By Reverend Fiifi AFENYI-DONKOR & Attorney-at-Law Judith Ama AFENYI-DONKOR Esq
The death penalty continues to be a highly controversial subject, raising the essential query: Does the legal system have the right to end someone’s life under the banner of justice?
This discussion revolves around the overlap between law, ethics, and religion, incorporating legal doctrines, moral values, and spiritual convictions.
In numerous cultures, religious groups like the Church significantly influence discussions by presenting viewpoints rooted in holy scriptures (such as the Bible) and doctrinal instruction, which can both support and question the validity of capital punishment.
Fundamentally, this conversation urges us to contemplate the genuine essence of justice and the worth of human existence.
The Legal Perspective
The death penalty continues to be one of the most contentious aspects of criminal justice, standing at the intersection of legal power and ethical beliefs.
Although numerous judicial frameworks support it based on deterrence and retributive doctrines, its validity is frequently scrutinized via two contrasting jurisprudential traditions: Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory.
Each provides a separate structure for comprehending capital punishment, whether viewed through the lens of legal processes or as a question of ethical correctness.
Legal Positivism: The Law As It Exists
Legal Positivism, linked with legal scholars such as H.L.A. Hart, posits that the legitimacy of a law stems from its origin and processes rather than its ethical substance.
From this perspective, a regulation instituted by an authorized body following formal processes is regarded as law, irrespective of its ethical debatability.
According to this principle, the death penalty is deemed acceptable in nations where it is legally authorized and enforced by judicial systems.
For instance, in Nigeria, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the legality of capital punishment, emphasizing its role as a deterrence and pointing out its solid foundation within both the Criminal Code and the Constitution. According to positivists, this judicial endorsement is enough to validate the use of the death penalty.
Legal Positivism views law primarily as a tool for maintaining order and social control. It emphasizes legal certainty, predictability, and procedural consistency. However, it is often criticized for turning a blind eye to unjust or inhumane laws, provided they meet formal criteria.
Notably, even within this structure, moral language commonly appears in public discussions; both citizens and legislators regularly use ethical arguments to support or contest laws, thus muddling the distinction between what is legal and what is morally right.
Natural Law Theory: The Law That Should Be
On the contrary, Natural Law Theory, which draws from the ideas of philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and contemporary scholars such as Lon L. Fuller, posits that for a law to be genuinely legitimate, it needs to align with fundamental ethical principles including justice, human worth, and equity. According to these theorists, even if a rule is formally established through legal procedures, it might still fail to hold moral authority if it contradicts those essential ethical norms.
From this perspective, the death penalty invites fundamental moral scrutiny. If it compromises the right to life, devalues human dignity, or is applied arbitrarily or discriminatorily, it fails the test of justice, regardless of its procedural legality. Natural law theorists argue that no legal rule should stand apart from the moral values it ought to embody.
This viewpoint has prompted legal changes across multiple nations. For instance, Ghana’s 1992 Constitution introduced the death penalty for offenses such as murder and high treason, yet concurrently safeguarded the right to life through Article 13, thus establishing a fundamental legal paradox. Consequently, this situation generated considerable human rights issues and led to demands for amendments.
In 2023, Ghana eliminated the death penalty for the majority of offenses, with an exception for cases involving high treason. This change mirrors a move towards harmonizing domestic legislation with international human rights norms. Such a step underscores a stronger dedication to legal principles that respect life and human worth.
In South Africa, the Constitutional Court made a landmark decision in the case of S v Makwanyane and Another (CCT/3/94) 1995(3) SA 391 (CC), ruling that the death penalty was unconstitutional. The court grounded its verdict on the pillars of human dignity, equality, and the right to life, determining that a fair society would not support executions carried out by the state.
By comparing Legal Positivism with Natural Law Theory, we highlight the persistent conflict between what law is and what it should be. This dichotomy shapes worldwide discussions about capital punishment and compels societies to constantly evaluate if their legal systems embody more than mere legitimacy—also reflecting humanitarian values.
A Christian Lens: The Faith Perspective
Opinions within religious circles regarding capital punishment vary widely and frequently hinge upon how scriptures are interpreted. In our exploration, we will focus specifically on viewpoints from Christianity, delving into both biblical justifications for and against the death penalty along with an analysis of their corresponding theological meanings.
Scriptural Reasons for Capital Punishment
The Old Testament includes several passages that seem to support capital punishment as a means of divinely ordained justice and retaliation for serious offenses such as homicide. Important references can be found in Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Leviticus 24:17, and Deuteronomy 19:21. These texts underscore the value of human life and advocate for equivalent reprisal ("eye for an eye").
