© 2014 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
When convicted murderer Joseph R. Wood III was executed by lethal injection
in Arizona on July 23, the process took nearly two hours. Experts say that such
executions typically take about 10 minutes. After the drugs were administered,
Wood apparently lost consciousness, but remained alive for more than an hour
and 40 minutes. The team involved in the execution reported that he was asleep
and snoring during that period, while some witnesses said he struggled to
breathe and moved his lips. Witnesses also reported seeing Wood gasp more than
600 times after he was declared sedated.The medical team involved in the execution deemed Wood fully sedated at 1:57 p.m. but did not pronounce him dead until 3:49 p.m.
Wood's prolonged execution follows one in Oklahoma in April also called "botched" by some, where Clayton Lockett, convicted of murder and other crimes, writhed, groaned, convulsed and spoke during the process and attempted to rise from the execution table 14 minutes into the procedure, despite having been declared unconscious. Although the execution was stopped, Lockett died of a heart attack 43 minutes after being sedated. There have also been procedural problems with lethal injection executions in other states recently.
In both the Lockett and Wood cases, the problems in the execution process have been attributed to the drug used to sedate the inmate. Previously, a more effective anesthetic, sodium thiopental, was available, but the sole U.S. manufacturer has stopped making it, and overseas manufacturers are banned by the European Union from exporting it for purposes of execution. Using sodium thiopental, lethal injection deaths normally occur in about 10 minutes.
Groups opposed to capital punishment have made it nearly impossible for state governments to purchase known effective drugs, such as those used for euthanasia of animals, forcing them to look for other drugs.
Wood had been on death row since 1991, after he was sentenced for the 1989 killing of his ex-girlfriend and her father. He was the third inmate put to death in Arizona since last October but the first to be executed using the new combination of drugs.
Following Wood's protracted execution, Arizona governor Jan Brewer ordered a review of the process because of the length of time it took him to die. Brewer said, "One thing is certain, however: inmate Wood died in a lawful manner, and by eyewitness and medical accounts he did not suffer. This is in stark comparison to the gruesome, vicious suffering that he inflicted on his two victims -- and the lifetime of suffering he has caused their family."
Now that sodium thiopental is not an option, some people are asking whether lethal injection is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. If lethal injection is found unconstitutional, executions would likely revert to electrocution, firing squad, hanging or other established methods.
The problems with recent lethal injection executions have been used by some opposed to capital punishment to incite calls for elimination the death penalty altogether in the United States. It has also led some people independently to reconsider the place of executions in any form.
According to a recent Barna poll, only 5 percent of Americans think Jesus would support capital punishment. Despite that, a majority of Americans support it themselves.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Arizona Execution Lasts Nearly Two Hours ... Washington Post
Arizona Execution Takes Two Hours. BBC
Arizona Execution Raises Questions Over Novel Lethal Injections. CNN
Everything You Need to Know About Executions in the United States. Washington Post
Would Jesus Support the Death Penalty? The Atlantic
The Big Questions
1. If you believe capital punishment to be acceptable, what are some reasons you support it? If you believe it to be unacceptable, what are some reasons you don't support it? Has your opinion on the death penalty changed over the years? What fueled that change -- something that directly impacted your life? personal study? observation of societal events?
2. In what ways does your understanding of Christianity affect your view of capital punishment? What guidance does the Bible give on the subject? What guidance does your denomination give on the subject? Is Christianity a set of rules we follow to please God or something God does for us?
3. Do you differentiate between God's commands for your own behavior and God's purposes for government? If so, how?
4. What bearing should the frequency of false convictions and unequal access to legal resources have on our position as Christians about capital punishment?
5. Might your feelings about capital punishment change if the victim of someone on death row were a member of your family? Might your feelings change if the person on death row were a member of your family? Might your feelings change if you were an employee of the criminal justice system and part of your job was to help carry out executions? Should these feelings make a difference? Why?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 21:14
But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. (For context, read 21:12-27.)
This command from the Law of Moses is straightforward and appears reasonable. Assuming you don't oppose capital punishment in principle, and assuming there's no question about the guilt, intent and identity of the perpetrator, this "life for a life" practice seems quite defensible.
