"Six years ago Timothy McVeigh committed the worst act of terrorism in American history." With these words, Adventist theologian and noted author Richard Rice begins his recent essay in this publication in opposition to the death penalty. This article in response is intended not so much to debate the points he raised in opposition to capital punishment as to add to the discussion he has begun.

The overall argument that Rice makes against capital punishment is that it is morally wrong. He begins with the apparent popularity of capital punishment and poses the rhetorical question: "Who in his right mind could oppose the execution? No one in public life today, that’s for sure." He then references a few politicians—both conservative and liberal—who support the death penalty.

He is correct to a certain extent, at least in regard to the particular politicians cited and as to the general public support for the penalty. According to a Gallup poll conducted in February 2001, 67 percent of Americans polled said they supported the death penalty, whereas only 25 percent indicated opposition; the rest were neutral. Add to those findings the fact that thirty-eight of our fifty states have the death penalty as a punishment for certain types of homicides, and it is clear that the death penalty is popular in the United States.

But what public official in his right mind could oppose the death penalty? I for one would—though not for quite the same reasons Richard Rice sets forth. Permit me to explain.

Professor Rice believes that "McVeigh’s execution is the wrong thing to do." He suggests "the gospel teaches that no one stands outside the reach of God’s great love, not even murderers." I agree wholeheartedly that the gospel teaches this message. But we are talking about the sentence imposed by the secular state. The government imposing such a sentence makes no comment on the state of the convict’s soul. No conclusion is to be drawn about the reach or relentless nature of divine love.

In Texas, for example, if you chain an African-American behind a truck and drive it at high speeds until he is decapitated, you apparently risk the chance of conviction and sentence to death. However, Texans intend no theological statement to be drawn from having such a sentence in their criminal code. My own state of Hawaii was one of the first states to repeal the death penalty. No theological statement was intended. As a member of the state legislature, I can vouch for that.

Furthermore, how can the mere presence or absence of such a penalty in a community’s criminal code have any bearing on such deep issues? God himself required the people of Israel not only to have the death penalty on its books, but also to enforce it as the law, even in cases that did not involve murder! If we accept Rice’s reasoning, what statement was God making about his love back in the Old Testament? (Were there really no innocents in Sodom? Were there no minors, no children, no pregnant women, or the like who perished in that unspeakable conflagration?)

Rice then launches into his four reasons why capital punishment is morally wrong, the first being that it fails to achieve retributive justice. "In some cases capital punishment doesn’t constitute equitable retribution," he writes. I would argue that in no cases does it constitute equitable retribution. First, death sentences are rare. Most states that have capital punishment on the books use it only for specific crimes, the most heinous and premeditated of homicides, which involve assassination, torture, and mutilation of the victim or murder of multiple victims. Rice is right that "there is nothing we can do to [McVeigh] that would somehow cancel out the terrible losses he inflicted and continues to inflict on his victims and their survivors."

According to the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office, only about one-twelfth of 1 percent of all homicide cases in the United States result in executions. In comparison to the murders committed throughout all fifty states, the death penalty is less rare than the number of escapes and parole violations that occur each year—so rare that it wouldn’t make it on the radar screen were it not for disproportionate media attention.

Rice says "capital punishment doesn’t achieve its basic objective. It doesn’t repay the perpetrator what the victims suffer." I agree with the statement about suffering because even the one-twelfth of 1 percent of condemned killers who are ultimately executed end up spending an average of twelve years watching cable TV in air-conditioned facilities and lifting weights in gyms that most public schools could never afford, not to mention the fact that they receive three square meals a day that are superior to ones that homeless people must somehow scrounge up. As for repayment and equitable retribution, I don’t think anyone believes those are the "objectives" of capital punishment.

Rice’s second moral concern is the inequitable application of capital punishment all too often on poor people, ethnic minorities, and those who cannot afford top-dollar defense counsel. This is certainly true. However, the same is true of all criminal penalties. Statistics on crime in Hawaii show that certain profiles exist for those who use crack cocaine or become involved in gangs. These are not "equal opportunity" situations. If those profiles do not reflect those of the broader society, how can we expect those caught and convicted of such crimes to reflect the general population?

