religion and the death penalty essay

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Historian sees a warning for today in post-Civil War U.S.

McCarthy says immigration, abortion, economy to top election issues

Harvard stargazer whose humanity still burns bright

Francis X. Clooney: “If we quote a verse out of Genesis or another verse out of the Letter to the Romans without due attention to context, we run the risk of ‘proof texting’: finding a verse in the Bible that justifies what you feel you should do today.”

File photo by Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

The death penalty and Christianity

Paul Massari

Harvard Divinity School Communications

A Q&A with Francis X. Clooney examines how both sides in an endless debate seek biblical backing

The botched execution of Oklahoma death row inmate Clayton Lockett in April ignited a national discussion about capital punishment that was followed by fresh debate over the executions of three felons last week in Missouri, Georgia, and Florida.

Christians on both sides of the issue have been weighing in on capital punishment, saying that Scripture supports their position.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has argued that “ the Bible clearly calls for capital punishment in the case of intentional murder .” But Christian activist and author Shane Claiborne has countered that the teachings of Jesus provide no support for the death penalty .

To add context and nuance to the conversation, Paul Massari of Harvard Divinity School Communications turned to Francis X. Clooney, Parkman Professor of Divinity and professor of comparative theology and director of the Center for the Study of World Religions at the School.

Clooney questions the reasoning of those who say Christians should support the death penalty, but also suggests that opponents who quote Jesus may not be comfortable with the logical extension of the teachings they cite. Absolute opposition to the death penalty may seem out of touch with a realistic view of the world; tolerance of it may seem far removed from the teachings of Jesus.

HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL (HDS): How do you understand the assertion, articulated by Christians like Dr. Mohler, that “God affirmed the death penalty for murder as he made his affirmation of human dignity clear” in the Bible?

CLOONEY: It strikes me as not unexpected, since Christians have often enough argued for such punishments, reconciling them with a view of God’s plan as set out in the Bible. But what Jesus would say is often treated differently. A few years ago, I went to Mass one Sunday at a local parish. The Gospel was the part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek. Do not resist evil.” The homilist said, “The teaching of Jesus is radical nonviolence. But that’s not the teaching of the church, so let me now tell you about the teaching of the church.” He went on for another 20 minutes about just-war theory and the legitimate use of force by the state, and so on. The views of Jesus were not mentioned again.

This is a typical situation. On the one hand there’s Jesus, and we’ll never criticize Jesus. On the other hand there’s the way we do things — and the way most Christians have done things for a long time. It is not surprising that in Christian arguments for the death penalty, Jesus doesn’t really come up at all. Many of us find him too radical for everyday life.

HDS: But are they saying, “This is the way we do things,” or, “The Bible calls for capital punishment in the name of human dignity”?

CLOONEY: Many Christians — Southern Baptists, Protestants, and Catholics, too — will say both. They look at the Bible and say, “Clearly the death penalty can be found in the Bible,” and find guidance there for what the states should do in 2014. Most are not reckless in their calls for capital punishment. Leaders such as Dr. Mohler recognize the continuing need to respect human nature, the possibility of the abuse of government power, the dangers of state-sponsored violence, and the miscarriages of justice that not infrequently have taken place. They’re not saying, “Kill people without hesitation, or because they merely deserve to be killed.”

They’re also saying that the death penalty doesn’t permit individuals or lynch mobs to take the law into their own hands and go out and kill those they think should be killed. They recognize human dignity, but also legitimacy of the death penalty, and they try to make the case that these go together. In this way of thinking, such power is given over to the state, in accord with the theory of the legitimate role of state power, which goes back to the Middle Ages and before.

HDS: So, in this view, capital punishment and respect for human dignity are separate commandments from God, but not necessarily tied to one another?

CLOONEY: They’re interrelated in the sense that they both come from the plan of God. For Dr. Mohler, these commands are not contradictory either. Rather, respect human nature, and, in some rare cases, take the life of fellow human beings, particularly those who kill other humans. It is as if to say, “Because we respect life, we take life.” By this view, neither value replaces the other. They’re not saying, “We kill people because they don’t deserve human respect,” but they also refuse to say, “Respect for human beings means that you can never kill anyone.” Rather, the thinking goes, respect for human life and capital punishment are distinct issues, and a Christian can hold both.

HDS: What about the Biblical passages cited by Christians who support capital punishment? Is there a larger context to these that adds some complexity?

CLOONEY: Passages can be found that sanction putting someone to death, and many a text reports the killing of individuals and groups. But the path from one or another Bible verse to state policy today is very complicated. If we quote a verse out of Genesis or another verse out of the Letter to the Romans without due attention to context, we run the risk of “proof texting”: finding a verse in the Bible that justifies what you feel you should do today. Centuries of modern Biblical scholarship have shown us that these texts don’t float free of their contexts. You have to read them according to the intentions of the author, the options of the time, and so on. Rarely can they be applied without modification to the world in which we live.

Take the Genesis text, where after the great flood God is bringing the world back to life. In that context, God stresses the sacredness of human life, and therefore predicts and warns: “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;for in his own image God made humankind” [Genesis 9:6]. This saying could be taken a number of ways. It could sanction the death penalty, or it could simply remind us that violence leads to more violence. If you kill, your blood will be taken in turn.

Human life is always sacred. By elaborate reasoning, I suppose, it could be taken to justify killing those who kill, and thus to support the death penalty in 21st-century America. But it could more easily be argued as having very little to do with the death penalty in today’s America.

All of this is difficult. It is a problem to take any verse out of context. It is also a problem to think that in 2014 we can apply verses from the Bible directly to the policies of Texas or Oklahoma or the federal government, and thus justify the death penalty. Yet, to be honest, it would also be a problem to end up in a position where no Biblical verse ever provides guidance in 2014. So some balance of verse and context is needed. On the whole, I am not at all convinced that any biblical verses support the modern world’s use of the death penalty.

HDS: Is it ever possible for capital punishment to be applied in a way that makes moral sense?

CLOONEY: Since we live in a world tainted by sin, and since things that aren’t desirable or ideal are still part of what it takes to live in this imperfect world, then hard and realistic compromises are often necessary. Most of us most of the time do not live out the example of Jesus without compromise. Some believe that in a hard and violent world, the death penalty is a necessary evil. On a larger social scale, some Christians defend going to war and killing people either in direct combat or by bombing armies or cities. If we lived in an ideal world, there wouldn’t be any wars, or a death penalty. But the world is not ideal, and so we kill. Such is the logic.

HDS: So is the Christian view to say, “No more war. No more fighting. Conscientious objection. Never the death penalty,” and so on? Or is it to say, “In the world in which we live, let’s talk about the death penalty. What are the rationale and the evidence that the death penalty serves a useful social function?”

CLOONEY: This is exactly what each of us needs to decide. Even if we wish to follow the radical example of Jesus, we still need to use the intelligence God has given us.

Even aside from how we use the Bible in this debate, the death penalty is subject to doubt, and it’s quite possible to give a hard time to its proponents. Is there evidence that it does any good? Isn’t it rather often a matter of revenge? It is supposed to be a matter of warning people: “Don’t do that because you’ll get killed if you do”? But do such warnings work as a deterrent? And what are the collateral effects of trivializing human life by killing people for any reason? Where’s the evidence that the death penalty is applied fairly and that there’s no systemic bias involved?

In the end, I think a lot of people — maybe even a majority of people who think seriously about these issues — would say that the evidence is just not there that the death penalty achieves a good commensurate with the evil of giving the state permission to take life. Accordingly, arguments about all these points are quite common today, of course, and that is for the better. Quoting the Bible or any sacred text does not excuse us from debating the evidence for and against the death penalty.

HDS: So where do you draw the line in the discussion between morality and the real world? For instance, supporters might say that the death penalty would be a deterrent if cases weren’t tied up in court and we executed sentences more efficiently. If that were true, would capital punishment be OK?

CLOONEY: Good point. Certainly one can say, “Neither this nor that is absolute, so we just have to make a prudential judgment based on effectiveness.” Does the state have a right to control handguns, or enforce traffic laws, or to arrest someone who’s robbing a bank, abusing a child, running a corrupt Wall Street firm, or polluting the environment on a massive scale? Of course it does. And of course we have to try to be fair in the application of the law, improving an imperfect system.

