldn't dignify the rejection of capital punishment as a "higher Christian way" that enthrones the ethics of Jesus. There is no question that capital punishment was not only advocated in the Old Testament, but also sanctioned in the New. The apostle Paul said, "It is not without purpose that the ruler carries the sword. He is God's servant, to inflict his avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer" (Rom. 13:4). The sword, mind you, is an instrument of death. Moreover, if no crime deserves the death penalty, then why would God allow Christ to be put to death on the cross for mankind's sins?

When capital punishment isn't being administered fairly, we need to take steps to assure justice in the fear of God. But with all the pretrial, trial, appeals, writ and clemency procedures to minimize the chance of an innocent person being convicted, sentenced to death and executed today, there isn't enough compelling evidence to warrant a death penalty moratorium in North Carolina or any other state. And the religious opposition to capital punishment isn't really based on our nation's rich Judeo-Christian heritage, but on the vague philosophical notion that the taking of human life is wrong in every circumstance -- a philosophy that fails to distinguish adequately between killing and murder, punishment and crime.