By Fiifi AFENYI-DONKOR ( Rev’d) & Judith Ama AFENYI-DONKOR Esq
The death penalty remains a deeply contested issue, provoking the fundamental question: Should the law possess the authority to take a life in the name of justice?
This debate lies at the intersection of law, morality, and faith, drawing on legal principles, ethical considerations, and religious beliefs.
Across many societies, faith communities such as the Church play a crucial role in shaping the conversation, offering perspectives grounded in sacred texts (e.g., the Bible) and theological teachings that either affirm or challenge the legitimacy of the death penalty.
At its core, the discussion compels us to reflect on the true meaning of justice and the value of human life.
The Legal Perspective
The death penalty remains one of the most debated elements of criminal justice, positioned at the crossroads of legal authority and moral conviction.
While many legal systems justify it through the principles of deterrence and retribution, its legitimacy is often examined through two competing schools of legal thought: Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory.
Each offers a distinct framework for understanding the death penalty, either as a matter of procedural legality or as an issue of moral righteousness.
Legal Positivism: Law as it is
Legal Positivism, associated with jurists like H.L.A. Hart, argues that the validity of a law lies in its source and procedures, not in its moral content.
According to this view, a rule enacted by a recognized authority in accordance with established procedures is considered law, regardless of whether it is morally contentious.
Under this doctrine, the death penalty is considered valid in countries where it is legislated and upheld by the courts.
In Nigeria, for example, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty, citing its deterrent value and firm grounding in the Criminal Code and Constitution. For positivists, this institutional backing suffices to legitimize the death penalty.
Legal Positivism views law primarily as a tool for maintaining order and social control. It emphasizes legal certainty, predictability, and procedural consistency. However, it is often criticized for turning a blind eye to unjust or inhumane laws, provided they meet formal criteria.
Interestingly, even within this framework, moral language frequently emerges in public discourse; citizens and lawmakers alike often justify or oppose laws using ethical reasoning, thereby blurring the line between legality and morality.
Natural Law Theory: Law as it ought to be
In contrast, Natural Law Theory, grounded in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and modern thinkers like Lon L. Fuller contends that for a law to be truly valid, that law must be rooted in universal moral values, such as justice, human dignity, and fairness. These thinkers argue that a law that undermines these moral standards may be legally enacted but lack moral legitimacy.
From this perspective, the death penalty invites fundamental moral scrutiny. If it compromises the right to life, devalues human dignity, or is applied arbitrarily or discriminatorily, it fails the test of justice, regardless of its procedural legality. Natural law theorists argue that no legal rule should stand apart from the moral values it ought to embody.
This perspective has inspired legal reforms in several countries. In Ghana, for example, the 1992 Constitution mandated the death penalty for crimes like murder and treason, while simultaneously protecting the right to life under Article 13, creating an inherent legal contradiction. This raised significant human rights concerns and sparked calls for reform.
In 2023, Ghana abolished the death penalty for most crimes, except for treason. This reform reflects a shift toward aligning national laws with global human rights standards. This action reflects a broader commitment to laws that uphold life and dignity.
Similarly, in South Africa, the Constitutional Court in the seminal case of S v Makwanyane and Another (CCT/3/94) 1995(3) SA 391 (CC), declared the death penalty unconstitutional. The Court based its judgment on the principles of human dignity, equality, and the right to life, concluding that a truly just society cannot endorse state-sponsored execution.
By contrasting Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory, we uncover the enduring tension between law as it is and law as it ought to be. This tension defines the global debate on death penalty and challenges societies to continuously assess whether their laws reflect not just legality but humanity.
The Faith Perspective: A Christian View
Religious views on the death penalty are diverse and often rooted in scriptural interpretation. For the purposes of our discussion, we would explore this topic from a Christian perspective espousing biblical arguments in support and against death penalty and examining their theological interpretations.
Biblical Arguments in Support of the Death Penalty
The Old Testament contains numerous passages that appear to endorse the death penalty as a form of divine justice and retribution for severe crimes like murder. Key verses include Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Leviticus 24:17, and Deuteronomy 19:21. These passages emphasize the sanctity of human life and promote proportional retribution (”an eye for an eye”).
In the New Testament, Romans 13:4 affirms the authority of the state to execute justice, including death penalty. Additionally, Acts 25:11 suggests that Apostle Paul acknowledges the legitimacy of the death penalty if one is deserving of it, stating, “If I am guilty of doing anything deserving of death, I do not refuse to die. “Proponents argue that these verses collectively reflect divine authorization, human accountability, and civil authority. They believe that governments are granted the authority by God to execute justice for serious crimes.
Biblical arguments against death penalty
On the other hand, the Bible also provides several key scriptural foundations that critics of death penalty often cite. These passages emphasize mercy, redemption, and the sanctity of human life. The story of Cain in Genesis 4:15 demonstrates God’s preference for redemption over retribution. Ezekiel 33:11 highlights God’s desire for repentance and transformation over death for the wicked.
In the New Testament, Jesus models an ethic of compassion and non-retaliation. Jesus’ encounter with the adulterous woman in John 8:7 challenges the religious leaders, emphasizing mercy over judgment.
Matthew 5:38-39, part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus redefines justice by rejecting the principle of retribution and calling for forgiveness and love for one’s enemies. Christ also prioritizes mercy over judgment, reflecting God’s nature (Matthew 5:7). Romans 12:19 encourages believers to leave justice in God’s hands rather than seeking retribution.
Critics of the death penalty argue that these scriptures demonstrate God’s preference for mercy, the possibility of redemption, and the limitations of human judgment. They believe that true justice belongs to God, not human institutions prone to error.
Theological Interpretation of the Biblical Arguments
It has been observed that the Bible presents both endorsements and critiques of the death penalty. Therefore, the Bible is not unanimous in its voice on the death penalty. There seems to be some factors that may account for these two voices in Scripture. These include:
Justice vs. Mercy: A Fundamental Divide
Proponents of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary form of justice and accountability for heinous crimes, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions. Conversely, opponents emphasize the importance of mercy, grace, and second chances, highlighting the potential for redemption and rehabilitation.
Role of the State vs. Role of God: Interpreting Biblical Authority
Different biblical interpretations yield varying perspectives on state authority and divine judgment. Some argue that the state has a God-given mandate to execute justice, including the death penalty, while others contend that ultimate judgment belongs to God alone.
Old Covenant vs. New Covenant Ethics: Shifting Approaches to Justice
The Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for certain crimes, whereas the New Testament emphasizes mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. This shift in approach raises questions about whether the Old Testament legal prescriptions should guide modern societies and legal policy.
Possibility of Redemption: Challenging the Finality of the Death Penalty
The New Testament’s strong emphasis on redemption and transformation further complicates the debate. The possibility of redemption challenges the finality of the death penalty.
Faith and Law in Dialogue
The continued enforcement of the death penalty despite evolving moral standards points to a broader dilemma: what happens when the law lags behind morality? Lon Fuller’s theory emphasizes that laws must not only follow procedure but also align with moral principles like fairness and dignity.
While retributive justice, which supports the death penalty as a proportionate punishment, remains influential in many jurisdictions. However, questions about wrongful convictions, the value of human life, and the irreversibility of execution challenge its legitimacy.
Faith communities such as the church increasingly advocate for justice rooted in compassion, forgiveness, and the sanctity of life. Their voices call for a legal system that prioritizes rehabilitation and reconciliation over retribution. Rather than undermining the law, faith traditions invite it to grow more humane.
This ongoing dialogue between faith and law helps shape legal reforms grounded in both order and morality. The abolition of the death penalty in places like Ghana reflects not weakness, but a mature legal conscience. Ultimately, the evolution of law mirrors the moral development of society itself.
Conclusion
The death penalty debate compels societies to confront their values regarding justice, mercy, and human dignity. While both legal and faith perspectives offer justifications, the irreversible nature of execution questions our commitment to redemption.
Nations like Ghana are moving towards rehabilitation over retribution, reflecting evolving moral standards. True justice may not be measured by punishment alone, but by the potential for restoration. Society must choose between irreversible retribution and transformative justice. This choice will shape our moral and legal legacy.
Rev’d Fiifi Afenyi-Donkor is an Ordained Minister of The Methodist Church Ghana and Judith Ama Afenyi-Donkor Esq. is a Lawyer at Ghartey& Ghartey Law Firm. Her Areas of Interest are Information Technology Law, Human Rights Law and Family Law
