Murderers Must Die: Judeo-Christian Values, Part XVIII (Dennis Prager Alert)

One should not confuse Jews or Christians with Judeo-Christian values. Many Jews and many Christians, including many sincerely religious ones, take certain positions that are contrary to Judeo-Christian values (which I have defined at length: In a nutshell, they are Old Testament values as mediated by Christians, especially American Christians).

One clear example is the death penalty for murderers. Many Jews and Christians believe that all murderers should be kept alive, that it is not only wrong to take the life of any murderer; it is actually un-Jewish or un-Christian.

Jews opposed to capital punishment cite the Talmud (the second most important religious text to Jews), which is largely opposed to capital punishment; Christians opponents cite Jesus on loving one's enemies, for example; and Catholic abolitionists cite the late Pope John Paul II and the many cardinals and bishops who, though not denying all of the Church's teachings on the permissibility of the state to take the life a murderer, largely oppose capital punishment.

Yet, the notion that a murderer must give up his life is one of the central values in the Old Testament. Indeed, taking the life of a murderer is the only law that is found in all Five Books of Moses (the Torah). That is particularly remarkable considering how few laws there are at all in the first Book, Genesis.

When God creates the world, He declares a fundamental value and law to maintain civilization: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He created him." And the law is repeated in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

When all murderers are allowed to keep their lives, murder is rendered less serious and human life is therefore cheapened. That is not only the Judeo-Christian biblical view. It is common sense. The punishment for a crime is what informs society how bad that crime is. A society that allows all murderers to live deems murder less awful than one that takes away the life of a murderer.

There are those who argue that precisely because they so value human life, they oppose the taking of a murderer's life. They argue that you cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. But that is the same as arguing that you can't teach that stealing is wrong by taking away a thief's money or that you can't teach that kidnapping is wrong by kidnapping (i.e., imprisoning) kidnappers.

To the Torah, the first source of Judeo-Christian values, murder is the great sin; the immoral shedding of human blood (as opposed to the moral shedding of human blood in self-defense or in a just war) pollutes the world. That is why the Torah legislated that even an animal that killed a human should be put to death. The purpose was not to punish the animal -- animals do not have free choice, hence cannot be morally culpable. And it was hardly to teach other animals not to kill. It was because a human life is so valuable, it cannot be taken without the taker losing its life.

But, some will object, the Torah decrees the death penalty for many infractions, yet we don't put to death people who practice witchcraft, commit adultery or other capital infractions -- why those who murder?

First, the only capital crime mentioned before there were any Jews or Israel (in Genesis when God creates the world) is murder. Other death penalties applied specifically to the people of Israel when they entered the Land of Israel -- a special code of behavior for a special time in a special place. And virtually none of those were carried out. The primary purpose of declaring a sin worthy of capital punishment was not actually to execute the sinner, but to declare how serious the infraction was when a society was establishing itself as the first based on ethical monotheism. Capital punishment for murder, on the other hand, was obviously intended for all time and for all people -- it is independent of the existence of Jews and declared to be fundamental to the existence of a humane order.

Second, all the other death penalties are laws. The death penalty for murder is not only a law; it is a value. Laws may be time bound. Values are eternal. Thus, the Christians who believe in the divinity of the Torah are not bound to the Torah's dietary laws (such as not eating pork and shellfish); but they are bound to the value of taking the life of murderers.

Finally, the Old Testament is preoccupied with justice. And allowing one who has unjustly deprived another person of life to keep his own is the ultimate injustice.

There are many good reasons to be wary of taking the lives of murderers -- such as insufficient evidence, corrupted witnesses, distinguishing between premeditated murder and a crime of passion -- but love of life or a commitment to biblically based values are not among them.

The death penalty is a cardinal biblical value, which speaks to the Bible's view that innocent human life is sacred. The murderer MUST die. This in contrast to other crimes, for which reparations are allowed. No murderer rich or poor, can escape the ultimate punishment. Man is made in the image of God and so human life has an essence of holiness to it. And there is also the question of justice. The seminal Jewish contribution to the world besides bringing God into it, was to declare justice must be meted out equally regardless of social status. When it comes to murder there can be only one answer.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

"He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." This from the New Testament which Prager doesn't mention since he doesn't adhere to the New Testament.

Prager mentioned the passage in one of old "Ultimate Issues" newsletters articles on the death penalty. Yeah, he's a staunch advocate of putting killers to death. As every one knows, the real problem in this country is we don't execute them fast enough to do justice. There's something wrong when it takes twenty years to execute a murderer and more of them die of sickness, old age, or the protracted legal wrangling than by the hangman and his gallows.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

Although it seems an anomaly to some, the fact that conservatives oppose abortion and favor the death penalty, while liberals are on opposite sides, has a basis in the same issue - the value of human life.

The key in the difference between valuing the life of the unborn and not that of a murderer is innocence. Who can be more innocent than an unborn baby? As far as the murderer, the life being valued is that of the victim, not the murderer. To value the killer more than the victim of itself devalues innocence and life.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.