How Far is Too Far?
The death penalty has always been a controversial issue. Now, two states (South Carolina and Oklahoma) are pushing the issue further. Proposed legislation calls for the execution of repeat child sex offenders (source).
Most proponents of such legislation are social conservatives in the Republican party who align themselves with traditional Judeo-Christian values. It is quite easy for Christians to jump on board with whatever social issue a Republican endorses. However, I think this is an issue that is a bit more complicated than blindly backing a political party that has historically aligned itself with Christians and Christian values.
There are three differing views of what the goal is for the punitive system. One view sees it as the rehabilitation of the convicted person. Another view is deterrence—to discourage other people from committing similar crimes. And the other for retribution—to justly pay back the person for the crime committed. Of course, it isn’t as tidy as that. Most believe the punitive system should accomplish a blend of the three.
The problem with this legislation is that it doesn’t line up with the traditional arguments for capital punishment. Many Christians would argue that the government has the right to properly engage in retribution via capital punishment. “An eye for an eye” and Genesis 9:6 are usually cited. However, it isn’t the case with this proposed legislation. No life was taken. Of course, that is not denying the seriousness of the crime. “Raping a child is as horrific as taking a life,” said South Carolina State Senator Kevin Bryant (Republican). Indeed, it is as horrific but it still isn’t the same. This isn’t retributive justice.
The other argument for this legislation is based more on the deterrence view. Such a stiff penalty for this crime will help deter people from committing it, so the argument goes. Unfortunately you could always justify a harsher penalty than what is just in order to meet the greater goal of deterrence. You could start executing people for stealing, perjury, assault, etc. However, this is all unjust. It is quite unfair to issue a punishment that exceeds the scope of the crime.
Of course, no one is arguing that this legislation will help rehabilitate the convicted person. It may rehabilitate others who are considering committing such crime, but that would be considered deterrence. In fact, backing such legislation is giving up on the idea of rehabilitation. This legislation implies that these people are unable to be rehabilitated at all and therefore deserve not to live. Again, such a view could be used to justify execution for serial thieves, liars, adulterers, etc.
Of course, the problem (as noted in the article) with coming down against such legislation is that one could be viewed as being on the side of the convicted child sex offender. No one is disagreeing that these people should be punished severely. The question comes down to what extent can a government go without losing its “just” identity? I am not sure a Christian can argue from the Bible in a definitive way favorably about this legislation as with the case for retributive capital punishment. That doesn’t mean that Biblical ethics would rule against such legislation either. What it does mean is that Christians should always be wise and sensitive when dealing with such issues.