The New Testament passage in Romans 13:4 supports the state’s role in enforcing justice, even through capital punishment. Furthermore, Acts 25:11 indicates that Apostle Paul accepted the validity of the death penalty when warranted, as he said, "If I am guilty of doing anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying." Supporters contend that these scriptures together imply divine sanctioning, individual responsibility, and governmental power. They assert that divinely ordained authorities have the right to impose severe penalties like execution for grave offenses.
Scriptural objections to capital punishment
Conversely, the Bible offers various foundational scriptures frequently referenced by opponents of capital punishment. These texts underscore themes of compassion, rehabilitation, and the inherent value of human existence. The narrative of Cain in Genesis 4:15 illustrates God’s inclination towards forgiveness rather than vengeance. Similarly, Ezekiel 33:11 underscores God’s wish for penitence and change instead of execution for sinners.
In the New Testament, Jesus exemplifies an attitude of compassion and non-retaliation. His interaction with the adulteress in John 8:7 confronts the religious authorities, highlighting the importance of mercy rather than condemnation.
In Matthew 5:38-39, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges traditional notions of justice by dismissing the concept of retaliation and advocating instead for compassion and loving those who oppose you. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of mercy over condemnation, mirroring God's character as described in Matthew 5:7. Similarly, Romans 12:19 advises followers to entrust vengeance to God rather than pursuing personal revenge.
Opponents of capital punishment contend that these passages illustrate God’s inclination towards compassion, the potential for rehabilitation, and the constraints of human decision-making. They assert that genuine justice resides with God rather than fallible human systems susceptible to mistakes.
Theological Analysis of Biblical Debates
It has been noted that the Bible includes both support and criticism regarding capital punishment. Thus, the Bible does not present a single viewpoint on this issue. Several elements within Scripture might explain these differing perspectives. They encompass:
Fairness vs. Compassion: An Essential Distinction
Supporters of capital punishment contend that it serves as an essential measure of justice and responsibility for grave offenses, guaranteeing that offenders face consequences for their deeds. In contrast, detractors stress the significance of compassion, forgiveness, and opportunities for change, underscoring the possibility of reform and restoration.
Function of the Government versus Function of Divinity: Understanding Scriptural Sovereignty
Diverse readings of the Bible lead to different views on governmental power and divine retribution. Some believe that the state holds a divinely ordained responsibility to enforce justice, even supporting capital punishment, whereas others assert that final judgement rests solely with God.
Traditional Ethical Frameworks Versus Modern Ones: Evolving Perspectives on Justice
The Old Testament mandates capital punishment for specific offenses, while the New Testament focuses more on compassion, absolution, and salvation. This change in perspective prompts inquiries into whether the judicial directives from the Old Testament ought to shape contemporary laws and societal regulations.
Potential for Reconciliation: Questioning the Permanence of Capital Punishment
The significant focus on redemption and change within the New Testament adds another layer of complexity to this discussion. This notion of potential redemption contradicts the irreversibility of capital punishment.
Faith and Doctrine in Conversation
The persistent implementation of capital punishment, even as ethical norms evolve, highlights a larger issue: how do we address situations where legal codes fall out of step with morality? According to Lon Fuller’s perspective, laws should adhere not just to procedural rules but also resonate with moral values such as equity and respect for human dignity.
Although retributive justice, which advocates for the death penalty as an appropriate form of punishment, continues to hold sway in numerous legal systems, concerns over potential miscarriages of justice, the intrinsic worth of human life, and the irreversible nature of executions undermine its validity.
Faith communities such as the church increasingly advocate for justice rooted in compassion, forgiveness, and the sanctity of life. Their voices call for a legal system that prioritizes rehabilitation and reconciliation over retribution. Rather than undermining the law, faith traditions invite it to grow more humane.
This continuous conversation between belief and legislation aids in forming legal changes rooted in both structure and ethics. The elimination of capital punishment in locations such as Ghana demonstrates not frailty, but rather an advanced judicial awareness. In essence, the progression of law echoes the ethical advancement of society at large.
Conclusion
The discussion around capital punishment forces communities to grapple with their beliefs about justice, compassion, and human worth. Although both legal arguments and religious viewpoints provide rationales, the permanent aspect of carrying out an execution challenges our dedication to rehabilitation.
Countries such as Ghana are shifting their focus from retribution to rehabilitation, indicative of changing ethical norms. Genuine justice might not solely be gauged through penalties; instead, it could also involve possibilities for restitution. Societies face a decision between final punitive measures and restorative forms of justice. This selection will mold our enduring moral and judicial heritage.
The Reverend Fiifi Afenyi-Donkor is an ordained minister at The Methodist Church Ghana. and Judith Ama Afenyi-Donkor Esq., a lawyer with Ghartey & Ghartey Law Firm, specializes in areas such as information technology law, human rights law, and family law.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. Syndigate.info ).
Post a Comment