Forgiving the unrepentant and the death penalty, the conundrum
Whilst Guido’s hang ‘em high ‘Restore Justice Campaign’ gets into full swing, he notes in favour of the death penalty those that have committed atrocities, spent years in jail, and yet ‘proved beyond rehabilitation’.
I assume that what he means by ‘beyond rehabilitation’ would contain an element of repentance and contrition.
On an aside, I note in the comments section of Guido’s blog, that his ‘eye for an eye’ justice comes across as support for sharia type law. In this regard, it’s interesting that the BBC is carrying a story involving an Iranian woman voluntarily foregoing her right to Qisas. She has pardoned the man condemned to be blinded, for blinding and disfiguring her with acid.
Against the backdrop of the recent horrifying murderous acts perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik, some have become concerned over the leniency of the Norwegian judicial system, and to be frank with you, in the instance of Breivik, there is a part of me that would simply like to see him executed and removed from this planet.
I remember being surprised back in 2009, when Premier Media reported that just over half the British population wanted the death penalty reintroduced.
Personally, I am torn on the issue of the death penalty, as I view it as intimately related to the issues of forgiveness and repentance. The problem with the death penalty, is that it may rob the offender of any opportunity to move towards true repentance and contrition.
Perhaps you don’t think this important in certain circumstances, however, the issue of forgiveness is intimately related to repentance and contrition. So much so, that Jonathan Romain posited in the Guardian:
Under what circumstances should one forgive? For many, a key condition is that the person who perpetrated the hurt shows remorse. This means that they regret their words or actions, they appreciate the damage they have caused and they seek the forgiveness of those affected.
Yet some are prepared to forgive a wrongdoer whether or not he/she shows any contrition. They consider that forgiveness is purely dependent on the feelings of the person hurt.
It is part of a culture of self-sacrifice akin to the idea of turning the other cheek, when actually it is sometimes much more sensible to duck or even hit back.
Instead, forgiveness has to be earned. Why should one absolve, for instance, a mugger or rapist from what they have done if they are either unaware of the deep hurt they have caused or simply do not care?
It devalues forgiveness to hand it out lightly like a present-giving Father Christmas who has no interest in the children who pass through the shop that has hired him for the day. Forgiveness is based on relationship: a person responding to someone who is trying to undo an act that they realise was hurtful and wrong.
And Norman argues that forgiving the unrepentant is akin to:
……a willingness to forgive everything in advance, which seems to me a bit like condoning it.
And so this is my conundrum. If forgiveness is dependent on repentance, and executing the offender may rob them of achieving repentance – I’m not talking of sorrow that they will be executed – then how can one argue for the death penalty, as you may rob the victim of reaching the point of forgiveness, and all the benefits that go along with that.
Of course, if we were to know in advance that the offender would never reach the place of repentance, then perhaps the argument for the death penalty would be solid, but we don’t know do we?
And then of course the issue is further complicated for Christians. Should we offer our forgiveness dependent on repentance? Does God operate on this basis?
I’ll leave it there, but let me know if you have any thoughts on the matter.
Tags: Law Moral Ethical
July 31st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
The whole issues raises more questions than it answers. How long should the justice system wait for an offender to repent before deciding he/she is never going to do it? Ought there to be mitigating circumstances i.e mental health issues in consideration of the imposition of a death penalty on someone? America has been accused of sending people with mental health problems to the gallows suggesting that these offenders had no full knowledge of their actions.
July 31st, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Surely forgiveness is at least as much about the journey of the trespassed-opon as the trespasser’s, so I would question whether the perpetrator of a serious crime, as in Norway, needs to be alive to be forgiven. If the state suffers him to live and somehow he manages to kill again, is the state then a co-trespasser?
I’m afraid I don’t know about Guido’s campaign, I find his blog repulsive. All I know is that the obsession of the state with the offender at the expense of those offended – à la Jon Venables – evinces a view of restitution that is more therapy than protection of the innocent.
July 31st, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Ed is right in some ways. The British societal infrastructure does favour the perpetrator quite a lot. Bullies get away with it while the bullied are told not to rock the boat. The criminals commit crimes while the victims have pressure put upon them to think about forgiveness.
August 1st, 2011 at 2:49 am
Jesus was innocent.
Is there not already an arbitrary death penalty law on the de facto statute book for alleged property raiders in the U.K.
Guido’s hang ‘em high ‘Restore Justice Campaign’ is a result of the influence of islam, this is a cultural shift towards sharia law.
Guido’s political reasoning is “we shall at least see which MPs believe salus populi suprema est lex,” – the welfare of an individual yields to that of the community. Sounds more like the Totalitarianism (rule) of Communism or National Socialism.