In society, the decisions of the church and the decisions of the state are assumed to be separate. Although capital punishment is presided over by the state, it would be reasonable for religious beliefs to have an influence on many aspects of state laws. One in particular is capital punishment, which differs from state to state. Ironically, in Texas, a state with many members of the Christian faith, a religion that preaches the understanding and forgiveness of others, capital punishment is still prevalent. On the other hand, the less Christian state of New Jersey has banned capital punishment. Within the Unites States of America there are many religious traditions. Of these various religions, Christianity makes up 78.4% among all adults. The remaining 21.6% being made up of other religions and those who responded “don’t know” (Pew Research Center 2008). As shown above, the state of Texas, which has a greater Christian population than New Jersey, has the death penalty while New Jersey does not. Therefore it can be noted that although one would tend to think states with a majority Christian population would be against the death penalty because of their beliefs. However, the decision on whether or not to implement capital punishment is not that simple. The religious makeup of Texas and New Jersey show to not have an impact on whether or not capital punishment is legal in a contradictory way. These contradictions between New Jersey and Texas will be shown through the religious makeup, the importance of religion, as well as the history of the death penalty in each state.
Transition Sentence According to a sample reported by pewforum.com, also known as The Pew Research Center, 67% of New Jersey residents are Christian. That is well over half of New Jersey residents that responded to the survey. Christianity is including Evangelical Protestant, Mainline Protestant, Historically Black Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox Christian, Jehovah’s Witness and Other Christian. The remaining practiced religions in New Jersey account for 14% of the population. Leaving 18% having responded Unaffiliated (religious “nones”), including Atheist, Agnostic, nothing in particular and don’t know. The remaining 1% responded Other Faiths (Wormald 2015).
In response to a survey conducted in 2014 by pewforum.com, of the 886 New Jersey residents of various religious backgrounds who responded, exactly half responded that religion is very important. 28% responded that it is somewhat important. 11% and 9% responded that is was not too important and not at all important. Only 1% responded with don’t know (Wormald 2008). This survey shows that not only is religion prevalent in New Jersey, but those who are followers of a religion have strong faith in it with more than 3/4 of New Jersey residents believing religion to be either very or somewhat important. Considering that 67% of New Jersey residents are of the Christian faith, it shows that many Christians find religion to be important to them so it could be assumed that religion would have a large effect on their daily lives and decisions.
In 2006, a bill defining the end of the death penalty was signed by the current Governor, Governor Richard Codey. This new bill now made the punishment equivalent of the death penalty to be life in prison without the possibility of parole. This change made New Jersey “The first state to legislatively abolish the death penalty since 1965” (Death Penalty Information Center 2017). transition
“A state appeals court ruled in 2004 that New Jersey’s procedures for administering the death penalty were unconstitutional. The state rewrote the procedures but never finalized them, and they expired in 2005. In 2005, New Jersey lawmakers voted to suspend executions while a study commission examined the fairness and expense of the state's death penalty. Governor Richard Codey signed the bill on January 12, 2006” (Death Penalty Information Center 2017).
This ruling was important because it was a means for the end of the death penalty in New Jersey. With religion playing a large role in the lives of New Jersey residents, abolishing the death penalty was accomplished.
While New Jersey has already abolished the death penalty, Texas has not yet followed suit. The religious make up of Texas also has an influence on its residents. Pewforum.com indicates that of the adults in Texas the majority are Christian. Of the adults surveyed, 77% responded that they are Christian. The remaining adults surveyed responded that 4% were non Christian faiths and 1% responded to being “Other Faiths.” The remaining 18% accounts for those who responded Unaffiliated (religious “nones”), including Atheist, Agnostic, nothing in particular and don’t know (Wormald 2015).
Of a research survey conducted in Texas by pewforum.com in 2014, of the 2,535 adults that responded, regardless of which religion they affiliate with, 63% declared religion to be very important to them. Roughly one quarter of adults, 23%, believe religion to be somewhat important to them. 7% stated religion was not too important, followed by 8% with not at all important and less than 1% for don’t know (Wormald 2015). Again, as with New Jersey, over 3/4 of the residents of Texas have strong religious affiliations having declared that religion is very or somewhat important to them.
As can be seen through the data, with a larger percentage of members of the Christian faith, one would assume Texas would have a larger amount of religious influence acting on the laws involved with the death penalty. Throughout the years the style of execution has changed with religion most likely having an influence. Until 1923, throughout Texas, public hangings was how counties in Texas handled sentencing to death (Death Penalty Information Center 2017). Within this year, “The state of Texas ordered all executions to be carried out by the state, in Huntsville, by means of the electric chair. The state executed its first inmate by electrocution on 8 February 1924. Five prisoners were electrocuted on that date” (Carson 2017). This method was used until 1965. During this period of over forty years, three hundred sixty-one inmates were executed in this manner in the state of Texas (Death Penalty Information Center 2017). While the type of execution has changed over time ethical issues are still very prevalent based on the large number of people still facing execution.
Many court cases used precedents for capital punishment trials such as the Furman v. Georgia case of 1972. The question being asked was if, “…the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?”(Oyez 2017). The court concluded, in a pur curium opinion, that held that:
“…The imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner” (Oyez 2017).