In an ideal justice system, the death penalty might conceivably be carried out fairly and without bias. But since our justice system is not ideal, that hope is not very plausible. And so, in today’s society, we still have to debate whether the death penalty serves any good purpose, just as we can debate whether life imprisonment without the possibility of parole serves any legitimate purpose that does anyone any good.

HDS: Death penalty supporters say that the Bible doesn’t say that human life is an absolute value. People get killed in the Bible all the time. Other values have to come in.

CLOONEY: Yes, but we need to be very cautious in then making a list of values that are superior to human life. Moreover, values are interconnected, woven together. In the Catholic Church, for instance, there’s the ideal of the “seamless garment of life.” From conception to a natural death not hastened by poverty or injustice, life is an absolute value that must always be respected. You can’t sacrifice a human life for the sake of another good you have decided to be of greater value. You can’t say that human life is worth respecting only some of the time. If you do, where do you draw the line? Best to say, from conception to old age, all human life is to be respected, protected, and enabled to flourish. Neither abortion nor the death penalty is tolerable; neither is the ruining of lives by systemic poverty and the violence that makes so many suffer their whole lives long. In fact we tolerate many things that demean human flourishing, particularly when others, far away, are affected rather than ourselves. But in our better moments we can hardly condone such callousness.

HDS: Most Biblical citations of Christians who support the death penalty draw from the Old Testament. So where does Jesus come in?

CLOONEY: The worldly view, even among Christians, is that you can’t run society based on the principles of Jesus. If everybody turned the other cheek, then all the “bad” people would win. If everyone gave up his or her wealth, society would collapse. So you need to seek out other references in the Bible.

Opponents to the death penalty are surely right in holding that Jesus wouldn’t allow it. The incidents we see in the Gospels — the woman caught in adultery, for instance — reject killing, and reject the self-righteousness and anger that lead us to kill. Jesus clearly says, “Turn the other cheek.”

If Christian death penalty supporters want to adhere to the Bible, they need to face up to the exemplar of Jesus, too, and not leave him out of the picture when defending the death penalty. Every word of the Bible then needs to be reread in light of the teachings of Jesus.

To be fair, those of us defending the radical nonviolence of Jesus similarly need to read the whole of the Bible as well, not merely ignoring the parts we’d rather not think about.

HDS: Is it a matter of Christianity with Jesus or without Jesus? Every church wants to have Jesus at the center, but also wants to put in other principles, as well as accommodating moral and political issues. But is the example in the Gospels the only one for being a good Christian?

CLOONEY: No Christian will want to promote Christianity without Jesus at its center. A Christianity grounded in the Gospels and thus in the life and death of Jesus will end up being radical Christianity.  It will hold to standards that resist merely coming to terms with any given political situation, catering to the whims of the state and the majority, and so on. But accommodation to political realities will still take place. Think of St. Paul’s “real world” accommodation of cultural conditions, the fact of empire, etc.

HDS: You mention St. Paul. Why do death penalty supporters often cite his writings?

CLOONEY: Paul lived in the Roman Empire and had to make space for the Christian community amidst Roman power. He had to show that Christians were not the enemy of the state, and that Christianity was not opposed to all civil power. And so Paul had to talk about respecting authority, paying taxes, the power that kings have, etc. In his Letter to the Romans, he writes: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God” [Romans 13:1].

The radical alternative would have been to be a fringe group that the Romans would have sought to destroy — and that might well have died out, like many others. The history of how the church came to be amidst the empire is a well-known topic, and many scholars have written on how Christianity learned to live with — and benefit from — imperial power. That’s our history, right down to the death penalty, and there is much to be ashamed of.

And yet, to be fair, even Jesus seems to admit some accommodation. There’s the scene where he’s asked whether or not the Jews should pay the Roman tax, and he says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” [Matthew 22:21]. He doesn’t say that it’s all God’s, as if Caesar has no power or realm of authority.

But still, there is no direct path from giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s to the death penalty in one or another American state today. Much exegesis and many prudential arguments must occur in between, before we might get anywhere near justifying the death penalty simply because Jesus spoke those words in Matthew 22.

HDS: So, are Christians like Dr. Mohler arguing for a position that is actually “worldly,” but portraying it as wisdom received from God?

CLOONEY: Again, this requires a difficult balance. On the one hand, he’s employing a certain kind of Biblical literalism, where we take the words at face value as assertive of truths that can be directly applied in 2014. God says it’s OK to kill people under certain circumstances, so the states have the authority to execute prisoners now.

Others among us remain very skeptical, and do not believe we honor God’s word by such direct and seemingly simplistic applications.

On the other hand, Dr. Mohler seems to be assuming that the death penalty is justified because it’s good for American society today. But the evidence for that opinion is open to dispute, as I mentioned above. Quoting some passages from the Bible does not end the debate. But in the end, perhaps the burden is still greater for those who oppose the death penalty because it is not in keeping with the teachings and life of Jesus. If we really believe that, then we need to act like Jesus all the time, not just when it is the death penalty that is up for debate.

Share this article

You might like.

Past is present at Warren Center symposium featuring scholars from Harvard, Emory, UConn, and University of Cambridge

Former House speaker also says Trump would likely win if election were held today in wide-ranging talk

Seminar foregrounds Harlow Shapley, who helped scholars escape Nazi rule

Harvard announces return to required testing

Leading researchers cite strong evidence that testing expands opportunity

Yes, it’s exciting. Just don’t look at the sun.

Lab, telescope specialist details Harvard eclipse-viewing party, offers safety tips

How dating sites automate racism

Sociologist’s new book finds algorithms that suggest partners often reflect stereotypes, biases

Can you be Christian and support the death penalty?

Professor of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross

Disclosure statement

Mathew Schmalz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

College of the Holy Cross provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Pope Francis has declared the death penalty “ inadmissible .” This means that the death penalty should not be used in any circumstance. It also alters the Catholic Catechism , a compendium of Catholic doctrine, and is now binding on Roman Catholics throughout the world.

But in spite of his definitive statement, Pope Francis’ act will probably only deepen the debate about whether Christians can support capital punishment.

As a Catholic scholar who writes about religion, politics and policy, I understand how Christians struggle with the death penalty – some cannot endure the idea and others support it as a way to deter and punish terrible crimes. Some Christian theologians have also observed that capital punishment could actually lead to a change of heart among criminals who might repent when faced with the finality of death.

Is the death penalty un-Christian?

The two sides

In its early centuries, Christianity was seen with suspicion by authorities. Writing in defense of Christians who were unfairly charged with crimes in second-century Rome, philosopher Anthenagoras of Athens condemned the death penalty and wrote that Christians “cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly.”

But as Christianity became more connected with state power, European Christian monarchs and governments regularly carried out the death penalty until its abolition in the 1950s through the European Convention on Human Rights. In the Western world, today, only the United States and Belarus retain capital punishment for crimes not committed during wartime. But China, and many nations in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa still apply the death penalty.

According to a 2015 Pew Research Center Survey , support for the death penalty is falling worldwide . However, in the United States a majority of white Protestants and Catholics continue to be in favor of it.

Critics of the American justice system argue that the deterrence value of capital punishment is debatable. There are also studies showing that, in the United States, capital punishment is unfairly applied , especially to African-Americans.

Christian views

In the Hebrew Bible, Exodus 21:12 states that “whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.” In Matthew’s Gospel , Jesus, however, rejects the notion of retribution when he says “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

While it is true that the Hebrew Bible prescribes capital punishment for a variety of offenses, it is also true that later Jewish jurists set out rigorous standards for the death penalty so that it could be used only in rare circumstances.

At issue in Christian considerations of the death penalty is whether the state has the obligation to punish criminals and defend its citizens.

St. Paul, an early Christian evangelist, wrote in his letter to the Romans that a ruler acts as “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” The Middle Ages in Europe saw thousands of murderers, witches and heretics put to death. While church courts of this period generally did not carry out capital punishment , they did turn criminals over to secular authorities for execution.

Thirteenth-century Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas argued that the death penalty could be justified for the greater welfare of society. Later Protestant reformers also supported the right of the state to impose capital punishment. John Calvin , a Protestant theologian and reformer, argued that Christian forgiveness did not mean overturning established laws.

The position of Pope Francis

Among Christian leaders, Pope Francis has been at the forefront of arguing against the death penalty.

