Reflections: Analysis 3

To further our analysis of Albert Camus’ Reflections on the Guillotine, it is important to transition into an analysis of New Testament ethics to gauge the complexity of the Bible’s position on capital punishment. Thus, it is a great time to ask the age-old question, “What would Jesus do?”

Let’s start with a discussion of Jesus’ views on murder. In Matthew 5, Jesus expands on the murder commandment, positing that because anger is a precursor to murder, anger itself prevents the transcendence toward righteousness (Matthew 5:22). In this way, Jesus requests that his followers uphold a higher standard of morality than the law calls for. Being a Christian is more than outward obedience – it is about the internal transformation of the heart, emphasizing the necessity of forgiveness and reconciliation. This relates to Camus’ argument, as Camus believes that capital punishment “is obviously no less repulsive than the crime, and this new murder, far from making amends for the harm done to the social body, adds a new blot to the first one” (2). In this way, Camus chastises the French State for being confined to a lower standard of morality, as capital punishment is nothing more than glorified murder, fueled by ignorance and anger. Thus, according to Jesus’ line of reasoning, France must adopt a higher standard of morality that emphasizes forgiveness and reconciliation. For Camus, a higher standard of morality is synonymous with outlawing capital punishment.

Let’s continue our discussion with Jesus’ views on retaliation. In Matthew 5, Jesus discusses the importance of non-retaliation. For instance, Jesus contradicts the law of retaliation, explaining how Christians should “not resist an evildoer” (Matthew 5:39). Instead, Christians should respond with love and non-retaliation when confronted with violence, evil words, and persecution. For instance, Jesus declares, “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile” (Matthew 5:39-41). This passage demonstrates the importance of turning away from revenge, living a life full of forgiveness and kindness, and doing the unexpected. In this way, Jesus calls Christians to break the cycle of vengeance. This relates to Camus’ scrutiny of the law of retaliation, as I have previously discussed. To reiterate, the law of retaliation is based on the ‘eye for an eye’ principle, and capital punishment extends this rule to be ‘death for death’ to avenge the murderer’s victim. Camus asserts that even if the death penalty is a “just and necessary” punishment, then “beheading is not simply death … it is a murder” in its most premeditated form (21). In this way, capital punishment is the ultimate retaliation, leading to a cycle of vengeance that plagues French society. In this context, Jesus would reject capital punishment and would encourage the French State to be merciful toward its criminals. If both murder and retaliation are chastised to some degree in the New Testament, then, is it wrong to claim that capital punishment goes beyond the moral limits of Jesus’ code of ethics? 

I would like to transition into a discussion regarding who is eligible to punish sinners. Camus points out that humans do not have the authority to punish criminals with the death penalty, as only God, the “supreme judge” knows their proper punishments in the afterlife (39-40). Jesus confirms this perspective by claiming, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Camus takes his argument in a different direction, highlighting how capital punishment “denies, not human solidarity, but the guilty man’s membership in the divine community” (40). Because of this denial of life, the possibility of repentance and amendment is stripped from him, which speeds up God’s final judgment. He points to the Catholic Church’s misunderstanding of salvation (41). For instance, the Church claims that capital punishment is a “powerful means of salvation,” as the condemned man ‘repents’ right before he is put to death (41); however, “it is one thing to believe before being afraid and another to find faith after fear. Conversion through fire or the guillotine will always be suspect” (43). Thus, the death penalty should not be a viable choice of punishment in the mortal realm, as God is the “supreme judge” (39-40).

While the New Testament does not explicitly comment on the permissibility of capital punishment, it does demonstrate Jesus’ views on murder, anger, and retaliation. Should Christians follow the Old Testament’s explicit commandments in favor of the death penalty or Jesus’ calling against violence and retaliation? While the Bible is riddled with contradictions, this is an important moral dilemma to address, especially because countries like the United States uphold a policy in favor of capital punishment whereas countries like France have rejected capital punishment. Which policy is more morally acceptable according to Christian tradition? Next time, we will highlight what it means to live a life guided by critical traditioning. See you soon!

–Courtney Bain