Due to the potential of the death penalty being assigned unfairly as well as arbitrarily, all state death penalties were ruled unconstitutional. The fifty two men that had been assigned with the death penalty at that moment in time then had their sentences changed to life in prison (Death Penalty Information Center 2017).
This prompted the new statute that was passed in 1973. This statute would be used in creating a new standard for the way that death sentences would be given (Death Penalty Information Center 2017).
In 1977, in Oklahoma, Drs. Jay Chapman and Stanley Deutsch developed the lethal injection that was adopted in Texas in 1977 and was first used in 1982. Throughout the 1990s, the once rare use of the lethal injection began to increase (Jackson 2015).
The above information mentioned throughout this report shows multiple findings. One is that Texas is significantly more of a religious state in general. With well over half of adults responding that religion is very important to them, that is 13% greater than the 50% of adults in New Jersey who believe the same (Pew Research Center 2015). Another fact shown by the above data is that in Texas, they have a larger percent of adults affiliating with a form of Christianity as their religion, adding up to 77%. This is above New Jersey’s 67% of Christian adults by 10% (Pew Research Center 2014). This shows a stronger affiliation with one religious grouping.
This reveals to us a large contradiction. The Bible, Matthew 6:14-15 states the following: “14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (The Bible: Matthew 6:14-15, 2017). To the common person the first thought gathered of this verse would be to always forgive, no matter what. In theory, 77% of Texans and 67% of New Jerseyans are reading these words or at minimum being preached to about these ideals. So how is it that Texans then do not forgive those who they wish to sentence to death? If a majority of Texans believe in a form of Christianity as well as in God, as they say they do, I believe it would be more logical for them to put forth the idea of retributive justice or an alternative that would allow those who have wronged others and/or broken rules a chance to redeem themselves. This would be closer to a version of forgiveness than the death penalty would be.
The official stance of the Catholic Church, a branch of Christianity, is anti death penalty as shown in this quote by Pope John Paul II:
“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2017).
For having the majority of the population in both Texas and New Jersey following similar beliefs to the above quotation by Pope John Paul II, it seems contradictory that the death penalty would still be in effect. This would indicate that there would be other reasonings for its continued use. Potential explantations for this as stated by Ned Walpin for The Death Penalty Information Center are as follows:
“1. Texas’ appellate judges are elected to office and hence serve according to the pleasure of the public…they require a record of toughness on criminals in order to win re-election. Also, there are many indications that elected appellate judges generally are of a lesser quality than their appointed counterparts in other states. Newton even claims that these elected judges do not carefully consider the complexities of each specific death penalty case. As evidence, Newton argues that "[e]specially during the past few years…the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has refused to publish most of its decisions in death penalty cases, including many cases that discuss important issues of 1st impression. Often these opinions take positions entirely inconsistent with prior decisions by the court and fail to mention the conflict…”
2. Texas does not have a public defender system for indigent defendants, and instead relies upon court-appointed lawyers who likely do not have experience in capital murder defenses or appeals. Newton notes that incompetent defenses in capital murder cases are legion in Texas, and that, even in a death penalty appeal, bad lawyering is hard to prove. One decision, which turned down a defendant's habeas appeal due to bad lawyering, concluded that "[t]he Constitution does not say that the lawyer has to be awake" during trial proceedings.
3. Until the early 1990s, Texas did not permit jurors to adequately consider mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of a trial. Thus, there are a number of people currently on death row that may well not be there had information about their mental illness or youth been weighed. In addition, some other features of the Texas judicial system streamline the process between conviction and execution for death row inmates.
…Some have speculated that the Texas execution rate also reflects a heritage of frontier justice coupled with modern urban crime. However, James W. Marquart, Sheldon Ekland- Olson, and Jonathan R. Sorensen offer a more complex thesis. In their book, The Rope, the Chair, and the Needle: Capital Punishment in Texas, 1923-1990,5 they argue that Texas' execution rate reflects the Southern "cultural tradition of exclusion,"” (Walpin 2000).
As well as the issues pointed out by Ned Walpin, there is still the possibility that Christians, who truly believe that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, may still believe that it is useful and/or needed in certain situations. Religious influences most likely would be one side of this seemingly 4 sided story. This story including sides of those who are Christian for the death penalty, Christian against the death penalty, Non Christians for the death penalty and Non Christians against the death penalty. These various sides showing that it would not be reasonable to just assume that because a person is Christian or not Christian that this would determine their belief set. There are plenty of people who are not Christian who would be against the killing of anyone for the reasoning of not believing anyone has the right to take another’s life away. On the other hand we still have the sides mentioned above of Christians that may believe in God and be of strong religious affiliation that believe for the greater good of the public capital punishment must continue. That being noted, it would be unreasonable to assume that religious influences would always have a large enough impact to sway ones beliefs entirely.
It can be concluded that regardless of reasoning, the sentencing to capital punishment seems to be often unjustified as it is a cruel and unusual punishment. This punishment is not an example of a punishment that would embody the values and beliefs of Christians religions. But, it is evident that Texas’ decision to continue using capital punishment is not with religious influence. It is more likely to be due to a flawed system. Understanding the solution would come from looking at the legal system rather than pointing blame or reasoning at any religious groups.