Is the Death Penalty Inconsistent with the Royal Law?
Answer: Not always, but ...
King David, as he was about to die, asked Solomon to demonstrate kindness toward certain of his servants, but others he wanted put to death. One who was to die was Shimei, a relative of King Saul.1 Shimei cursed David when David's son Absalom sought to take his life. When David became king, however, Shimei pleaded for forgiveness and David promised not to kill him. Despite his father's dying request, Solomon let Shimei live after he agreed to confine himself to the city of Jerusalem. Shimei eventually failed to keep his agreement, however, and Solomon had him executed.
The other man David wanted killed was one of his most devoted generals, named Joab.2 Against David's orders, Joab killed Absalom when he revolted against David. Joab's downfall, however, came when he supported someone other than Solomon, whom David had chosen to be his successor as king of Israel. After David died, Solomon had Joab killed. He did this even though Joab fled to the temple and held to the horns of the altar which, according to the Law of Moses, should have protected him from death.
The mercy David showed Shimei and Joab did not quell their defiance and they remained a threat to the nation of Israel. Their executions illustrate how mercy must be weighed against the threat someone poses. These two examples also show that David embraced a different standard of justice than following the strict letter of the Law of Moses. Those who were truly repentant could be forgiven and live freely in society. The king, however, was also free to execute those who chose to remain a threat to him and others. On the one hand, therefore, we should not have a judicial system in which death or imprisonment is automatically imposed according to the letter of the law. Yet, on the other hand, the state should not be prevented from ending someone's life when mercy will not yield a lasting repentance. Ultimately, justice should be placed in the hands of people who will take repentance into account and consider what is best for the welfare of all.
Modern forensic science is revealing that our system of justice is not perfect. By applying DNA fingerprinting techniques, a growing number of people condemned to die have now been proven to have been wrongly convicted. Some, under aggressive interrogation, even confessed to the crimes. Consider also that scientific research is usually carried out in a more rigorous and objective manner than criminal investigation. Yet, after many years of intensive research, even the best scientists still get it wrong when trying to explain how or why something happened. Science textbooks, therefore, are continually revised and updated. By comparison, jurors with little to no training in science, who rely on highly technical scientific evidence presented in court, must often come to the wrong conclusion. Even the evidence itself is rarely subjected to the rigorous quality control measures required in scientific research. Our system of justice needs to recognize this inherent fallibility, especially when considering the death penalty.
References
1 See: 2Sam 19: 16, 18-23; 1Ki 2:8, 9; 2Ki 2:36-46
2 See: 2Sam 18: 9-15; 1Ki 2:5 |
