Should Scott Peterson
receive life or death? That was the prickly question facing twelve ill-fated
jurors who spent the early part of their holiday season the same way they spent most of
their summer—sequestered in a Redwood City, California hotel. All
because two years ago on Christmas Eve, Scott Peterson made a similar life
and death decision in regard his wife Laci and their unborn son Connor.
According to the State, Scott chose poorly. He took their lives. Now the jury has recommended that the State
do exactly the same thing to him. My question is: Does anyone else see
the irony in this situation?

      First of all, recall that
one of the murders for which Scott is deemed responsible is that of his unborn
child Connor, a foetus. Interesting that in California, it is legal for
a certified medical practitioner to end the life of an unwanted foetus under
certain conditions, because a foetus is not legally defined as a “person” until
it exits the womb. But if someone other than a certified legal practitioner
intentionally ends the life of a foetus—whether that foetus is wanted or not—he
or she is charged with murder, which is a crime against a person. Can
you see the contradiction here? Does the State consider a foetus to be a person
or not?

      What this means is, if
Scott were a licensed abortionist, technically he would only have been charged
with one murder in this instance, not two. That said, I am certain there are
rules against even a licensed abortionist terminating the gestation of his own
child, and I doubt if drowning is among the accepted means by which to do this.
But, taken on principle alone, clearly the State of California does find the
termination of human foetuses acceptable under certain circumstances, none of
which were met in Scott Peterson’s case.

      The contradictions don’t
end there. In California, it is also legal for the State to kill someone they
deem to be no longer fit for society, i.e. someone convicted of first-degree
murder. Once again, if Scott were a licensed executioner and Laci had been
found guilty of first-degree murder, he would have been able to kill her with
virtually no retribution from the State. In fact, he would have been paid to
render such a service to society.

When Is It Wrong to Take a
Life?

      So it seems that the
issue in Scott Peterson’s case is not so much about whether taking a life is
wrong. After all, we’ve already seen that the State sanctions the taking of
foetal and human life under certain circumstances.[1]
The real question is whether or not those circumstances were met in either Laci
or Connor’s deaths. Everyone agrees that they most definitely were not.
Therefore, the State of California has decreed that whoever is responsible for
the crime must share the same fate as his victims. No wonder the late Mother
Theresa accused the United States of fostering a “culture of death.”

But the State Doesn’t Bear the Sword for Nothing…

      Many Christians agree
that taking the life of an unborn child is wrong. But when it comes to the
death penalty, they will argue that the Bible clearly states that God has given
governments the power of life or death over their citizens. Read Romans 13:1–5,
for example:

For rulers hold no terror
for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from
fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

For he is God’s servant to
do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for
nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the
wrongdoer. (NIV)

Thus, according to one interpretation of this passage, execution of
murderers, such as the one who killed Laci and Connor, is right and good. How
else can governments maintain order?

      Unfortunately such an
argument is drowned by overwhelming statistical evidence that suggests the
death penalty does nothing to deter violent crimes. In fact, it may actually
encourage them. California, home of some of the strictest penalties for murder,
also has one of the highest murder rates in the United States. Meanwhile, a
country like Canada, which abolished the death penalty three decades ago, has
one of the lowest murder rates in the world. How can this be? There is not enough room here for a complete
presentation of the arguments for and against capital punishment. However, I
will make note of a few observations that cast some doubt on this passage’s
usefulness as a plank in the pro-capital punishment platform.

      First, there is much
debate as to whether or not the word “sword” as used in this passage means
literally “execution” or whether it merely symbolizes authority and a
government’s use of force in general to enforce laws or defend a nation’s
interests. Obviously governments during the Apostle Paul’s time used execution
as a means of punishment, but nowhere in his writings does Paul condone this
practice.

      In fact, as a former
executioner who left that occupation to follow Jesus, Paul would most likely
condemn taking the life of another, even in the name of a government. After
all, hadn’t Paul been on his way to do that exact thing to Christian believers
when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus? Turns out that even if
governments do bear the sword in the literal sense of execution, they can still
be wrong. Dead wrong. The cases of dozens of innocent people who have been
wrongfully executed in the United States and Canada during the last century
also attest to this conclusion.

Where Does It End?

      Second, once you begin
assigning governments the power of life and death over their citizens—even
those who commit horrible crimes such as the one Steven Peterson is accused
of—you’ve entered a foggy no-man’s land chock full of ethical and philosophical
landmines. For example, it’s easy to convince people that governments should
execute certain criminals, such as murderers. Society is better off with such
people, proponents of capital punishment argue. It’s also cheaper to kill them
than house and feed them in prison for the rest of their miserable lives.
Pragmatism at its best.

      Unfortunately, it has
also been rather easy to convince people that governments should have the same
power of life or death over the unborn. All you need to do is redefine the
words “life” and “person” so that foetuses are excluded on both counts. Why
should a mother who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy be forced to carry
the child to full term? It’s so inconvenient. Besides, doesn’t a woman have the
right to choose what to do with her own body?

      Yes, pro-lifers argue.
But such choices should be made before the woman engages in a sexual act
that may lead to pregnancy rather than after she becomes pregnant. If a woman
is prepared to engage in such acts, she should also be prepared to deal with
the potential consequences, should she not?

