“What says the law? You shall not kill. How does it say? By killing. (Victor Hugo).” Is the death penalty biblical or unbiblical, just or unjust? This paper will look at whether the government should have the death penalty or not. It will look at what is biblically right, what politically makes sense, and what the benefits vs the disadvantages of the death penalty are, and most importantly which stance should be taken.
The Bible makes it clear very early on which stance it takes on this issue. For example, Genesis 9:6 states “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” And Leviticus 24:17 states “Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.” This claims that whoever murders will be killed by man; meaning that he will be killed by the government (community at the time of the writing), not by God specifically. God created the death penalty; He saw that it was fit for a murderer to be put to death. Saying that the death penalty is against Gods will, would be outright lying.
Deuteronomy 19:11-13 says “But if there is a man who hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. You shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with you.” Here it claims that whoever even strikes a man and kills him shall be convicted with the death penalty.
Critics might also bring up that Christians aren’t bound to all the laws of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, there are three different types of laws: moral, civil, and ceremonial. They might claim that the death penalty was a law that was only for the Old Testament, and Christians should not repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17) but they forget the part after that which says, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” (Romans 12:18). Sometimes Christians can’t live at peace they have to bring justice in the instance of war and crimes. If we should not repay “evil with evil” then why should societies have police, judges, prison, and penalties for breaking different laws.
Critics will also bring up New Testament teaching like “turn the other cheek,” “love your enemies,” “Don’t repay evil for evil,” and “leave the vengeance for God.” Now let’s break down the argument “turn the other cheek.” Most people would agree that governments should have police, jail/prison, and punishments for theft and other crimes. So, if Christians are supposed to “turn the other cheek” in the sense that these critics our supposing government shouldn’t have any form of punishment and should let criminals roam around freely. But of course, that is not the case because that would be taking the verse out of context, which is what these critics are doing therefore, making their argument flawed.
Now to the next argument, “love your enemy.” Is it loving to punish your children? Is it loving to correct a fellow neighbor? Yes of course. Then, why are critics so opposed to punishing murderers in the way God commanded us? “Don’t repay evil for evil” again is it evil to punish our children or neighbor? No, the Bible tells us to do so, Proverbs 12:24: “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” Revelation 3:19: “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.”
Also, Jesus commands his followers “to love, just as I have loved you (John 13:34).” How he shows love to us (not always but when necessary) is by punishing us or correcting us. God is love, yet he disciplines us so that we may learn and grow in our faith. Lastly, the Old Testament teaches this principle in Proverbs 24:29: “Do not say, ‘Thus I shall do to him as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work.’”
Another thing is the verse says “do not repay evil for evil” is it evil to repay evil with justice? Micah 6:8 tells us it is good to bring justice: “What does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” the death penalty is justice to those who deserve it. God made the death penalty for this reason. “Leave the vengeance for God” this is by far the easiest argument to defeat because it is taken out of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:35). If God commanded the Israelites to “Leave the vengeance for me” then why would he command the same people to give the death penalty to murderers? Because the death penalty was not about revenge but getting rid of evil he gave us just laws so that society can thrive and conquer evil and bring justice is not the same as vengeance.
In John 8 Jesus stops a woman caught in the act of adultery from being stoned to death (which getting caught in the act of adultery was punishable by death in the Old Testament). Many critics will use this example claiming Jesus does not support the death penalty but is that true? Most scholars would say however that this story was not even in the original Bible because in the earliest manuscripts they do not contain this story. But even if this story was true, it would not make Jesus disagree with the death penalty because the Pharisees only brought the woman caught in adultery Which is a little weird right? Leviticus 20:10 states “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.” So, if they weren’t trying to set up Jesus they would have brought both the adulterer and the adulteress.
The Pharisees could have set up the woman so they could try to make Jesus not be able to give the right response. Another thing is they did not go through a fair trial. Jesus was letting this woman go free because she was most likely trapped and/or falsely accused; but in the end none of the evidence that was given matters because this story was not in the original Bible. The purpose of the death penalty according to the Bible is to “Purge the evil from Isreal” in other words get rid of the evil. God created the death penalty because it was not only just and fair but also so that it would get rid of evil. Killing this woman would not get rid of evil as much as rebuking the Pharisees through what Jesus did.
The Pharisees were the evil Isreal needed to get rid of not this woman. Christians on the other side of the matter might also claim that it is up to the government to decide, and Christians should only correct fellow believers and do it in love not in vengeance. Should Christians be in the government? If they aren’t then how will society be able to strive in the direction towards God? Looking at countries that aren’t founded off of Christian views or that do not have any Christian representatives in their government are not doing well in a Christians perspective. Communist countries are the spitting image of this, they do not believe in any God the government only cares about expanding its boundaries and killing those who do not a line with them. On the other hand, when a country is founded off of Biblical teaching and has Christians in positions in the government it seems to thrive.
Another thing is the Jews were in politics. All of the kings, Sual, David, Solomon, etc. the Bible appointed judges to ensure fair trials and Kings because the Israelites wanted them but before they had leaders from the Moses and the Judges.
Critics might say that Isreal was only Jewish, so it had to have Jews in the government but what about Daniel? Daniel was very high in the government and Esther was the Queen in countries where Judaism was not the main religion. God also appoints Prophets to bring a warning to those in sin and delivering punishment (Elijah kills the prophets of Baal). All throughout the Bible there are believers in politics, also Cornelius was a Roman centurion which is a commander of around 100 men and Cornelius was known as a fellow believer to look up to. So, in conclusion Christians should be involved in politics and strive to do what is right and holy in Gods eyes and to purge the evil from among them.
Critics might also bring up the fact that the Bible makes its stance clear on the sanctify of life, sanctify means according to the webster dictionary, “to set apart to a sacred purpose or to religious use” there are many places in the Bible were God makes it clear that humans are different from the rest of creation. God made humans in his own image (Genesis 1:26-27). Because he made us in his own image and loves us so much and wants us not to be put to death but to repent according to critics. God does want us to repent but does that mean he does not want justice to be served? He does not want anyone to perish but for them to come to repentance (1 Peter 3:9). But also, in Psalms 89:14 states “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you.”
God is the righteous judge (psalms 98:9, 2 timothy 4:8, Revelation 19:11) so His judgement is perfect. He sets laws in the Old Testament to sanctify life, if He did not make a legal system for murders to be put to death then what would the value of life be? He sets a standard so those who murder, will be put to death to sanctify human life. If there are no rules, then who will do what is right? If the punishment for death like they might suppose is to just to repent, then what will stop them from turning back to evil again and again.
Elijah one of the most well-known prophets has a perfect story of this, 1 Kings 18:39-40 states “And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, ‘The Lord, he is God; the Lord, he is God.’ And Elijah said to them, ‘Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape.’ And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there.”
Here after the Prophets of Baal repent but they are still killed for their sins. After the prophets of Baal repent they are sentence to death because repentance does not justify what crime they have committed God is loving and merciful, but he is also the righteous judge and must bring just penalties. The death penalty is an act of sanctifying human life. In no way does it sanctify human life to not punish murderers justly, Christian critics are then belittling the crime not sanctifying human life. Justly condemning criminals to death is in no way un-sanctifying human life but is raising the standard even higher.
“Judge not or you will be judged (Matthew 7:1).” Other critics might claim that the Bible tells us not to judge, and Christians should let God do the judging (leave the vengeance for God in a sense). These critics often forget the part after Matthew 7:1; Mattew 7 tells us that the way we judge others God will judge us. So, Christians need to judge in the way God commands us to do so. And the verse goes further and says we should not take the speck out of our brother’s eye tell we take the log out of our own, once we take the log out of our eye, we are then able to take the speck out of their eye.
We are allowed to judge but, in the way, God commands us to and after we have taken out the speck in our eye, John 7:24 states “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.” Proverbs 31:9 states “Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Christians are called to judge righteously or correctly. A righteous penalty for murder according to the Bible is death. “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? (1corithains 5:12).” Are Christians only called to judge fellow believers? This verse seems to be taken out of context when arguing against the death penalty and here is why; Pual is saying that believers should not judge others outside of the church because they don’t know God and he (Pual) has no right in judging them because he once was a sinner too.
