Racial reconciliation demands Christians reconsider the death penalty (COMMENTARY)

Print More
San Quentin death chamber

San Quentin death chamber

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) At the same time that the Southern Baptist Convention apologizes for its complicity in racial oppression and urges racial reconciliation, the denomination remains a vocal proponent of capital punishment.

  • Pingback: Racial reconciliation demands Christians reconsider the death penalty (COMMENTARY) - by Fr. Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • Dennis

    Any religious group advocating death penalty will be guilty of murder if an innocent person has been wrongfully sentenced to death.

    They will be violating the ten commandments and God will be their judge on the day of judgment for murdering an innocent person.

  • Schneider Matt

    How can SBC be both, pro-life and pro-death at the same time? Do you suffer from split personality disorder? Are you some kind of Dr Jekyll and Mr.Hyde?

  • Atheist Whacks

    So, if you really want something done in our purely and historically secular society . . . you ask the Christians for the solution.

    Ah yes, the place where morality finds its validation.

    Got it.

  • Jack

    So let’s unpack this gobbledygook:

    If the main reason for calling the death penalty unjust is that guilty black and Latino murderers are more likely to be executed than guilty white murderers, then how does it advance justice to call for nobody to be executed?

    Put another way, if capital punishment is inherently just but its discriminatory application unjust, the injustice in today’s system is not that black and Hispanic murderers are being executed; it’s that white murderers are less likely to be executed. If we did away with the death penalty, we would be making a bad situation worse, because then we would be meting out justice to no murderer, black, Hispanic, or white.

  • Jack

    Of course, opponents of the death penalty are using the race disparity to abolish capital punishment because they oppose it for deeper reasons……The smart ones know as well as anyone that if racial disparities are the sole reason to oppose capital punishment, the way to close the disparity from a justice standpoint would be, again, to execute more white people who are guilty….not to execute no one.

    The only way to counter this is to admit that one actually opposes the death penalty based on other reasons.

  • Jack

    But based on that logic, the criminal justice system shouldn’t penalize anyone for anything, since there’s always a chance the person is innocent.

    Imagine, for example, being put in prison for decades for a serious crime you didn’t commit — let’s say it’s murder.

    Is that an argument against lengthy jail sentences for murder?

  • Jack

    One question is whether genocidal murderers should be put to death — a Hitler or Stalin, a Pol Pot or a Saddam Hussein….

    If the answer is yes, then why is it wrong for someone who is just as evil and sadistic, but who didn’t get the opportunity to commit genocide, not to get the death penalty?

    There is no essential difference between the worst sociopathic criminals in America and the sociopaths who get control of other countries and kill people there. The only difference is that of opportunity — one is in power and the other is not….and by being in power, got to murder more people.

    Empty our jails and put all the killers in charge of our government and you would see genocide.

  • Jack

    Sorry, I’ll repost since I screwed up the wording the first time:

    Why is it wrong for someone who is just as evil and sadistic as a genocidal ruler of a country, but who didn’t get the opportunity to commit genocide, to get the death penalty?

    A sadistic, remorseless thug without a conscience tortures and kills several people despite their begging for their life…..another sadistic, remorseless thug without a conscience gets control of a country and kills thousands of times as many people.

    Besides opportunity, what is the difference between the two? The second one is simply the first one who has managed to gain real power. But they’re both despicably evil individuals.

  • Jack

    IN other words, we need to see remorseless murderers as little Hitlers in order to reacquaint ourselves with the “justice” argument for the death penalty.

    And when the murderer is from a poor neighborhood, we need to remember all the other poor people in that neighborhood that he terrorized….and all the other poor people in that neighborhood who remained law-abiding and did not turn to crime like he did. When we are lenient on him because of his background, we make a mockery of the Herculean efforts of others in his community to avoid living a life like he did. We dishonor every law-abiding person in his community.

  • Jack

    Racial reconciliation doesn’t demand we become softer on crime and punishment….that sounds like an inherently racist argument, even if not intended to be.

    Racial reconciliation demands that we embrace full racial equality — equal rights and equal responsibilities for all. If we hold any race to a lower standard in any way, that is not racial equality, but its betrayal.

  • ben in oakland

    Jack, I oppose the death penalty for three reasons that have nothing to do with racial disparities.

    Killing people to show people who kill people that killing people is wrong is too oxymoronic for me.

    Mistakes have been made– repeatedly.

    The death penalty has been applied to “offenses” against “Christian morality”, like being gay, being a witch, being a heretic. We’re not doing that any more, but we did for a long time.

    Now, to contradict myself. We live in a racial culture and always have. It does not surprise me in the slightest that people who are not white are executed a greater rates, however measured, than people who are. It’s just (some people’s)human nature to exercise one’s prejudices and pretend that one is just being righteous.

    so I am against it for that reason at all.

  • ben in oakland

    “Religious reconciliation demands that we embrace full religious equality — equal rights and equal responsibilities for all. If we hold any group of people to a lower standard in any way, that is not religious equality, but its betrayal.

  • Larry

    Jack, there is no deterrent effect to capital punishment. It is applied too broadly to crimes where it is not appropriate (felony murder being the chief example). It is applied too broadly under prejudicial circumstances.

    Lets not fool ourselves here. It is meant for punishment. Retribution from society for acts which fall outside of anything acceptable.

    As such it is only appropriate against the worst of the worst: Serial/mass killers, professional killers, murders with extreme sadism/torture. But it is hardly so limited in application. Hence it must be revised.

    So why are you so bloodthirsty?