The letter accompanying the Pope’s declaration makes several points. First, it acknowledges that the Catholic Church has previously taught that the death penalty is appropriate in certain instances. Second, the letter argues that modern methods of imprisonment effectively protect society from criminals. Third, the letter states that this development of Catholic doctrine is consistent with the thought of the two previous popes: St. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

St. John Paul II maintained that capital punishment should be reserved only for “absolute necessity.” Benedict XVI also supported efforts to eliminate the death penalty.

Most important, however, is that Pope Francis is emphasizing an ethic of forgiveness. The Pope has argued that social justice applies to all citizens. He also believes that those who harm society should make amends through acts that affirm life, not death.

For Pope Francis, the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life are the core values of Christianity, regardless of the circumstances.

This article, published originally in 20-18, is an updated version of an article first published in 2017.

• Human rights
• Christianity
• Death penalty
• Pope Francis
• African Americans
• Capital punishment
• Thomas Aquinas
• John Paul II
• Global perspectives
• Protestants

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Operations Manager

Senior Education Technologist

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Opinion Polls: Death Penalty Support and Religious Views

• Facebook Share
• Tweet Tweet
• Email Email

Pew Research Center: Atheists and Agnostics Tend to Support Death Penalty Less Than Other Religious Groups

According to a Pew Research Center survey from April 2021, a majority of adults in the United States support the use of the death penalty for individuals convicted of murder, but these views tend to vary by religion. Approximately two-thirds of atheists and six-in-ten agnostics are at least ‘somewhat’ opposed to the use of capital punishment for those convicted of murder, while 60% of U.S. adults favors the death penalty. For particular religious groups, this support is even higher: roughly 75% of white Evangelicals and Protestants favor capital punishment, as well as 61% of Hispanic Catholics. For Black Protestants, capital punishment is a divisive issue, with 50% supporting its use and 47% opposing its use. This division reflects the overall lower support for the death penalty among Black Americans, regardless of religiosity. 

The survey also addresses moral qualms about the use of the death penalty, whether capital punishment has a deterrent effect, whether sentencing for the same crime varies by race, and whether there are adequate protections to prevent against the execution of an innocent person. Amongst this set of answers, approximately half of the atheists and agnostics believe the death penalty is morally unjustifiable, while less than a quarter of the white Protestants and evangelicals shared the same sentiment. According to Sarah Kramer, “generally speaking, people with any religious affiliation are more likely than those without one to say that the threat of the death penalty deters serious crime.” The survey revealed a large difference in whether each group thinks the death penalty is applied equally by race. Nearly 90% of Black Protestants believe that Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for crimes with similar circumstances, while almost 70% of white evangelicals believe the death penalty is equally applied to white and Black people. This number was lesser among white non-evangelicals (53%) and Catholics (47%). Every religious group that participated in the survey agreed, with large majorities, that there is some risk associated with an innocent person being put to death in the United States.

S. Kramer, Unlike other U.S. religious groups, most atheists and agnostics oppose the death penalty (June 15, 2021)

2014 Public Religion Research Institute Poll Finds That Most Religious Affiliations in the United States Prefer Life in Prison Without Parole to the Death Penalty

The September 2014 “American Values Survey” by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRPI) showed that 48% of Americans said they preferred life without parole as the punishment for murder, as compared to 44% who said they preferred the death penalty. The poll found what PRPI commentators described as “significant religious divides on this issue.” Support for the death penalty was lowest among Hispanic and Black Protestants, at 24% and 25%, respectively. 68% of each preferred life without parole. Catholics, Jews, other non-Christian religions, and the religiously unaffiliated all preferred life without parole to the death penalty. Only White evangelical (59 percent) and White mainline Protestants (52 percent) expressed majority support for the death penalty, with 34% and 40% from these groups, respectively, preferring life without parole.

(J. Piacenza, Support for Death Penalty by Religious Affiliation (Apr. 9, 2015))

Gallup Poll: Who Supports the Death Penalty?   

The combined aggregate results from the nine surveys conducted from 2001 through 2004 show some interesting, albeit subtle, differences in death penalty support by religious affiliation.

Church Attendance

Americans who attend religious services on a regular basis are slightly less likely to support the death penalty than those who attend less frequently. Although a majority of frequent and infrequent churchgoers support the death penalty, the data show that 65% of those who attend services weekly or nearly weekly favor capital punishment, compared with 69% of those who attend services monthly and 71% of those who seldom or never attend.

Religious Preference

Individuals who self-identify as Protestants are somewhat more likely to endorse capital punishment than are Catholics and far more likely than those with no religious preference. More than 7 in 10 Protestants (71%) support the death penalty, while 66% of Catholics support it. Fifty-seven percent of those with no religious preference favor the death penalty for murder.

*Results are based on telephone interviews with 6,498 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 19-21, 2001; May 10-14, 2001; Oct. 11-14, 2001; May 6-9, 2002; Oct. 14-17, 2002; May 5-7, 2003; Oct 6-9, 2003; May 2-4, 2004; and Oct. 11-14, 2004. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ± 2 percentage points. (Press Release “ Who Supports the Death Penalty? ” by Joseph Carroll, Gallup Poll (November 16, 2004)).

Zogby Polls Finds Dramatic Decline in Catholic Support For the Death Penalty

A national poll of Roman Catholic adults conducted by Zogby International found that Catholic support for capital punishment has declined dramatically in recent years. The Zogby Poll was released on March 21, 2005 at a press conference of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as it announced a new Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty. The poll revealed that only 48% of Catholics now support the death penalty. Comparable polls by other organizations had registered a 68% support among Catholics in 2001. In addition, the percentage of Catholics who are strongly supportive of capital punishment hs halved, from a high of 40% to 20% in the most recent survey. The poll also found that:

• Regular churchgoers are less likely to support the death penalty than those who attend infrequently.
• Younger Catholics are among those least likely to support the death penalty.
• A third of Catholics who once supported the use of the death penalty now oppose it.

Among the major reasons Catholics gave for their opposition to capital punishment was “respect for life,” and 63% voiced concerns about what the use of the death penalty “does to us as a people and a country.” Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, was joined at the press conference by John Zogby, President of Zogby International, Bud Welch, whose daughter was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing, and Kirk Bloodsworth, who was freed from death row after DNA evidence led to his exoneration. ( United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Press Release , March 21, 2005)

Public Religion Research Poll Finds That Mainline Protestant Clergy are Strongly Opposed to the Death Penalty

A national poll of Mainline Protestant clergy conducted in 2008 by Public Religion Research, LLC, revealed that 66% of mainline clergy oppose the death penalty while only 27% support it. The level of opposition to capital punishment varies significantly based on denomination. Eighty-two percent of ministers from the Universal Church of Christ (UCC) and 81% of Episcopal ministers oppose capital punishment. However, only 53% of American Baptist ministers oppose the death penalty. The survey also found that Mainline Protestant ministers are less likely to speak out on controversial social issues. Twenty-six percent of Mainline Protestant clergy state that they often discuss the issue of capital punishment.

The seven largest Mainline Protestant denominations in the United States include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, American Baptist Churches USA, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). (“ Clergy Voices: Findings from the 2008 Mainline Protestant Clergy Voices Survey, ” Public Religion Research, March 6, 2009)

Advertisement

Death Penalty Abolition, the Right to Life, and Necessity

• Published: 27 December 2022
• Volume 24 , pages 77–95, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ben Jones   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2134-8631 1  

1782 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

One prominent argument in international law and religious thought for abolishing capital punishment is that it violates individuals’ right to life. Notably, this right-to-life argument emerged from normative and legal frameworks that recognize deadly force against aggressors as justified when necessary to stop their unjust threat of grave harm. Can capital punishment be necessary in this sense—and thus justified defensive killing? If so, the right-to-life argument would have to admit certain exceptions where executions are justified. Drawing on work by Hugo Bedau, I identify a thought experiment where executions are justified defensive killing but explain why they cannot be in our world. A state’s obligations to its prisoners include the obligation to use nonlethal incapacitation (ONI), which applies as long as prisoners pose no imminent threat. ONI precludes executions for reasons of future dangerousness. By subjecting the right-to-life argument to closer scrutiny, this article ultimately places it on firmer ground.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Justice of Capital Punishment

ASEAN and the Death Penalty: Theoretical and Legal Views and a Pathway to Abolition

De jure abolition of the death penalty: cambodia and the philippines.

Some may suggest gladiator contests, where the condemned could defend themselves, as a counterexample. Being sentenced to such combat was not a true death sentence, though. There were distinctions in ancient Rome between gladii poena (certain death by sword), summum supplicium (certain death by more cruel methods like being thrown to the beasts), and ludi damnatio (condemnation to gladiatorial games). The last penalty forced individuals into combat where death was possible but not assured (see Bauman 1996 : 14, 122). Furthermore, my description of capital punishment remains apt for present practices since gladiator combat is rightly seen as morally repugnant and not a realistic sentencing option today.

Bedau does not explicitly say that executing murderers is the only way to revive their victims, but context implies it. He writes: “taking life deliberately is not justified so long as there is any feasible alternative” (Bedau 1993 : 179).

Before Bedau, Justice Richard Maughan of the Utah Supreme Court expressed a similar idea: “Were there some way to restore the bereaved and wounded survivors, and the victims, to what was once theirs; there could then be justification for the capital sanction. Sadly, such is not available to us” (State v. Pierre 1977 : 1359). This remark is mentioned by Barry ( 2017 : 540).

That claim is questionable in the US, where most death sentences are overturned (Baumgartner and Dietrich 2015 ) and executions that do occur usually take place close to two decades after conviction (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2021 : 2). I grant this claim, though, for the sake of argument.

E.g., Thomas Creech who killed a fellow inmate after receiving life sentences for murder in Idaho (Boone 2020 ).

E.g., Clarence Ray Allen who while serving a life sentence for murder in California conspired with a recently released inmate to murder witnesses from his previous case (Egelko and Finz  2006 ).

E.g., Jeffrey Landrigan who escaped from an Oklahoma prison where he was serving a sentence for murder and went on to commit another murder in Arizona (Schwartz 2010 ).

E.g., Kenneth McDuff who was sentenced to death, had his sentences commuted to life following Furman v. Georgia ( 1972 ), and was eventually paroled, after which he murdered multiple people in Texas (Cartwright 1992 ). I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the examples in footnotes 5–8.

These critics include those who grant retribution as a valid rationale for punishment but still reject it as a justification for the death penalty (see Brooks 2004 ).

Alexander L (2013) Can self-defense justify punishment? Law and Philosophy 32:159–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9157-y

Article   Google Scholar  

Allhoff F (2019) Self-defense without imminence. American Criminal Law Review 56:1527–1552

Google Scholar  

American Psychiatric Association (1982) Barefoot v. Estelle: brief amicus curiae. https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Directories/Library-and-Archive/amicus-briefs/amicus-1982-barefoot.pdf . Accessed 6 November 2022

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 US 304

Barefoot v. Estelle (1983) 463 US 880

Baron M (2011) Self-defense: the imminence requirement. In: Green L, Leiter B (eds) Oxford studies in philosophy of law, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 228–266

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barry K (2017) The law of abolition. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 107:521–559.

Barry K (2019) The death penalty and the fundamental right to life. Boston College Law Review 60:1545–1604

Bauman R (1996) Crime and punishment in ancient Rome. Routledge, New York

Baumgartner F, Dietrich A (2015) Most death penalty sentences are overturned. Here’s why that matters. Washington Post, 17 May 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/17/most-death-penalty-sentences-are-overturned-heres-why-that-matters/ . Accessed 6 November 2022

Bedau H (1993) Capital punishment. In: Regan T (ed) Matters of life and death: new introductory essays in moral philosophy, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 160–194

Bentham J (2009) The rationale of punishment. McHugh J (ed) Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY

Blume J, Garvey S, Johnson SL (2001) Future dangerousness in capital cases: always “at issue.” Cornell Law Review 86:397–410

Boone R (2020) US judge rejects inmates’ lawsuit on Idaho execution plans. Associated Press, 18 November 2020. https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-prisons-idaho-executions-c097976dee46337b8e9aa816f8e888d4 . Accessed 6 November 2022

Boonin D (2008) The problem of punishment. Cambridge University Press, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Brooks T (2004) Retributivist arguments against capital punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 35:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00224.x

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2021) Capital punishment, 2020—statistical tables.  https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/capital-punishment-2020-statistical-tables . Accessed 6 November 2022

Cartwright G (1992) Free to kill. Texas Monthly, August 1992. https://www.texasmonthly.com/true-crime/free-to-kill-2/ . Accessed 6 November 2022

Colwell G (2002) Capital punishment, restoration and moral rightness. Journal of Applied Philosophy 19:287–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00222

Coons C, Weber M (eds) (2016) The ethics of self-defense. Oxford University Press, New York

Council of Europe (2003) Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=187 . Accessed 6 November 2022

Cunningham M (2006) Dangerousness and death: a nexus in search of science and reason. American Psychologist 61:828–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.828

Cunningham M, Reidy T, Sorensen J (2005) Is death row obsolete? A decade of mainstreaming death-sentenced inmates in Missouri. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23:307–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.608

Cunningham M, Sorensen J, Reidy T (2009) Capital jury decision-making: the limitations of predictions of future violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 15:223–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017296

Cunningham M, Sorensen J, Vigen M, Woods SO (2011) Life and death in the lone star state: three decades of violence predictions by capital juries. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 29:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.963

Death Penalty Information Center (2022) Public opinion regarding the juvenile death penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/public-opinion-regarding-the-juvenile-death-penalty . Accessed 6 November 2022

Dubber M (2015) An introduction to the Model Penal Code, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

Edens J, Buffington-Vollum J, Keilen A, Roskamp P, Anthony C (2005) Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: is it time to “disinvent the wheel?” Law and Human Behavior 29:55–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-1399-x

Edmondson C (2016) Nothing is certain but death: why future dangerousness mandates abolition of the death penalty. Lewis & Clark Law Review 20:857–917

Egelko B, Finz S (2006). Ailing killer executed at age 76. San Francisco Chronicle, 17 January 2006. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ailing-killer-executed-at-age-76-Condemned-for-2543639.php . Accessed 6 November 2022

Fabre C (2016) War, policing, and killing. In: Bradford B, Jauregui B, Loader I, Steinberg J (eds) The SAGE handbook of global policing. SAGE Publications, London, pp 261–278

Farrell D (1985) The justification of general deterrence. Philosophical Review 94:367–394

Ferzan KK (2004) Defending imminence: from battered women to Iraq. Arizona Law Review 46:213–262

Ferzan KK (2012) Culpable aggression: the basis for moral liability to defensive killing. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 9:669–697

Ford SB (2022) Restraining police use of lethal force and the moral problem of militarization. Criminal Justice Ethics 41:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2060014

Francis (2020) Fratelli tutti. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 US 238

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 US 153

Hood R, Hoyle C (2015) The death penalty: a worldwide perspective, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

Hurka T (1982) Rights and capital punishment. Dialogue 21:647–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217300023829

Jones B (2018) The Republican Party, conservatives, and the future of capital punishment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 108:223–252

Jones B (forthcoming) Applying the imminence requirement to police. Criminal Justice Ethics

Jurek v. Texas (1976) 428 US 262

Lazar S (2012) Necessity in self-defense and war. Philosophy & Public Affairs 40:3–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2012.01214.x

Locke J (2003) Second treatise. In: Shapiro I (ed) Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp 100–209

Marquart J, Ekland-Olson S, Sorensen J (1989) Gazing into the crystal ball: can jurors accurately predict dangerousness in capital cases? Law & Society Review 23:449–468

Marquart J, Ekland-Olson S, Sorensen J (1994) The rope, the chair, and the needle: capital punishment in Texas, 1923–1990. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX

McMahan J (1994) Self-defense and the problem of the innocent attacker. Ethics 104:252–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/293600

McMahan J (2005) The basis of moral liability to defensive killing. Philosophical Issues 15:386–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2005.00073.x

McMahan J (2016) The limits of self-defense. In: Coons C, Weber M (eds) The ethics of self-defense. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 185–210

Montague P (1995) Punishment as societal-defense. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

National Research Council (2012) Deterrence and the death penalty. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Organization of American States (1990) Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty. https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-53.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Otsuka M (1994) Killing the innocent in self-defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs 23:74–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1994.tb00005.x

Paul II J (1995) Evangelium vitae. The Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Reidy T, Sorensen J, Cunningham M (2013) Probability of criminal acts of violence: a test of jury predictive accuracy. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31:286–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2064

Robinson P (1982) Criminal law defenses: a systematic analysis. Columbia Law Review 82:199–291

Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 US 551

Schabas W (2019) International law and the abolition of the death penalty. In: Steiker C, Steiker J (eds) Comparative capital punishment. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp 217–231

Schwartz J (2010) Murderer executed in Arizona. New York Times, 27 October 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/us/28execute.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Sorensen J, Cunningham M (2009) Once a killer, always a killer? Prison misconduct of former death-sentenced inmates in Arizona. Journal of Psychiatry & Law 37:237–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318530903700205

Sorensen J, Pilgrim R (2000) An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 90:1251–1270

Sorensen J, Pilgrim R (2006) Lethal injection: capital punishment in Texas during the modern era. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX

Sorensen J, Wrinkle R (1996) No hope for parole: disciplinary infractions among death-sentenced and life-without-parole inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23:542–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023004002

State v. Pierre (1977) 572 P.2d 1338 (Utah)

Stoughton S, Noble J, Alpert G (2020) Evaluating police uses of force. New York University Press, New York

Tadros V (2011) The ends of harm: the moral foundations of criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York

Thomson JJ (1991) Self-defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs 20:283–310

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (1989) Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/2ndopccpr.aspx

Yorke J (2009) The right to life and abolition of the death penalty in the council of Europe. European Law Review 34:205–229

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for helpful feedback on this article from Désirée Lim, Kevin Barry, and Erin Hanses.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rock Ethics Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, 131 Sparks Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Jones .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jones, B. Death Penalty Abolition, the Right to Life, and Necessity. Hum Rights Rev 24 , 77–95 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00677-x

Download citation

Accepted : 09 December 2022

Published : 27 December 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00677-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Death penalty
• Future dangerousness
• Incapacitation
• Right to life
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

God and the Executioner: The Influence of Western Religion on the Use of the Death Penalty By Davison M. Douglas / William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, on 1 January 2000

In this essay, Professor Douglas conducts an historical review of religious attitudes toward capital punishment and the influence of those attitudes on the state’s use of the death penalty. He surveys the Christian Church’s strong support for capital punishment throughout most of its history, along with recent expressions of opposition from many Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish groups. Despite this recent abolitionist sentiment from an array of religious institutions, Professor Douglas notes a divergence of opinion between the “pulpit and the pew” as the laity continues to support the death penalty in large numbers. Professor Douglas accounts for this divergence by noting the declining influence of religious organizations over the social policy choices of their members. He concludes that the fate of the death penalty in America will therefore “most likely be resolved in the realm of the secular rather than the sacred.

United States

Retentionist Death penalty legal status

21st World Day Against the Death Penalty – The death penalty: An irreversible torture

Helping the World Achieve a Moratorium on Executions

In 2007, the World Coalition made one of the most important decisions in its young history: to support the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty as a step towards universal abolition. A moratorium is temporary suspension of executions and, more rarely, of death sentences. […]

Death Penalty From the Point of Religion Essay

Even though several governments are still currently practicing death penalties, globally it is viewed as an abuse of human rights. It is also evident that death sentence is not in any way correlated with stoppage of murder.

This implies that, the cases of murder have continued to increase in a very alarming rate even in those countries where death penalties are constantly applied. A very typical example is Iran where death penalties are so frequent even amongst juvenile offenders and yet the capital offences are common events in the country.

It is also very true that the real healing con not be fully granted by mere cruel killing of the offenders. This is because the key motive of undertaking death penalty is basically revenge which is not an aspect of healing. The true healing is only realized through repentance and forgiveness and not through acts of revenge.

The methods on which the killing of the alleged offender is undertaken are inhuman and ungodly and all government should undertake moratorium on the application of death penalties. A very good example is the lethal injection method which is practiced in United States of America. This method has proven beyond reasonable doubts that there is evidence of cruel and lengthy death in its usage.

This is a big mockery to human rights and dignity of human life. In this case we are going to look at various reasons against the death penalty practice. The views of various religious groups will also be visited (Stephen, 2009, p. 1). Finally the enormous contributions of international organizations in fight against the practice of death penalties by various governments globally will also be seen.

There are various reasons against the death penalty practices. One among these reasons is the mere fact that the costs of the death penalty are too huge. This is because of the sensitivity and weight which death sentence carries.

Thus this calls for adequate lengthy procedures of law to be followed which are too costly from the time of arrest to the point of execution. These costs are compared to an alternative form of administering justice which is life imprisonment. It is a documented fact that administering life sentence is far much cheaper compared to death penalty.

Thus, this has led to public outcry to replace death penalty with life sentence with no possibility of the victims being granted parole. Secondly, the mentorship services offered by inmates on life sentence who could have otherwise been hanged are very vital.

This has been quite evident in the correctional institutes commonly known as prisons. Most of these inmates who could have been removed from death rows to life sentence are quite instrumental in mentorship especially after undergoing spiritual re-formation. These inmates usually involve themselves with helping the young men and women to undergo a successful process of rehabilitation.

This mentorship services are usually most effective if the correctional institutions are undertaking vital programs such as drug treatment, education programs, spiritual and moral programs. Thus, life imprisonment leads to positive utilisation of the inmates who could have be killed under the practice of death penalty.

The other reasons may also include the observance of the logical ethics of life .in this case every person has a basic right which is right to life. This basic right must be universal to all people.

Also it should be noted that the right to life should be treated sacred as much as possible. The basic right to life should not be subject to forfeiture. Secondly, the impacts of the death penalty are too severe on the lives of the victims’ families and close kinsmen and on the settlement of the case. It is also evident that death penalty only continues the cycle of violence by killing another person.

The truth of the matter is that the needs of the affected family cannot be adequately addressed to the errors of judicially. Thirdly, there is sufficient and adequate evidence that the courts have continued to rely on the discretion of the judges. Thus, such decisions from some judges are biased. This is because the alleged person may emerge to be innocent after through scrutiny of the evidence.

There are several cases where by after undertaking DNA evidences many people have been found to have faced death penalty innocently. Thus, it is argued that it is far much better to acquit thousands of people on life sentence than to kill an innocent person due of these judges can be biased due to personal interests vested on specific cases. It is also true that some people are unfairly in prison.

Thus, implementing death penalty on such unfair grounds will mean gross abuse of human rights and disrespect to human dignity and sanctity of human life. It is also feared that several governments have continued to use death penalty to silence their opponents. This is evident in Iraq whereby political rivals have been subjected to death penalty by the government of the day.

The list of reasons why we should totally abolish the death penalty in all countries globally is endless. First, it is a proven evidence that death sentence does not stop the perpetuation of crime. This is clearly seen in Iran where death penalties are frequently administered but no impact is felt on crime reduction.

Thus, an alternative method is highly effective and recommended. This is because an alternative method such as life imprisonment can create an opportunity of rehabilitation. In this case the inmates who are on life sentence can offer mentorship to other inmates.

This makes people to co-exist with others well when out of prison for fear of going back in prison for good. Thus, the cases of crime will definitely go down due to successful rehabilitation of inmates. Secondly, the methods of execution are wild. For example the lethal injection method is proven to amount to cruel and delayed death which is inhuman (Browne, 2002, p. 1).

The practice of death penalty is unbiblical and immoral. Even though some people may try to justify death penalty from scriptures in the Old Testament it still remains unbiblical. This is because it is a common knowledge from the teachings of Jesus Christ that everybody is given a chance to understand the value attached to human life. Thus, need to preserve and respect life under all situations.

In Christianity, several affiliate religious groups have varying opinions on the issue of death penalty. Despite all this, it is very clear from the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament that human life must be respected. This is seen when Jesus confronted the people who wanted to stone the adulterous women.

Also the action of Jesus in forgiving the thief whom he was crucified with on the cross clearly shows that shows Christianity does not condone death penalty. The Roman Catholic Church has a very controversial opinion as it regards to death penalty.

This church strongly believes that the Jesus’ teachings on doctrine of peace relates only to personal ethics. The Roman Catholic Church believes that the civil government has a duty to punish the crimes perpetuated by any person in the best way it opts. This is contrary to the commandment which stipulates that one should not kill another person or help in the deliberate termination of human life (Robinson, 2010, p. 1).

In the Buddhism religion it is very clear that death penalty is condemned. This is well demonstrated by chapter ten on the dhammapada. It is shown that everyone fears suffering, punishment and above all everyone has extreme fear for death. This chapter goes ahead and states that one should not kill or cause death of another person.

The love for life is highly emphasized in this chapter. Also the first five precepts of Buddhism teach their own followers the need to abstain from deliberate attempt on destruction of life. The chapter twenty six of the dhammapada goes ahead and declares a person who is abrahimin. It says that abrahimin is a person who has dropped weapons and condemned violence against all human beings. This emphasizes the need for not killing or helping to kill under all circumstances.

It is now clear that majority of religious group are built on foundations which strongly condemn death penalty. An exception is Islam which advocate for death penalty most especially on cases of adultery. But this practice is drastically losing popularity amongst Muslim community because it is unfairly administered (Brandon, 2009, p. 37). Evidence shows that it is only women who are affected by adultery in which they are mercilessly stoned to death in front of large crowd.

The international organisations have continued in their efforts to get rid of death penalty. For example the United Nations has established various resolutions in its assembly in view of establishing moratorium. The moratorium on the usage of death penalty by various governments is aimed at stopping the death sentence. The European Union has put some entry conditions on its members on issues of the death penalty. Thus, the countries who are members of European Union are not expected to practice death penalty.

The miscarriage of justice has been evident in the process of implementing the death penalty. In this case several innocent people have been put to a miserable end by capital punishment. The death penalty is noted to have completely been administered unfairly upon the disadvantaged groups in the society. It is a common argument that death penalty falls on those without good lawyers to represent them.

This evidently puts the marginalised groups to be victims of this death sentences. Examples of these groups of people include the poor, mentally challenged, illiterate and religious minorities. It is for this grave concern that all governments should abolish death penalty. Also, this calls for an alternative method of administering justice. The life imprisonment is highly preferred under these circumstances.

This is for the reason of preserving the divine dignity of human life and also at the same time to punish the offenders accordingly. In this case we have addressed reasons against death penalty. The various views from religious groups and international organisations pertaining death penalty have also been discussed.

Bibliography

Brandon, C. (2009). The Electric Chair: An Unnatural American History . California. Wadsworth Publishers.

Browne, A. (2002). Death penalty abolished on all British territory . Web.

Robinson, B. (2010). Capital Punishment: All viewpoints on the death penalty . Web.

Stephen, M. (2009). History of UK Capital Punishment . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 28). Death Penalty From the Point of Religion. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty/

"Death Penalty From the Point of Religion." IvyPanda , 28 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Death Penalty From the Point of Religion'. 28 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Death Penalty From the Point of Religion." December 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty/.

1. IvyPanda . "Death Penalty From the Point of Religion." December 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty/.

IvyPanda . "Death Penalty From the Point of Religion." December 28, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/death-penalty/.

• Whaling, Its Effects and International Policies
• Capital Punishment in Florida
• Analysis of Furman v. Georgia Case Study
• Statuses of Ego Identity
• Effect of Mentorship on Employees
• Importance of Mentorship in Nursing
• Teacher Mentorship Programs in Texas
• Administering a UNIX User Environment
• Death Penalty: Every For and Against
• The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?
• The Practice of Death Penalty
• Simpson ‘S Criminal Case
• Prevention of Date Rapes With the SARA Model
• Rewards and Punishments based on Relative Deserts: A Critical Analysis of Pojman’s Proposition
• The Aurora Gun Issue Overview

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)
• Themes and Issues
• Capital Punishment

Capital punishment essay

‘Christians would agree with Capital Punishment’

Do You agree?

Murder is a crime whether you look at the Bible - Thou shalt not kill The Sixth Commandment - or at a book of English law - Murder: an indictable crime punishable in a court of law. Since the early 1800,s, most executions have resulted from convictions for murder. The death penalty has also been imposed for other serious crimes such as armed robbery, kidnapping rape and treason. The State of Florida, America supports capital punishment and carries it out by electric chair execution.

There are advantages to Capital Punishment and the threat of the death penalty. It is a deterrent and a clear warning that says, if you commit this crime and take a person's life your life will also be taken from you. This is echoed in Christian teachings from the Old Testament Exodus 21:24 - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and in   the book of Genesis, which states ‘whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man his own image. But this is not forgiving or promoting peace, which is what Jesus taught and it is he, above all others that Christianity is all about. Another thing that Jesus taught was to 'love your neighbour as yourself' and therefore protect him, as you would want to be protected. If protecting another means removing a murderer from society permanently then it cannot be wrong to do so. But then there is the question of the murderer's right to protection and if every man is your neighbour then the murderer is as-well and therefore you cannot hurt him because you would not want to be hurt. This could form a complex argument but basically where Christian beliefs are concerned these advantages are meaningless but where human rights are concerned they must be taken into account.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The disadvantages of Capital Punishment are shown most prominently in Jesus and what he stood for, i.e. forgiveness and sanctity of life, also in the Sermon on the Mount and many other parts of the New Testament. This does give the argument against capital punishment a head start but there are also other factors to consider. By letting a murderer be put to death you will be legalising murder for the executioner. Who is then to say who can and cannot kill? If a government decides this, there is sure to be religious opposition, and if for example the Pope decides who can kill another then he would be going against his own religion. When death is made legal in any way, even in cases of war, it is encouraging violence. War should and is frequently only a last resort 'Just War'. The death penalty for murder would not be a last resort as there are alternatives and as again who is to decide which murder and in what circumstances it would warrant another death. In any case and in any trial mistakes could be made. There will always be the risk that an innocent person will be put to death because of another's mistake. (the case of Derrick Bentley).

 According to Christian beliefs no one should be killed especially because God, the creator, is the only one who can give and take life, this is called the ‘sanctity of life’ . There are other ways of dealing with criminals, even murderers and many people believe that these ways should be explored instead of using the death penalty. Again many examples could be used: Sermon on the Mount - Love your enemies. Matthew 5 - Don't seek revenge " If anyone slaps you on your right cheek, let them slap you on your left cheek too", but one question could sum up the argument without using religious references. Do two wrongs make a right?

So can the death penalty be justified? In religious terms, no. But why wouldn’t Christians want the criminals who have done such a crime to be abolished. It would stop them from committing the crime again and it would deter others away from committing such offences. This is because their are simply too many teachings against it. It is true to say that there are exceptions to every rule, for example to the rule thou shalt not kill, the church will condone fighting in wars. But killing is different to murder and although the murderer has violated the sanctity of life it is still forgivable. God is the judge and to violate the sanctity of life for revenge against the murderer is as bad a crime as the initial murder itself.                                                                      

In non-religious terms the answer is still no. Two wrongs don't make a right. The wrong message is being taught and not the precious lesson of forgiveness. One human characteristic that cannot be relied on in this situation is opinion. Every person has an opinion whether it is voiced or not and that opinion will be influenced by the circumstances and personal involvement.

Document Details

• Word Count 852
• Page Count 2
• Subject Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Related Essays

Persuasive Essay Against Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment.

Capital punishment

Atkins V. Virginia: a Landmark Decision on Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty

This essay about Atkins v. Virginia discusses the landmark 2002 Supreme Court decision that deemed the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities unconstitutional, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It examines the background of Daryl Renard Atkins, whose death sentence for a 1996 murder was overturned due to his intellectual disability, setting a significant precedent. The ruling necessitated states to redefine their legal stance on the death penalty in cases involving intellectual disabilities, fostering a more humane approach in the justice system. Highlighting the broader implications, the essay reflects on how this decision has influenced legislation, legal criteria for intellectual disability in capital cases, and societal perspectives on justice and human rights. It underscores the Supreme Court’s role in adapting legal interpretations to align with evolving societal values and the protection of vulnerable populations within the criminal justice framework.

How it works

The Atkins v. Virginia lawsuit, adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002, constitutes a watershed moment in the confluence of criminal jurisprudence and human liberties. This litigation contested the constitutionality of executing persons with cognitive impairments, establishing a precedent that fundamentally altered legal norms throughout the United States. The verdict pronounced such executions as contravening the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, recognizing the imperative for a more empathetic approach towards individuals with cognitive disabilities within the judicial realm.

At the crux of Atkins v. Virginia lay Daryl Renard Atkins, who faced a death sentence for a 1996 homicide. However, the revelation of Atkins’ cognitive disability ignited a legal confrontation that ascended to the highest echelons of the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s verdict was grounded in the acknowledgment that persons with cognitive disabilities bear diminished culpability owing to their deficiencies in rationality, discernment, and impulse control. This landmark adjudication not only spared Atkins from capital punishment but also mandated that states reassess their stance on the death penalty vis-à-vis individuals with cognitive disabilities.