Should we stop giving out speeding tickets and repeal misdemeanor sentences because certain classes of people have a tougher time beating the wrap, as it were? I got a speeding ticket a year ago—for going forty-five in a thirty-five mile-per-hour zone. Being an attorney and having numerous lawyer friends, I was prepared to put on the best legal defense possible. However, the judge recognized me as a legislator, and I was convinced that pleading guilty was the proper thing to do. Do differently situated people have different odds of prevailing in court? You bet, but that is no reason to repeal any given law. After all, no one forced me to speed. No one forced McVeigh to do what he did, either.

Rice then cites the moratorium on executions in Illinois. If a system is so incompetent that innocent people are being convicted and sentenced to death, then a moratorium should be instituted. I support Illinois governor George Ryan’s decision.1

However, let’s not kid ourselves. The newspaper that first broke the story—as well as the activists who lobbied for the moratorium—did not want only a pause in executions; this is the first step toward repeal of capital punishment in Illinois. I know that Rice not only opposes executing innocent people—who doesn’t?!—he also opposes executing those properly convicted, as well, such as confessed mass murdered Timothy McVeigh.

Another reason Rice believes capital punishment is immoral is the occasion it provides for the media to make a "martyr" out of a murderer. I agree that "Timothy McVeigh doesn’t deserve the sort of attention he craves," but this is an issue separate from that of the morality of executing a properly convicted and self-confessed mass murderer. Rice’s point about martyrdom is a makeweight argument that is not key to his position; I doubt he would modify his position even if governments instituted a total news blackout on all capital cases.

Rice’s final reason to oppose the death penalty is one I can resonate with. However, he commences it with a rather provocative statement: "I oppose killing Timothy McVeigh because I don’t want to imitate Timothy McVeigh."

At La Sierra University, I once attended a chapel service where Rice’s wife—a nurse, professor, and holder of a doctorate in education—made a presentation on abortion and argued that a genuine distinction exists between murder and abortion. If abortion is not murder, then how can the execution of a mass murderer after due process (which the FBI has now called into question) be murder?

Rice very eloquently says that he doesn’t "want to resort to death as a means of achieving any of society’s goals." No one does. Capital punishment is on the books not because state legislators want to execute people, but because they hope the deterrent will prevent other homicides. To believe otherwise is to believe that laws against drunk driving are enacted primarily to raise revenue. Mothers Against Drunk Driving—and the legislators they lobby—would like nothing better that to have zero convictions for drunk driving because drivers have gone "dry" and simply refuse to drink and drive.

Rice closes with the powerful statement that he opposes executing Timothy McVeigh "not because he deserves anything less, but because we deserve something more." I agree. But what does that say about God? Rice began his piece referring to God, so let me end with the same question—after all, the question of divine justice is really the only question that matters.

If we deserve "something more," then doesn’t God’s perfect and unimpeachable character deserve more? It almost makes one wish, as did Karl Barth, that God will ultimately grant eternal life to all.2

Notes and References

1. See George H. Ryan, "Illinois Needed Moratorium on Death Penalty," State Government News, May 2001, 14.
I support life without parole for those who, like McVeigh, commit homicide. I oppose reinstituting capital punishment in Hawaii not because the Bible or morality compel such opposition—the biblical evidence is far too scant to draw any such conclusion. I oppose the death penalty as economically unjustifiable. Society wastes millions of dollars in resources when it can simply lock up forever the likes of McVeigh. When legislators in Hawaii looked at the death penalty, they learned that they would have to appropriate millions of dollars in order to ensure that innocent people were not wrongfully executed. Such dollars are better spent on public education, drug rehabilitation, and job training. I developed this secular rationale for my opposition to capital punishment after having read an article by Richard Rice that questioned the propriety of legislators who rely upon their own moral, religious, or theological beliefs in formulating public policy.
2. I support life without parole for those who, like McVeigh, commit homicide. I oppose reinstituting capital punishment in Hawaii not because the Bible or morality compel such opposition--the biblical evidence is far too scant to draw any such conclusion. I oppose the death penalty as economically unjustifiable. Society wastes millions of dollars in resources when it can simply lock up forever the likes of McVeigh. When legislators in Hawaii looked at the death penalty, they learned that they would have to appropriate millions of dollars in order to ensure that innocent people were not wrongfully executed. Such dollars are better spent on public education, drug rehabilitation, and job training. I developed this secular rationale for my opposition to capital punishment after having read an article by Richard Rice that questioned the propriety of legislators who rely upon their own moral, religious, or theological beliefs in formulating public policy.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE