THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, August 5, 1995 TAG: 9508040012
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 36 lines
I read in disbelief that the jury in the Susan Smith trial recommended a life sentence instead of the death penalty. It seems to me that Americans have come to hold a distorted view of the death penalty. Those who advocate its abolition do not seem to have thought their position through. At least one argument is that it is cruel and unusual. Which is more cruel, death or life in prison?
According to Judeo-Christian law, the death penalty was instituted officially in Genesis 9:6 by the Noahide covenant: ``Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.''
Deterrence is only a secondary attribute of the death penalty. The primary purpose is retribution. Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-18). The Exodus commandment of ``eye for eye`` (vv. 22-26; also Matthew 5:38-42) was not a vindication of violence but a limitation for personal injury. That is, if an eye was damaged, the person at fault could not be required to pay for more than an eye.
If the court accedes to a jury verdict of life imprisonment for murder, then perhaps it requires more than even God requires. Those who demand life imprisonment for murder so that the murderer can suffer longer for his or her crime should check their motivation. Those who allow it out of pity do justice neither to the criminal nor to the state.
JOEL L. SULLIVAN
Virginia Beach, July 28, 1995 by CNB