instinctive awareness that most criminals are created by society itself. Sensing this, they experience further feelings of guilt for society’s punitive measures toward malefactors. But most persons tolerate guilt feelings badly and, in order to defend themselves against them, make use of massive denial, resulting in the expression of an unreasonable degree of hostility.” This is one of the strangest evaluations of the subject that have come to hand. It is not new that modern sociology lays the blame for crime on society instead of the individual. Apparently, the best punishment for society, then, is to be compelled to live with the criminal. If ever there was a case of misplaced responsibility, this is it, yet it is con tinually offered to explain why deadly criminals are to receive a slap on the wrist or token punishment at the most. We must have some way of salving our guilty consciences. But to accuse society of allowing these guilt feelings to rise to such a pitch, that it is prepared to commit a mass crime, is so far afield that this pill will not down, no matter how sugar-coated. At this point it may be allowed to turn our attention to some authoritative pronouncements of the Word of God on the subject. In Genesis 9:5, 6 it is written: “ And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it: and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” In regard to the cities of refuge to be set apart in Israel it was recorded in Numbers 35:31, 33, 34: “Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death. . . . So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood, it polluteth the land; and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. And thou shalt not defile the land which ye inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell: for I, the Lord, dwell in the midst of the children of Israel.” Paul, in treating of the authority of governments, declared in Romans 13:4: “ But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.” Some pointed questions are in order here. When the subject of capital punishment is discussed, how often is God brought into the matter? Nowhere does the emi nent psychiatry professor even mention God. Since He is the sovereign Lord of life, is He not to be considered ? Is it not an impertinence of immense proportions to rule Him out of the discussion? Is it not true that those who are so adamant against capital punishment, often favor no reasonable punishment of offenders? They often rec ommend psychiatric treatment in institutions, from which all too often the guilty are soon released to prey once more upon society, and perpetrate more and even greater crimes against society. The basic trouble is that psychiatry as such, and much of modern penology, re fuses to take the Biblical estimate of human nature, disclaiming all desire to assign responsibility, because they loudly affirm this is the realm of the metaphysician Finally, the discussion of capital punishment will never make any headway until God’s pronouncements in the matter are taken at their full and proper value, and the concept of a deterrent is eliminated in the case of the murderer, for the Word of God does not even inti mate that this is a primary consideration. We have been far afield in this crucial matter for too long; it is time the subject was treated from the Biblical standpoint.
is useless and eminently ineffective as a deterrent. It should be pointed out that it is the most effective deter rent to further crime as far as the executed criminal is concerned. But is this the chief consideration in the mat ter of executing a murderer? In the John Hopkins Magazine for May, 1964, in an article entitled, “ Jack Ruby, The Law, And Psychiatry,” by Manfred S. Guttmacher, M.D., Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at The Hopkins, and chief medical officer of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore since 1920, the posi tion is taken (p. 28 ): “ Capital punishment has virtually no deterrent force. First of all, a great majority of mur ders qualify as so-called ‘crimes of passion’ ; they are the product of extreme anger or fear or frustration. In such cases, punishment is probably the farthest thing from the offender’s mind at the moment of the act. And sec ondly, only a very minute portion of the murderers are executed anyway. Certainly if we did away with capital punishment we would be able to deal with the criminal in a much more rational way than we do presently.” The positions of the learned professor are notori ously fallacious, as we shall presently show. First of all, it has never been conclusively demonstrated that capi tal punishment has practically no deterrent value. The elements involved are so diverse and manifold, that glib conclusions cannot be considered valid. Has it ever been demonstrated conclusively that a society without capi tal punishment is more law abiding and less subject to murders and crimes of violence? Who can competently answer this vital question ? Secondly, are crimes of pas sion to be put in a category by themselves and the per petrators of them to be held beyond proper punishment? Think of the vast ramifications of this action. Who could adjudicate the cases after this fashion? Furthermore, would this change one iota the fact that the victim of such crimes was deprived of life, useful service, and the comforts and love of his home? Thirdly, why should it enter into the discussion whether the offender at the time of the act had in mind the fact of punishment or not? Does this minimize in the least degree the heinousness of taking human life which is the prerogative of no man in an individual capacity? Fourthly, a palpably weak argument is that which holds that-a very small portion of murderers are executed anyhow. This sounds like arguing it both ways. Again, would the professor suggest that, since so small a number of culprits in any infraction of our laws are brought to book, we should do well to abolish punish ment altogether? To say the least, this view would fit hand in glove with modem theories of progressive ( !) education. Fifthly, we maintain strongly that there is no assurance that with the abolition of capital punish ment, anybody would have greater competence in deal ing with criminals more rationally. This involves a num ber of non sequiturs that would keep a keen logician busy all night in refuting. Furthermore, in all the years of discussion on capital punishment as a deterrent it is singular that J. Edgar Hoover, Director o f the Federal Bureau of Investiga tion, who is probably more conversant with the statis tics in this area than any other individual in this coun try, has never gone on record as an advocate of the abo lition of capital punishment. This must be explained in some cogent manner by the sponsors of the repeal of the laws favoring capital punishment. But Dr. Guttmacher has more to say on the subject. He holds (p. 28 ): “Many individuals have a two-fold sense of guilt in regard to criminals. They have an
15
MAY, 1965
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker