Why the Death Penalty is Not Consistent with a Pro-Life Worldview
How I made everyone angry on X yesterday.
Yesterday, I posted a simple statement on X: “The death penalty is inconsistent with a pro-life worldview.”
Within hours, the reaction exploded. The post surged past two million views, and prominent Protestant voices, including Allie Beth Stuckey and Seth Dillon, quickly pushed back. Friends and critics alike weighed in. Some responses were thoughtful. Others were…less so.
So why did I post it?
The immediate context was a pro-prosecution “abolitionist” bill introduced in Tennessee last week…a bill that would have allowed the state to seek capital punishment for mothers who had abortions. That legislation died in committee today, and I will write more about that next.
But this article isn’t about the morality of prosecuting post-abortive mothers.
This is about something deeper: whether a truly pro-life worldview can support the deliberate execution of a human being, even a guilty one.
And, even if you ultimately disagree with me, one thing became painfully clear as I read through thousands of replies on X last night: too many people spoke about the death penalty with a kind of enthusiasm that should make ALL pro-lifers uncomfortable.
There was an eagerness, even a sense of satisfaction, at the idea of killing those who have committed terrible crimes.
That reaction alone convinced me this conversation is overdue.
What follows are the core reasons I believe the death penalty is inconsistent with a pro-life worldview — not just theologically, but morally and practically. I hope you can use it as a framework when this issue comes up in the future…in your interviews, debates, and conversations with fellow conservatives.
Justice Does Not Require Execution
Governments must punish evil — but punishment doesn’t have to mean death. Life imprisonment can protect society and still respect human dignity.
Government Authority ≠ Moral Obligation
Romans 13 gives governments authority, not a command, to execute. Authority is not obligation. Governments can punish criminals through imprisonment instead of execution.
Imago Dei Applies to Everyone
The image of God applies to victims and to heinous criminals. If human life has supreme value, that includes even those who have done terrible evil.
Jesus Reframed Justice Around Mercy
The hardest commandment for me is this: Christ calls us to love even our enemies. The woman caught in adultery deserved death under the law — Jesus spared her and called her to conversion. Jesus saved sinners like St. Paul — a persecutor and accomplice to murder.
As Christians, we believe no one is beyond redemption. Execution permanently, and for all eternity, ends the possibility of repentance. It’s hard to claim we love our enemies while insisting they must die.
Modern Society Does Not Need Executions
In biblical times, societies had no prisons. Dangerous criminals could not be securely contained. Execution was often the only way to protect society. When killing is no longer necessary to protect society, the pro-life choice is not to kill.
The Church Jesus Founded Opposes It
The Catechism teaches that capital punishment should almost never be used.
Catechism (2267): “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”
St. John Paul II (Evangelium Vitae): Cases requiring execution are “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Early Christianity Was Skeptical of Execution
Early Christians often opposed capital punishment. The Church historically leaned toward preserving life whenever possible.
Pro-Life Does Not Mean Pro-Crime
Opposing the death penalty does not mean being soft on crime. Murder deserves serious punishment. Violent criminals must be removed from society. Life imprisonment protects society without killing.
Being pro-life doesn’t mean criminals go free — it means we punish without becoming killers ourselves.
War vs. Execution
War and capital punishment are morally different.
War should be avoided and must meet Just War standards.
Killing in war is done to protect innocent people and defend a nation.
Execution kills someone who is already contained and no longer a threat.
Killing an enemy on a battlefield is not the same as killing someone who has been locked in a prison cell for decades.
Economic Reality
Capital punishment costs more than life imprisonment. Taxpayers often pay far more for executions than for life sentences. If life imprisonment protects society, taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay extra to execute someone.
11. The Human Cost is Real
Supporting the death penalty means requiring someone else to do the killing. Someone must pull the lever, push the syringe, or press the button. That burden falls on prison workers and medical personnel. That responsibility leaves a permanent mark on their conscience. If I support the death penalty, I’m asking someone else to do the killing for me.
Bottomline: A consistent pro-life worldview says if killing isn’t necessary, we shouldn’t do it.
This is a hard question, thanks for dealing with it thoughtfully. Though I have historically been anti-death penalty, and remain personally uncomfortable with it, I see the biblical case for it (and I hold the Bible as more authoritative than the institutional church or my personal feelings). The “imago Dei” point is precisely the grounds given for capital punishment:
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.”
—Genesis 9:6
But wherever one lands on the debate, it should be a solemn consideration. It’s really disturbing to see people displaying any kind of glee over state executions, even if justly rendered.
Okay, so having now read your article in its entirety, I can safely say that your reasoning here is very weak. Whether or not you think capital punishment is wrong, it is certainly not inconsistent with the pro-life position, and you haven’t even argued that it is (you’ve tried to argue that capital punishment is wrong, but you haven’t really offered any reasons besides a couple of assertions that it is inconsistent with a pro-life worldview). This is a basic point in ethics, that putting to death a convicted criminal after a fair trial by his peers is far different from putting to death an innocent human child. In fact, you don’t even seem aware that there are different categories of killing, such as murder and capital punishment. You just lump them all under one category, “killing”, but not all categories of killing are the same and they don’t all have the same moral culpability to them. Not even all acts of murder are the same, which is why U.S. law has different degrees of murder (e.g. “first, second, and third degree” murder).
I don’t know how much space I have to leave a comment, so I’ll try to make my responses to your points brief.
Justice does not require execution.
This is a trivial point. Of course it doesn’t — there are thousands of crimes that don’t require execution. Capital crimes, though, do require execution as an act of justice. That’s exactly what a capital crime is — a crime that brings with it punishment of death.
Government authority does not equal moral obligation
This is a confused point. I don’t even think it really makes sense, as stated. But certain crimes bring with them certain penalties. If a judge lets a criminal off easy, then we consider that a miscarriage of justice. If a criminal rapes a woman and the judge lets him off with one month’s probation, then obviously that judge did not mete out justice that the criminal’s crime deserved. The judge acted poorly and not in keeping with his station as judge in the criminal justice system. But crimes do bring with them obligations — laws usually have minimum and maximum sentences that a judge can stick a criminal with. If someone takes a human life in cold blood (i.e. “with malice aforethought”), execution is the proper penalty for that, and a judge who refuses to mete out that penalty is not acting in keeping with his station as judge in the criminal justice system. Why does a murderer deserve to die? A punishment must fit the crime. Murder is the worst thing you can do to a human being; you are robbing him of his very life, which is not something that can be restored, such as if you stole $100 from him. The only thing the criminal can offer to his victim is his own life in return. Nothing else will justly satisfy such an affront to the victim.
Imago Dei applies to everyone.
Of course it does, and this is exactly why we should put murderers to death. If you don’t, you are treating that person like a brute, not like a person, an image bearer of God. A person knows that murder is wrong, and he knows the penalty, in most cases, is execution. Since he knows both of these facts, he has no one to blame but himself if he murders someone and is executed for it. Society is not to blame for that person’s death. And if you don’t put that person to death, you are treating him like a mere animal, who doesn’t understand right from wrong and is not morally culpable for its actions. The fact he is an image bearer is exactly why he should be executed if he commits murder.
Jesus reframed justice around mercy.
Except that he didn’t. In the account of the mob who was going to stone the woman caught in adultery, that was an angry mob who wanted to trap Jesus. But Jesus saw through their ruse. All of them were sinners and were deserving of punishment for their sins. On the other hand, when Pilate had Jesus before him, Jesus didn’t tell Pilate that capital punishment is wrong. In fact, he told Pilate that his very authority to execute criminals comes from God above (John 19:10-11). So here we see the difference between vengeance and justice. Pilate was a just authority and could mete out justice because certain types of offices have been granted that authority by God. None of us has the right to seek revenge (Rom. 12:19). The angry mob wanted revenge, which is not justice.
Modern society does not need executions.
This is, frankly, irrelevant. Whether or not we “need” them, justice still demands execution for capital crimes. Justice is objectively binding for all people at all times; it is not relative to the time in which we find ourselves. If it was moral in Biblical times, it is moral now. Its morality does not depend upon whether or not we can lock up criminals. Plus, this point ignores the fact that even locking up dangerous criminals still leaves them a threat. There is the possibility of jailbreak, or even if a murderer does not escape, he is still a threat to his fellow inmates, the guards, and the warden of the prison. He is not “no longer a threat” just because he is in prison.
The church Jesus founded opposes it.
Jesus founded the Christian church, not the Catholic church. And if the Catholic church claims capital punishment is inadmissible because it is an attack on the dignity of the human person, so much the worse for it. It’s only further proof that the Catholic church is not the true Christian church. God instituted capital punishment in the Old Testament, and he did so specifically because it was an attack on the dignity of the human person, an attack on someone who was made in God’s image (Gen. 9:6). Just one more reason I can’t be Catholic, because I hold the authority of Scripture over the authority of the Catholic church.
Early Christianity was skeptical of execution.
I’ve heard this claim but I’ve yet to see anyone defend it. If you could provide some sources to support your claim, that would be appreciated.
Pro-Life does not mean pro-crime.
No one says it does. But justice demands execution in the case of capital crimes.
War vs. execution.
This is a complicated point but one that I won’t belabor here. Suffice it to say that this is an obvious point because there are different categories of killing. Execution is also not the same thing as self-defense. You have the right to kill in self-defense, but even then there are certain standards you must meet (e.g. your response to the threat must be proportional, and you can’t kill the person if he has removed himself from the situation and is retreating). These are two different categories, and I’ve already explained above why executing capital criminals is moral, and in fact required by justice.
Economic reality.
This is a pragmatic argument, not an ethical one. The reason that capital punishment costs more in our country than keeping someone in prison is because of the appeals process, which can be lengthy and expensive. But it is also there to try and ensure we don’t execute innocent people. So I’m sure you’d agree we shouldn’t eliminate the appeals process. But having that process in place will always be expensive, if necessary. It says nothing about the ethics of capital punishment or whether it is inconsistent to be pro-life and support capital punishment.
The human cost is real.
This point is a non-issue. If you take a criminal to court, you’re asking someone else to do the locking up for you. That’s just the nature of the criminal justice system. It would be wrong to lock him up yourself; that would be kidnapping. The court has the authority to lock up criminals that we don’t have, ourselves. By the same token, killing someone out of revenge is murder, but taking him to court and asking the court to put that criminal to death is justice, which the court has the authority to mete out we don’t have, ourselves.
So your bottom line is just nonsensical. There are different categories of killing. Of course, we should not just kill people indiscriminately. But sometimes killing is necessary (you mentioned just war, in which killing has to be done, but there are rules which can make the war a just war or an unjust war). If killing is possibly necessary in at least one case, there could potentially be others (such as self-defense and capital punishment) in which it is permissible. This is something you have to come to grips with if you’re not an extreme pacifist. Sometimes killing is necessary, either out of protection or out of justice.