Sentencing Goals, Models, and Biblical Perspectives on Capital Punishment
The four primary sentencing goals fulfill distinct roles in the criminal justice system. Retribution seeks proportional punishment for justice, while deterrence aims to prevent future crimes through punishment. Incapacitation safeguards society by removing criminals, often through imprisonment.
Rehabilitation focuses on reforming offenders by addressing the root causes of criminal behavior (MacKenzie & Lattimore, 2018). Each goal presents advantages and weaknesses: retribution, for example, meets public demand for justice but may perpetuate violence (MacKenzie & Lattimore, 2018). Deterrence may not deter offenders universally, and its effectiveness is difficult to measure. Incapacitation protects society but risks prison overcrowding. Rehabilitation offers reform opportunities but may not succeed universally, with relapse as a potential drawback.
Various crimes warrant different sentencing models based on their nature and severity. Indeterminate sentences, contingent on rehabilitation progress, are fitting for offenses that benefit from addressing underlying issues. Determinant sentences with fixed terms bring clarity and are suited to crimes where punishment and deterrence are priorities, especially violent offenses (Arazan et al., 2019). Concurrent sentences, served simultaneously, are apt for related offenses committed concurrently, while consecutive sentences, served sequentially, are suitable for repeat offenders or when emphasizing accountability is crucial.
For violent crimes, a combination of determinate sentences, focusing on punishment and deterrence, and rehabilitation efforts to address underlying issues may be appropriate. Property crimes may warrant a mix of determinate sentences to deter and punish, along with restorative justice practices to compensate victims. Drug crimes, particularly non-violent offenses, may benefit from an emphasis on rehabilitation, using indeterminate sentences to provide flexibility for effective treatment programs. The key is to tailor sentencing models to the specific goals and circumstances of each crime.
The Christian viewpoint and the Bible present arguments both for the preservation and the abolishment of the death penalty. In terms of the preservation, Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Genesis 9:6). This scripture is often used by the supporters of the capital punishment who claim that the Bible establishes it as a means of justice, suggesting that this is a divine institution. According to this argument, the death penalty should be used for the most heinous crimes as they encroach on the sanctity of human life.
One more argument could be illustrated by Romans 13:4: “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer”(English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Romans 13:4). This verse supports the idea that the death penalty, when applied justly and fairly, upholds societal order and protects innocent lives by deterring potential criminals.
An argument against this form of punishment can be found in Matthew 5:38-39: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the evil one. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, Matthew 5:38-39). Here, God teaches people that retribution should be replaced with mercy and forgiveness, which challenges the notion of taking another person’s life as a form of justice. Additionally, in John 8:1-11, in the story of a woman caught in adultery, Jesus says: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001, John 8:7). This example shows that Jesus himself was against capital punishment and warned people against judging others recklessly.
References
Arazan, C. L., Bales, W. D., & Blomberg, T. G. (2019). Courtroom context and sentencing. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 23-44.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online.
MacKenzie, D. L., & Lattimore, P. K. (2018). To rehabilitate or not to rehabilitate: That is the question for corrections! Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 355-377.