Ray Comfort an Evangelist uses a great method of sharing the gospel and it involves “judging.” He asks the person if they are a good person then goes through a couple of the ten commandments with them and asks them whether they think they are going to heaven or not. In one of his videos someone comes up to him and tells him he is a “False Prophet” because he is “judging others” but in reality, he is saving their lives and telling them the truth. He claims that before a Christian should preach the gospel, he must get the audience convicted of their sin, most people think they are good people and they therefore would not need Jesus, but Ray Comfort shows them that they do. However, if Christians judge in a way that God would disapprove of, things tend to get messy. If Christians judge all non-believers in everything they do, Christians will be being hypocrites. Is bringing justice judging?
When delivering the death penalty, we are bringing justice because of what the person has done God appoints judges for a purpose, to deliver justice. Jesus is the final judge, but doesn’t society still need judges to continue to strive to be like Christ; wasn’t America founded from Christian principles? If society does not judge anyone then evil will thrive.
Another reason why this verse is being taken out of context is because critics often don’t bring up the very next verse “God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked person from among you.’” “Expel the wicked person out from among you” is quoted out the Old Testament it is found 8 times and all those are found in Deuteronomy, and in all 8 of these verses there is only one that does not condemn someone to death and it states “Do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party.
You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 19:19)” But reading this in context it says at the end of the chapter “show no pity a life for a life eye for an eye…” meaning that if this false witness was trying to bring the death penalty on someone, he would receive the death penalty.
The other 7 verses are all say to “purge the evil out of Isreal” right after they say that this certain sin should be put to death to purge the evil from among you. If critics think we should get rid of believers that are sinning and let God judge them and Christians should not in any way judge or punish them.
First off how then are we to know if they are sinning in a way that needs to be corrected if we do not judge? And why is Pual using the Old Testament to make his point in the cases were people are put to death? If someone in the Church murdered someone out of cold blood, should we just say let God punish him we just need to put him out of our community. No, there is are countless reasons why that is wrong. But this is what happens when you take verses like this out of context. God often brings judgement through humans for example all the judges, the prophets, and some of the kings (David, Solomon, Sual, etc.) He also appoints priest/judges to deliver justice or to purge the evil from among you.
As Christians we should purge the evil from among us to strive to be more like Jesus. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 5:12 is being taken out of context when relating it to the death penalty. There is one last argument to look, critics might put it like this; if we condemn someone to the death penalty that isn’t a Christian they can’t repent and put their trust into Jesus, put if they go to jail for the rest of their life they could find Jesus. Why couldn’t they find Jesus before they are put to death? Wouldn’t being on death row make you want to know what comes after death? Being on death row often at least in
America takes numbers of years so they would have plenty of time to repent. And as I brought up earlier just because you repent does not mean you do not have to pay the penalty like in 1 kings 18:38-40 the prophets of Baal repented but they still were put to death.
Catholics might bring up one last argument by saying the Pope is against the death penalty. First off this is not a good argument because they use the fallacy “appeal to authority” this is not an argument it is just a reference to authority that doesn’t agree with the stance being taken. Pope Francis is quoted saying “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of a person.” Pope Leo XIV claims that to be pro-death penalty is to be pro-abortion he is comparing two completely different things. Abortion is the killing of a guiltless unborn baby, and the death penalty is a deserved biblical penalty to bring justice to evil and heinous crimes to purge the evil from the society.
Anyone can see that these are two completely separate issues. There are many fallacies that are being made hear. (false equivalence, begging the question, equivocation, etc.) If Pope Francis is right in his quate that has already been stated, then why would God command the death penalty? If it’s truly an attack on a person’s dignity then it was the same for the people in Bible times, right? Both Popes are using faulty reasoning and come to incorrect conclusions.
Politically does the death penalty make sense? Critics have many arguments against the death penalty but are any of them reliable? The death penalty is only okay and supported by the Bible when there is a fair trial and it is 110% clear that someone has committed murder or other capital offenses. One argument that they might bring up is the death penalty is racist and bias to the rich; meaning that poor black people are most likely to get sentenced to death after committing murder. This is sadly true in some circumstances, but not as often as most people think. For example, “research analyzing data from 2010 to 2013 showed about 92% of Black homicide victims were killed by Black offenders. (politifact)”
There is approximately 16,300 murders per year and there were 12,276 black murders in 2023 and about 78-92% of black murders are black on black making the number of black-on-black murders 9,575-11,294 people. This makes black on black murders 59-69% of all murders. This would make sense why about 42% of death row inmates would be black. 59-69% of murderers are black on black; this does not account for other murders. When people say the death penalty/government is racist because 42% of people on death row are black and only 12.5% of the population of the us are black, they aren’t looking at all the evidence just cherry picking the evidence that they like or not diving into the evidence very deep.
One last part of evidence is that 75% of murders sentenced to the death penalty, are sentenced because they murdered a white person. This evidence makes it seem unjust or racist. 70% of white murderers are white on white therefore making 30% killed by a different race. Now let’s gather all the information; there are approximately 16,300 murders per year, there are 12,276 murders on black people, 78-92% of black murders are black on black (9,575-11,294), 42% of death row inmates are black, 75% of people who received the death penalty were accused of killing a white person, 70% of white murders are white on white, according to deathpenaltyinfo.org 56% of people executed for murder are white and only 34% are black since 1976. So, in conclusion is the death penalty/government racist?
It is a little because 75% of people receiving the death penalty have received the death penalty killed someone white. Based on the research one can make an argument that it is racist. But then it is also racist to white people because they don’t commit as much murders as black people and yet 56% of people that have received the death penalty are white. So does the math if black people commit at the very least just on black-on- black murders are 59% and yet only 34% are condemned to the death penalty that doesn’t add up. If black people murder the most out of any other ethnicity in the us and the death penalty is racist, then it should pretty much only be black people getting condemned to the death penalty.
On the contrary more white people are getting condemned to the death even though 70% of white murders are killed by white people and yet 56% of people who receive the death penalty( if you do the math [.7 x .75] you get .525 making the number of white people that should be put to death 52.5%). Our government is not perfect, and it will never be, that does mean we should not try to strive for perfection and not punish people justly.
(side note when doing this research most studies did not line up they all tried to bend the information to make it appear racist only showing some information and not other. This is not fully accurate and might have errors and does not fully align with other articles on this matter. If you are wondering how I did the math to calculate the estimated share of murders by offender race, here is the reasoning and math; if 59-69% of all murders are black on black the middle point is 64 making it about 64% of all murders are black on black but we need to add in the murders of other races. If the total number of victims is 16,300 and the number of black victims is 12,276 that means all other victims is 4,024 so now we must do the math. The number of murders that are not black on black is 5,868 now this is where it gets a little complicated.
So, if there are 5,868 left over how do we know what the right percentages are? We must assume that white victims are about 3,500 of the remaining number, and 70% are white on white making 2,450 of the remaining 5,868 killed by someone white. Now that leaves 3,418. We can now estimate that about 525 of these people were killed by someone black therefore making the rest killed by someone white or a different race. We can reason that about 1,000 of these others were killed by someone white making the rest killed by someone of a different race. 64% [number of black on black murders roughly] of 16,300 [number of total murders] is 10,432. Then add the 525 you get 10,957 which is about 67% of 16,300 and the 2,450 white on white murders added to the 1,000 other white murders gives us 3,450. Which is about 21% of 16,300, which therefore makes the leftover 12% go to all other races.)
Another explanation for why a large majority of death penalty cases involve White victims is not simply racial prejudice, but the intersection of race and socioeconomic power. White victims are more likely, on average, to come from communities with greater political influence, media attention, and prosecutorial resources. Because prosecutors have broad discretion in seeking capital punishment, murders that generate higher public pressure or occur in wealthier jurisdictions may be more likely to result in death sentences. This suggests that the death penalty may reflect structural inequalities in whose lives are treated as most legally “worth” avenging, rather than a straightforward pattern of offender race alone. White people are on average wealthier then black people which results in better lawyers and more cases brought to court seeking the death penalty for white people.
Another argument that critics will say is that “according to studies” the death penalty has not reduced crime; in fact, it might be rising crime rates. First off how can someone make a 100% reliable estimate of crime rates increasing with or without the death penalty. There are simply to many variables; like the people can change over time, the population (if there is a small city of 1000 and 10 people are murdered that year the death per capita skyrockets), over time society has changed. Now most of the states with the highest murder rates have the death penalty whereas the states with lowest murder rates don’t.
For example, Mississippi is known for the most murder; about 20.7 per 100,000 (which Mississippi has the death penalty), whereas Maine murder rate is only 1.79 per 100,000(which Maine does not have the death penalty). From this along with other examples it would seem like the death penalty does not reduce crime rates but only makes them worse.
Looking back in history Maine has always had a low murder rate country even when it had the death penalty and Mississippi has always been a high murder rate country so in reality nothing has changed. Idaho, Utah, and New Hamshire are known for low murder rates and yet they have the death penalty, Chicago has a very high murder rate 21.5 per 100,000 making it higher than Mississippi. In bigger cities crime rates tend to be higher. For example, Chicago murder rate as stated earlier is 21.5 per 100,000, Memphis, Tennessee murder rate is 40.6 per 100,000, Detroit, Michigan murder rate is 31.2 per 100,000.
See that big cities tend to have higher crime rates despite having the death penalty or not. Michigan was the first country to abolish the death penalty yet the crime rate in Detroit is 31.2 per 100,000.
If the abolition of the death penalty truly reduced crimes, then why does the state that had it first still have such great number of murders in just one city? Most states with the death penalty are bigger in population and as it was stated earlier, bigger cities tend to have more crime. So, if you take the average number of murders per capita in states with bigger population and therefore with bigger cities, murder rates should go up. Another factor is most murderers aren’t punished with the death penalty.
According to most researcher less than 1% of murderers receive the death penalty. So how could they tell if the death penalty was truly affective if it is rarely given. If most murderers would receive the death penalty and then studies proved that the death penalty did not reduce crime maybe the death penalty wouldn’t be right.
There is no evidence the death penalty does not reduce crime. Maryland (Baltimore in 2023 had a murder rate 46.15 per 100,000), Michigan (Detroit has a murder rate of 31.2 per 100,000), and Illinois (East St. Louis has a murder rate of 54.1 per 100,000) all have the death penalty, yet their biggest cities have very large murder rates. The average population of the states that have the death penalty is about 8 million and the average population of states without the death penalty is a about 5 million.
The states with the death penalty our on average almost double the size which would therefore increase crime. Studies show that the bigger the population the more amount of crime there tends to be. So then shouldn’t the states with the death penalty have at least double the amount of crime then the states without it but this doesn’t seem to be the case. There is almost no difference between states without it and states with it even though the states with the death penalty are in population double the size.
Another factor is race. Mississippi is 38% black making it the most black state, if black people commit the most murders, then Mississippi is going to most likely have the most death per capita. Whereas Maine is only 2% black. Critics might think this is cherry pick data, but Utah is only 2% black, and Idaho is only 1% black. Louisiana, which has the 2 nd greatest number of murders per capita, is the 2 nd most populated state with 33% black people. So how is it a fair judgement to say that the death penalty has not reduced murder when the states that have it are bigger in population on average, ( which bigger population in a smaller area of space equals more crime) the states that have the most death per capita are majority black, and crime rates were about the same before the death penalty was abolished. Crime rates in America have dropped in the last 50 years in almost all states.
So, if crime rates are dropping all throughout the US, couldn’t that just be our society is changing and if America enforced the death penalty more strictly wouldn’t it make the crime rate drop more?
The death penalty is not used very effectively; if there are 16,300 murders per year and in 2024 only 25 executions then it would make the death penalty pointless. So, if the government very rarely use the death penalty, then why would someone think it would reduce crimes? The average murderer that is executed waits in jail for over 11 years this makes it even less effective. If the government only used the death penalty only when they had DNA evidence and/or video footage and used it within a year of the murder it would lower crime rates. In conclusion it is not fair to judge the murder rates in states that have the death penalty and murder rates in states that do not. Because of race, population, change in society, and because it is not used effectively and yet it still seems to reduce crimes.
Now another argument critics will likely bring up is the death penalty is barbaric, uncivil, unjust, inhumane, or society has changed from its former ways. These people might claim that doctors are all against the death penalty. Dr. Petit, who is a doctor whose family was very gruesomely murdered and sexually abused then the abusers lit his house on fire, said about the death penalty, “death is really the only true just punishment for certain heinous crimes and depraved murders.” Now a question for these people who are against the death penalty, how is it “barbaric” to kill someone who has murdered someone else.
First off murder is not in any way the same as killing someone. The definition of kill according to the webster dictionary means: “to deprive of life cause the death of.” Whereas the definition of murder according to the webster dictionary means: “the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing a person.” They might say society shouldn’t have the power to end a human’s life or humans shouldn’t repay evil for evil. But why then does society have power over the military, which can take life, and why then does society have power over the police and prison. Is it barbaric for someone who is being threatened (a gun on their head) to kill the person threatening them?
For example, if someone has a gun and is pointing it at you, is it barbaric for you to shoot them? No, you are defending yourself and it is not illegal. So then how is it wrong for someone rightly accused of murder to be put to death, the person murdered could not defend himself so shouldn’t the government defend his rights and bring justice. Now most of the world has footage and DNA testing so society can know whether or not we have the right victim. If they aren’t sure, then this person shouldn’t be put to death but if they are with good evidence then this person should be put to death immediately. How does not killing murderers sanctify human life? This would be making the value of human life not worth anything.
How is killing murders, murder, as critics claim. They are then saying that the death penalty is the same as the murder of an innocent family. Does that seem right? Someone who is rightly accused of murder who deserves death vs the one who he/she murdered is the same? How are these two deaths the same? A murderer being justly punished vs an innocent man being gruesomely murdered. How can someone even compare this?
The last argument critics will likely use is what about the chances of killing the wrong person? 1,543 people have been executed in America since 1976, and 63 of these people have been pronounced innocent making 4.1% of people that have died from the death penalty innocent. Why would we want to risk the lives of others when we can sentence them to life imprisonment and if they are innocent, we can let them go and they will not have to lose their life. This seems like the best argument yet, but it is not. With DNA testing we should be able to know who committed the crime also with footage. If there is not enough evidence to convict someone then they should only be sentenced to prison. Another factor is the US did not use DNA testing in a court case till 1987. DNA testing has improved and so has video footage so it makes it nearly impossible to put the wrong person to death.
The government should only give the death penalty when is 100% clear, also the government is not perfect and giving them any power you could argue is not right, but someone must bear the responsibility (the government does not bear the sword in vain) of punishing evil and if they should not punish evil then evil will thrive. Should the government not punish thieves? Of course, they should and in a just way. They should also punish murderers in a just way.
Politically the death penalty makes sense for several reasons. Here are some of them; Justice, when justice is served, it’s not only right but also gives families of victims a sense of closure but more importantly it makes it so this person cannot commit any more crimes and not have free food, shelter, and other things prisons offer. Our taxes are then going to the worst people in our society for free living when they deserve to die. Numbers of murders that are not sentenced to death commit more crimes and more murders, according to the book “released to kill again” 16.6% of prisoners who were convicted of homicide killed again or committed other violent crimes.
According to a review by “Sentencing Project” found that 1% of prisoners convicted of homicide had murdered after being released and 17% had committed violent crimes. In conclusion innocent people are at the very least being harmed by murders not condemned to the death penalty, and some killed. If 4.1% of convicted murderers who are executed are said to be innocent after the fact and 16.6% of murderers who are not sentenced to death murder again which is a higher risk factor? Not killing these murderers has a higher effect on the sanctity of life if we do not kill, they will kill. So, having the death penalty not only brings justice and closure to families of the victims but also protects the innocent.
Logically if there is a high consequence for doing something humans are less likely to do it. For example, drugs that are illegal and you can go to jail for taking them, and it also ruins many people lives in many ways when looking at the consequences one is more likely not to do it. If drugs were not illegal more people would probably take them and if they didn’t have a negative effect on your life even more people would take them. Say instead of going to jail for taking illegal drugs you just had to pay the government however much the drugs costed if you got caught, do you think more people would take drugs? It is the same for murder when you reduce the penalty it is more inviting especially for poor people.
Here’s why illegal immigrants have committed a hand full of murder and since the penalty for most of them is just to go to jail where they are fed, sheltered and can still do other various activities, and if they get away with their crime it could result to major benefits for them like being able to steal or get rid of someone who might turn them in and other threats to these people. But if these people new they would be sentenced to death, would they be as likely to commit murder? Logically it would not make sense.
The death penalty is backed up and justified through the Bible as stated before. There are no good arguments against it in the Bible. Politically there are no arguments that after looking into them hold up to be noteworthy. The death penalty is not what God had in mind for us when He created the world because He created it perfect but after the fall, He had to make rules for humanity so that it may purge the evil from among them. The death penalty is the only way that God gives us to condemn murderers. Society should have the death penalty for many reasons but most importantly because the Bible is the foundation for it and is in full support of it, and it politically makes the most sense because there is no evidence that contradicts or goes against the death penalty.