But if you read it in the context of its surrounding verses, you may come to a different conclusion. The very next verse, for example, reads "Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death" (v. 15). Do you find that defensible as well? If your rebellious teenager were to hit you, would you want him or her put to death?
Verses 20-21 of the context specify that if the person who is hit and dies is a slave and the attacker is the slave's owner, that owner shall be "punished," but there's no mention of a death penalty. And even for the owner to receive that unspecified punishment, the slave has to die right away. If "the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property," says verse 21.
The laws in Exodus applied to the Israelites in the context of being God's chosen people. While the use of a specific punishment commanded by God for that age might still apply today, the specific crimes for which it is allowed might differ.
Question: How do the commands about the death penalty in the fuller context of the Law of Moses affect your willingness to use the Old Testament as a guide for capital punishment decisions today? Before answering, consider the following verses, which are from that larger Law of Moses context:
*Exodus 22:20 - Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction.
*Exodus 35:2 - Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.
*Leviticus 20:10 - If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
*Leviticus 24:16 - One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer.
*Deuteronomy 21:18-19, 21- If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town ... Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death.
Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill. (KJV). You shall not murder. (NRSV, NIV). (For context, read 20:1-17.)
We've quoted this verse from the Ten Commandments from three versions of the Bible. The older King James Version translates the underlying Hebrew word as "kill," while both the New Revised Standard Version and the New International Version render it "murder." In fact, Hebrew scholars tell us that both translations are correct; the Hebrew word can mean either "kill" or "murder." And we note that the Common English Bible, the newest version we are aware of, has gone back to "kill."
The word chosen would seem to make a difference, for if the meaning is that we should not murder, then killing in battle or self-defense or as punishment for a capital offense are not necessarily prohibited. If, however, the meaning is kill, then possibly none of the life-takings mentioned in the last sentence are allowed. Still, since other sections of Exodus mandate capital punishment for crimes, this commandment probably was not intended to prohibit capital punishment by governing authorities, but rather killing by individuals acting in their private capacity.
Many Bible scholars interpret the command as declaring that human life belongs to God and therefore must be respected, while still allowing certain actions to protect one's life from threat.
Despite the lack of clarity about the full intent of the word, this commandment has served humanity well, and respect for human life has grown because of it. Even when someone has claimed an overriding religious, political or moral justification for murder, most students of the Ten Commandments have maintained that that person is wrong and guilty of both sin and breaking the law of society.
Questions: In what ways can this commandment serve as a foundational principle to help us decide about the morality of capital punishment? What, in your opinion, is the difference between killing and murder? What difference should there be in punishment? Who determines the difference between killing and murder? Have you ever sat on a jury in such a case? What happened?
Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: ... a time to kill, and a time to heal ... (For context, read 3:1-8.)
We can understand this "time to kill" statement to mean that the writer of Ecclesiastes did support the ending of someone's life under certain circumstances. However, the fuller statement -- "a time to kill, and a time to heal" -- seems to give society two ways to respond to an individual's sin. Under some circumstances, some kind of restoration -- healing -- of the person is preferable to killing him or her.
Questions: Under what circumstances, if any, should some form of restoration be applied instead of a death penalty to a person who has been found guilty of a capital offense? Is it possible that in speaking about a time to kill, the writer was referring to something other than the slaying of a human being -- perhaps slaughtering an animal for food or euthanizing a suffering animal out of compassion? When the author speaks of time for various things, does that necessarily mean he approves of them, or could he simply be acknowledging that "stuff happens"?
Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (For context, read 13:1-7.)
The apostle Paul here acknowledges the duty of legitimate government to "bear the sword" to "execute wrath on the wrongdoer." This bearing of the sword can be understood as execution. Paul declares legitimate government "the servant of God."
Questions: To what degree should the moral convictions of citizens be reflected in the actions of government? Why? To what degree should people use government to impose their morality on others? Is it possible for any government to dispense God's justice perfectly?
John 8:3-5
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" (For context, read 8:2-11.)
The motives of the scribes and Pharisees in bringing a woman caught in adultery to Jesus weren't pure; they were hoping to put Jesus on the spot. In addition, since they were not representatives of the legitimate government, in raising the question about whether she should be stoned to death, they were putting forward a lynch-mob situation.