      Regardless of your
opinion on the death penalty or abortion, when the question is raised regarding
whether or not governments or their citizens should have the power of life or
death over allow the aged or terminally ill, the lines that once seemed so
clear quickly begin to blur. For, if a government sanctions the taking of these
people’s lives—even with these people’s permission—it opens up the field for
all sorts of other special conditions under which it is deemed better to end a
life than allow it to continue. What about the lives of those who are severely
disabled, for example? If we could get enough people to agree that society
would be better off without them, would that make it right? We seem to think
this logic works when it comes to abortion or capital punishment. So why stop
there? Why not start eliminating everyone else who poses a potential threat or
drain on society, such as thieves, child molesters, teenagers who do nothing
but play video games, have illicit sex, and commit petty crimes and people
whose sexual orientation we disagree with?

We Can’t Have It Both Ways

      What I’m trying to get at
here (rather facetiously, I must admit) is that we can’t have it both ways.
Taking a human life—whether born or unborn—is either fundamentally right or it
is fundamentally wrong, regardless of what the current legislation says.
Murder—the pre-meditated termination of a human life—can’t be right in some
circumstances and wrong in others. On a gut level (A spiritual level,
perhaps?), somehow we all recognize this as a horrible act whether the State
sanctions the killing or not.

      For example, when Marva
Stark, leader of the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization for Women
(NOW), a group that officially supports legalized abortion, spoke out against
the double-murder charge levelled against Scott Peterson—arguing that Connor
was not a “person” and therefore could not be murdered—she was quickly
sanctioned by her own group, because such a position cast NOW in an
unfavourable light. Despite NOW’s pro-abortion views, somehow even these women
recognized that what had been done to Connor was wrong. Besides, NOW’s
spokesperson Rebecca Farmer argued, California has laws against fetal homicide.
Thus, NOW could safely support the charges while sustaining their pro-abortion
stance. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Redefining Life

      When is a life not a
life? Apparently, whenever the government says so. If Connor Peterson were a
foetus about to be aborted, his existence would not merit the label “life,” and
his mother and father could proceed with the procedure with a clear conscience,
at least from a legal point of view. However, seeing as Connor’s existence was
terminated under circumstances other than legalized abortion, the State of
California is willing to redefine Connor’s existence as “life” and punish the
person who ended it according to the full extent of the law.

      Similarly, if Scott
Peterson is convicted of this double-murder and given the death sentence, the
State of California will essentially do the same thing to him as they do to
unborn babies: redefine his existence so that he no longer qualifies as a
“person.“ Thus, his life can be terminated with no legal retributions levelled
against those responsible. How convenient.

The Easy Way Out?

      You can argue all you want
for the legal, moral and pragmatic advantages of both abortion and capital
punishment. But in both cases, I would argue that you’re taking the easy way
out: choosing to end a life rather than deal with the consequences of its
continuation.

      In the case of abortion,
you’re choosing to end a life rather than raise a child you didn’t plan on
having. By allowing capital punishment, you’re choosing to end a murderer’s
life rather than attempt to reform what’s left of his or her humanity.
Admittedly, in both instances, choosing to let the life continue involves a
risk. For example, the unexpected child may present you with some trying
financial, personal and social challenges. But many people overcome such
challenges and go on to live happy, productive lives.

      The murderer, on the
other hand, may choose not to repent of his crimes. In fact, once released at
the end of his or her sentence, he or she may even go on to commit more crimes.
However, there is also ample evidence that the lives of such people can be reformed.
Take the Apostle Paul for example.

Need I say more?

We are All On Death Row

      At any rate, choosing
death in either instance means an end to all further choices and potential for
change and growth. Just think for a minute if God took this approach when
dealing with us. Would we really want him to treat us the way California treats
unborn babies and murderers?

In Romans 3:23, Paul observes that everyone has sinned and
fallen short of the glory of God. A little later in Romans 6:23, he notes that
the wages of sin is death. What this tells me is that each one of us is
in the same situation as a person who commits double-murder in the State of
California. We’re all on death row. The axe is about to fall.

      However, for some reason,
God hasn’t gone ahead with our execution. Somehow he just continues to let us
exist. Why do you think this is so? Do you think it’s convenient for him
to have a bunch of sin-addled malcontents roaming the earth committing all
sorts of mayhem and carnage? Not for a second! Do you think he’s too weak to
wipe us out? Not a chance. God is more than able to do away with us a thousand
times over, but he has chosen to let us live, carnage and all. Why?

      Perhaps because he knows
that where there is life, there’s hope. Wiping us all out would sure solve a
lot of problems. But it would also eliminate any chance for redemption of our
fallen condition. Thus, instead of giving us what we deserve, God has chosen to
take the long, difficult road of slowly helping us grow up into the kind of people
he created us to be. There are a lot of sacrifices involved on his part, but he
seems to think the results are worth it.

      Should Scott Peterson be
charged with a double-murder? Definitely. If convicted, should he also receive
the death penalty? Considering the above argument, I think not. His death may
give Laci and Connor’s friends and relatives some temporary sense of
satisfaction. But in the long run, don’t you think we would all be better
served if Scott’s life could somehow be reformed rather than terminated? That
way we would have at least some hope of wringing good from this otherwise
horrendous situation.

            And I
believe that is what God would like to see happen.

---

[1] Note: I am only differentiating “human” and “foetal” life here for
the sake of argument. Ordinarily I would assume them to be one and the same.