The ramifications of Atkins v. Virginia transcend the confines of the case itself, exerting influence on legislation and legal proceedings nationwide. Subsequent to this ruling, states were compelled to formulate criteria for ascertaining cognitive disability in capital cases, fostering a more equitable and judicious legal process. This paradigm shift reflected an expanding societal comprehension and endorsement of the intricacies surrounding cognitive disability and the criminal justice milieu.

Moreover, the Atkins ruling underscores the mutable character of the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause, elucidating how legal constructions can adapt to societal transformations and advancements in human rights comprehension. It accentuates the Supreme Court’s role in safeguarding the rights of vulnerable cohorts and sets a precedent for forthcoming litigations involving the death penalty and other facets of criminal justice.

In summation, Atkins v. Virginia epitomizes a significant stride towards fortifying human rights protections within the American legal framework. By acknowledging the distinctive vulnerabilities of persons with cognitive disabilities, the Supreme Court’s pronouncement has charted a course towards more compassionate and equitable treatment of all individuals within the criminal justice ambit. This litigation illustrates the dynamic interplay between law, ethics, and society, underscoring the perpetual necessity to reassess and revamp legal protocols to mirror our evolving conception of justice and human dignity.

Cite this page

Atkins v. Virginia: A Landmark Decision on Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty. (2024, Mar 18). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/atkins-v-virginia-a-landmark-decision-on-intellectual-disability-and-the-death-penalty/

"Atkins v. Virginia: A Landmark Decision on Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com , 18 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/atkins-v-virginia-a-landmark-decision-on-intellectual-disability-and-the-death-penalty/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Atkins v. Virginia: A Landmark Decision on Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/atkins-v-virginia-a-landmark-decision-on-intellectual-disability-and-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2024]

"Atkins v. Virginia: A Landmark Decision on Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com, Mar 18, 2024. Accessed April 13, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/atkins-v-virginia-a-landmark-decision-on-intellectual-disability-and-the-death-penalty/

"Atkins v. Virginia: A Landmark Decision on Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty," PapersOwl.com , 18-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/atkins-v-virginia-a-landmark-decision-on-intellectual-disability-and-the-death-penalty/. [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Atkins v. Virginia: A Landmark Decision on Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/atkins-v-virginia-a-landmark-decision-on-intellectual-disability-and-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Religion & death penalty, how the political typology groups compare.

Pew Research Center’s political typology sorts Americans into cohesive, like-minded groups based on their values, beliefs, and views about politics and the political system. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics.

Unlike other U.S. religious groups, most atheists and agnostics oppose the death penalty

Roughly two-thirds of atheists (65%) and six-in-ten agnostics (57%) either “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose the death penalty.

Facts on Foreign Students in the U.S.

The U.S. has more foreign students enrolled in its colleges and universities than any other country in the world. Explore data about foreign students in the U.S. higher education system.

Some major U.S. religious groups differ from their members on the death penalty

Many large religious groups have taken positions in opposition to the death penalty even though that stance is sometimes at odds with the opinions of their adherents.

Number of Executions in Each State Since 1977

Over 1300 executions have occurred in the U.S. since 1977, the year after the Supreme Court reaffirmed its approval of the death penalty. See how many executions have been performed in each state since the ruling.

2015 is shaping up to be a significant year for religion at the Supreme Court

Here's a rundown of the Supreme Court's busy docket, which includes cases on the ACA's contraception mandate, religion in the workplace, same-sex marriage and the death penalty.

Few Say Religion Shapes Immigration, Environment Views

Many Americans continue to say their religious beliefs have been highly influential in shaping their views about social issues, including abortion and same-sex marriage. But far fewer cite religion as a top influence on their opinions about several other social and political issues, including how the government should deal with immigration, the environment and poverty. […]

Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Capital Punishment

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. Since 1982, the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. has opposed capital punishment in the United States. American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., Resolution on Capital Punishment In this research package An Impassioned Debate An overview of the death penalty in America. The Death Penalty and the Supreme Court […]

Trends in Attitudes Toward Religion and Social Issues: 1987-2007

As the '08 elections approach, what are the views of Republicans, Democrats and the general public on "social values" issues? And how have they changed over time?

Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning

Erik C. Owens, John D. Carlson, and Eric P. Elshtain, eds. Series: The Eerdmans Religion, Ethics, and Public Life Series “Call for Reckoning” Conference (January 25, 2002) Order the Book This important book is sure to foster informed public discussion about the death penalty by deepening readers’ understanding of how religious beliefs and perspectives shape […]

Refine Your Results

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Ugandan Court Upholds Draconian Anti-Gay Law

The law, which includes the death penalty as a punishment in some cases, has been strongly condemned, including by the United States.

By Abdi Latif Dahir

Reporting from Nairobi, Kenya

Uganda’s Constitutional Court on Wednesday largely upheld a sweeping anti-gay law that President Yoweri Museveni signed last year, undermining the efforts of activists and rights groups to abolish legislation that drew worldwide condemnation and strained the East African nation’s relationship with the West.

The legislation, which was signed into law by Mr. Museveni in May, calls for life imprisonment for anyone who engages in gay sex. Anyone who tries to have same-sex relations could face up to a decade in prison.

Uganda has faced international consequences for passing the law, with the World Bank suspending all new funding and the United States imposing sanctions and visa restrictions on top Ugandan officials. But the law was popular in Uganda, a landlocked nation of over 48 million people, where religious and political leaders frequently inveigh against homosexuality.

The fallout for Uganda will be watched closely in other African countries where a nti-gay sentiment is on the rise and anti-gay legislation is under consideration, including in Kenya, Namibia, Tanzania and South Sudan. In February, Ghana’s Parliament passed an anti-gay law , but the country’s president said that he would not sign it until the Supreme Court ruled on its constitutionality.

In Uganda, the five-judge bench said the law violated several key rights granted in the country’s Constitution, including the right to health and privacy. They also struck down sections of the law that criminalized failing to report homosexual acts, allowing any premises to be used to commit homosexuality or giving someone a “terminal illness” through gay sex.

But in their 200-page judgment, the judges largely rejected the request to quash the law.

“We decline to nullify the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023 in its entirety, neither will we grant a permanent injunction against its enforcement,” Richard Buteera, one of the judges, said in a reading of the judgment’s summary to a packed courtroom. He added, “The upshot of our judgment is that this petition substantially fails.”

Frank Mugisha, a prominent gay rights activist and one of the petitioners, said that they would appeal the Constitutional Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.

“I am very sad,” Mr. Mugisha said in a telephone interview. “The judges have been swayed by the propaganda from the anti-gay movement who kept saying that this is in the public interest and refuting all the arguments that we made that relate to the Constitution and international obligations.”

The law in Uganda decrees the death penalty for anyone convicted of “aggravated homosexuality,” a sweeping term defined as acts of same-sex relations with minors or disabled people, those carried out under threat or while someone is unconscious. Even being accused of what the law refers to as “attempted aggravated homosexuality” carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

Passage of the law — which also imposes harsh fines on organizations convicted of promoting homosexuality — alarmed human rights advocates, who said it would give new impetus for the introduction of equivalent draconian laws in other African nations. Uganda is among the African countries that already ban gay sex, but the new law creates additional offenses and prescribes far more punitive penalties.

The United Nations, along with local and international human rights groups, said that the law conflicted with Uganda’s Constitution and that it would most likely be used to harass and intimidate its L.G.B.T.Q. population.

The ratification of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, as the law is officially known, renewed scrutiny of the government of Mr. Museveni, who has ruled Uganda with a tight grip for almost four decades. Mr. Museveni, his son — whom he recently appointed as head of the army — and other top members of his government have been accused of detaining, beating, torturing and disappearing critics and opposition members.

The law was first introduced in March last year by a lawmaker who said that homosexuality was becoming pervasive and threatening the sanctity of the Ugandan family. Some legislators also claimed that their constituents had notified them of alleged plans to promote and recruit schoolchildren into homosexuality — accusations that rights groups said were false.

Anti-gay sentiment is prevalent among Muslim and Christian lawmakers and religious leaders from both faiths. They say that homosexuality is a Western import, and they held rallies to show support for the law before it passed.

A few weeks after it was introduced in Parliament, the law was quickly passed with only two lawmakers opposing it.

Activists, academics and human rights lawyers who challenged the law in court said it contravened not only Uganda’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom from discrimination, but also international treaties, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. They also argued that Parliament passed the law too quickly, with not enough time allowed for public participation — arguments the judges rejected in their decision.

Human rights groups said that since the law was introduced and passed, L.G.B.T.Q. Ugandans have faced intensive violence and harassment.

Convening for Equality, a coalition of human rights groups in Uganda, has documented hundreds of rights violations and abuses, including arrests and forced anal examinations. Gay and transgender Ugandans have also been evicted from their homes and beaten up by family members — forcing many to flee to neighboring countries like Kenya .

The law’s passage brought swift repercussions for Uganda, too. Health experts also worried the law would hinder medical access for gay people, especially those seeking H.I.V. testing, prevention and treatment.

The United States said it would restrict visas for current and former Ugandan officials who were believed to be responsible for enacting the anti-gay policy. The Biden administration also issued a business advisory for Uganda and removed the country from a special program that allows African products duty-free access to the United States.

The World Bank, citing the anti-gay law, also said in August it would halt all future funding to Uganda . The economic pressures continued to pile on, with foreign travelers and investors staying away from Uganda.

Ahead of the ruling, Mr. Museveni remained publicly defiant, but analysts and diplomats said he privately worried about his country’s being labeled an outcast, and the devastating economic repercussions it was causing.

On Wednesday, members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community said the court’s judgment would not only amplify the government’s antagonism toward gay people but also deepen the animosity they face from members of the public.

The court’s decision opens a “Pandora’s box” that will push the lives of gay Ugandans “further more into darkness,” said Steven Kabuye, a gay rights advocate who fled to Canada after he was stabbed in January in an attack that activists said was spurred by homophobia linked to the law.

“I feel very disappointed but not surprised,” Mr. Kabuye said in a telephone interview.

Abdi Latif Dahir is the East Africa correspondent for The Times, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He covers a broad range of issues including geopolitics, business, society and arts. More about Abdi Latif Dahir

Immigration and 2020 false claims: Takeaways from Donald Trump's Wisconsin rally

GREEN BAY – Wisconsin first delivered the presidency to Donald Trump eight years ago and on Tuesday the former Republican president returned to the critical battleground state to pitch himself as a solution for the U.S. southern border while continuing to promote false claims about Wisconsin's elections.

Trump arrived in Green Bay during a classic upper Midwest spring snowstorm for his first Wisconsin stop of the 2024 presidential election cycle. There, he argued he would level more strength at the border to a crowd gathered in a downtown convention center that was the site of his first rally in Green Bay in 2016.

"This is the worst president in the history of our country," Trump said of rival Joe Biden. "Joe Biden is not respected. Joe Biden is not feared."

Here are takeaways from Trump's visit to Green Bay:

Trump again promotes lies about Wisconsin's 2020 election

Trump opened his speech by again falsely claiming he defeated Biden in 2020, saying he "won this state by a lot" that year.

Biden won Wisconsin by about 21,000 votes in 2020, a defeat that was key to Trump's reelection loss that year.

"Look, we won in 2016. We did much better in 2020. I hate to say it. We did a hell of a lot better. But there’s more spirit now than at any time than we’ve ever seen," Trump said. He said he would not let Democrats "rig" the 2024 presidential election.

More: Gilbert: For Donald Trump, Wisconsin in 2024 looks a lot like Wisconsin in 2016

The election rocked the nation when Trump refused to accept the results while spreading false claims about the accuracy of elections in Wisconsin and in other battleground states. The effects of Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election have been lasting, with just 19% of Republican voters reporting feeling "very confident" in the election result, according to a January survey of registered voters by the Marquette University Law School poll.

Trump on Tuesday also mentioned ballot "dumps" during the 2020 election, a misleading reference to a Milwaukee practice of reporting the results of all absentee ballots in a single update that often takes place later at night because election workers wait until the counting is complete to report results.

Trump has falsely claimed this practice amounts to fraud.

Trump blasts Biden on immigration issues

In his swing through the upper Midwest, Trump tore into Biden over his administration's handling of immigration issues inundating the southern U.S. border with Mexico, dubbing his case against the president "Biden's bloodbath." The reference was a nod to heavy criticism Trump received last month for warning voters of a "bloodbath" for the American auto industry if Biden was reelected.

Trump leads Biden on Wisconsin voters' opinions about which candidate would do a better job handling immigration, according to the January Marquette University Law School survey.

Trump focused on immigration issues during his speech, claiming the U.S. "is becoming a third-world country."

“We’re going to end up with the largest deportation in America," Trump said about his plans if reelected. "I’m here to declare Biden’s border bloodbath ... ends the day I take office. I will end the carnage."

More: Bice: Wisconsin Democrats are burying Republicans in 2024 fundraising

Trump pledges to protect Social Security benefits

Trump pledged to keep Social Security intact if reelected while falsely claiming immigration crises would deplete its reserves.

"We never touched it. We let it be," Trump said of his administration. "Your Medicare and Social Security will be safe."

Trump blasts indictments

The former president is facing charges in four separate criminal cases based on allegations of election interference, handling of classified documents and paying a porn star to prevent her from disclosing a sexual encounter.

Trump accused Democrats of engaging in "election interference" through the charges.

"They want to take away my freedom because I won't let them take away your freedom," Trump said.

Trump endorses Eric Hovde in U.S. Senate race

Eric Hovde, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin, received Trump's endorsement during Tuesday's rally — which Hovde helped open. During his introduction, Hovde received heavy applause for his pledge to donate his salary to charities if elected .

"You have tremendous potential," Trump said to Hovde. "Everybody go out. Support him. And get him to win."

More: Wisconsin U.S. Senate race updates: Eric Hovde reaches endorsement threshold with $1M raised

State GOP chairman, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson promote early voting as Trump mixes message

Republican Party of Wisconsin chairman Brian Schimming and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson urged the crowd Tuesday to embrace early voting .

Johnson said if Republican voters did not utilize in-person absentee voting, the party may not do well in November.

"Either we have a red wave in November or America is doomed," he warned.

At the same time, Trump reiterated false claims about the accuracy of Wisconsin's 2020 election. Trump in 2020 blasted the use of absentee voting ahead of the election and following his loss, Trump sought to throw out all ballots cast in-person absentee in two counties, a practice known as early voting.

"It doesn't give me a lot of heartburn," Schimming told reporters ahead of Trump's speech.

Schimming said he spoke to Republican National Committee officials about promoting the benefits of voting in-person absentee, which Trump has previously characterized as fraudulent.

"So I think you will see a pretty consistent message there," he said.

Trump proposes death penalty in homicides of police officers, banning 'squatters rights'

If elected, Trump said he would ensure anyone convicted of killing police officers would receive the death penalty as a criminal penalty. He also proposed a task force with the goal of banning any legal protections of people who enter homes they don't own and seek to exercise "squatters rights."

"We will end the plunder, rape and destruction," Trump said.

Democrats promote Biden, blast Trump ahead of Green Bay visit

Ahead of Trump’s visit, Democrats held news conferences in Madison and Milwaukee on Monday highlighting Biden’s infrastructure efforts and his support for union workers, as well as his administration’s advocacy for abortion access.

Kent Miller, president of the Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council, called Biden “the most pro-union president and pro-worker president in our history.” Biden visited the union’s DeForest training center in February 2023, before he had officially announced his plans to seek reelection.

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, who serves on a national advisory board for the Biden-Harris campaign, noted that Tuesday’s rally in Green Bay will be Trump’s first visit to Wisconsin since August 2022.

“Let's just think about how many things have happened in Wisconsin since 2022. We've had a lot going on, but apparently Donald Trump doesn't care because he hasn't been here,” Rhodes-Conway said. “He's been at the country club, on a golf course and, yeah, in a few courtrooms, I think. And this belated visit doesn't really represent a break in his routine of throwing Wisconsin families under the bus.”

Trump’s visit follows a string of visits from Biden and his surrogates in recent weeks, including Vice President Kamala Harris, first lady Jill Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. The Biden campaign officially launched canvassing efforts throughout the state last month, following a visit to Milwaukee by the president. Biden is expected to be in Madison on Monday .

Jessie Opoien of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contributed to this report.

Molly Beck can be reached at [email protected].