Jesus refused to condemn the woman. He neither denied Scripture nor argued with their point, but he did change the ground of the argument, by saying, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her" (v. 7).
Questions: Can we draw from this incident any generalities about what Jesus might say about executions in the United States today? Why or why not? How should we apply, if at all, Jesus' statement to the woman's accusers to ourselves?
Matthew 5:38-39
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also ... (For context, read 5:38-48.)
Jesus was probably not thinking about capital punishment when he made this statement, and he was likely talking about personal interactions, not government policies, but the spirit of what he says here -- turning the other cheek, etc. -- sounds quite different from "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
Question: How might this statement from Jesus contribute to a discussion about the death penalty?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from the Atlantic article in the links above: "Jesus, most of the Apostles, and most of the early martyrs of the faith were victims of inconsistent justice systems that allowed for capital punishment. Many Christians strangely believe that Jesus wouldn't support the death penalty even though they do. As this issue moves back to the fore of American public life, they will have to rectify this inconsistency and determine if they can take the position they believe Jesus would."
2. As a group, evaluate these arguments for and against capital punishment (from Michael D. O'Reilley, writing in the Napa Valley Register):
"Opponents of the death penalty argue: (a) it is not a deterrent because most people who commit murder do so impulsively in moments of passion or anger; (b) it endorses killing and brutality; (c) it causes excessive suffering to the offender; (d) there is a risk innocent persons may be executed.
"Supporters contend: (a) homicides committed impulsively are voluntary manslaughter, but the death penalty applies only to first degree murder; (b) while there never may be conclusive evidence the death penalty is a deterrent, it is justified because it does not have to deter everyone in order to deter someone; further, anyone not deterred by a death sentence certainly would not be deterred by a life sentence; (c) it does not endorse killing and brutality any more than arrests and fines encourage kidnapping or theft; (d) punishment is meant to be bad, and the victim did not deserve to suffer; and (e) it is possible innocent people may have been or will be executed, but almost all human conduct can cost the lives of innocent people, such as car crashes, and we still engage in these activities."
3. Check online or in denominational policy literature to see if your denomination has a position statement on capital punishment. If so, read the statement to the class and discuss it together.
4. There is some evidence that because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases, carrying out a death penalty sentence is more expensive than life without parole. Whether that's always true or not, should cost considerations be a factor in deciding whether to have the death penalty as a possible judicial sentence?
5. Discuss this: Roger Sales, in his book Christopher Marlowe, writes, "A Renaissance execution was meant to represent what Foucault ('The Spectacle of the Scaffold') calls a theatre of Hell. Agony had to be prolonged for as long as possible so that both the victim and the spectators were given a glimpse of the everlasting torments associated with Hell. The point that an execution represented not an end but, rather, merely the prelude to endless torture was reinforced by the way in which the spectacle continued after the eventual death of the victim ...." Sales also quotes Foucault that these executions were "not eventually stopped out of humanitarian concern, but rather because there were doubts about whether such displays of power fulfilled their function of coercing all of these spectators all the time."
6. Respond to this, from a TWW team member: When Jesus tells us to "love our neighbor as we love our self," he is quoting Leviticus 19:18, which reads in full, "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." Clearly God excludes vengeance from how we should behave toward others. Thus, even in cases of capital punishment, vengeance is not meant to be a part of the purpose (though there seems to be some of that ugliness in the debate on the death penalty). That is the reason why the family of the victim does not serve on the jury, and though they may testify at some point, it is society, and not the clan, which exacts justice.
7. Comment on this, from TWW team member Frank Ramirez: "I'm reminded about the scripture that says we have to kill all the Amalekites. I asked my Old Testament prof about this passage. He replied that according to the Talmud, if you believed you had found an Amalekite, you were to go to your rabbi, who would tell you this person was no such thing, and we were then under no obligation to kill such a person."
8. Respond to this: Frodo (the primary protagonist of The Lord of the Rings) mentions that he feels no pity for Gollum and says, "Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death." Gandalf replies, "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Responding to the News
You might wish to add your voice to those of others in efforts to guide governments in deciding the future of capital punishment in America.
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment