IF I WERE asked about writing, among the advice I would give would be ‘never write whilst you are angry.’ You are liable to write things in the heat of the moment that you later regret, and you are liable to get carried away in your reasoning. For these reasons I decided a few days ago not to write this post.
A subscriber had sent me a link to ‘Southport killer sentenced to 52 years’, a substack written by Charlie Bentley-Astor who has been covering the Southport stabbings for some months. Her piece focuses on the sentencing during the last day of the court case, but touches on the whole crime.
Bentley-Astor begins with a warning: ‘Readers are advised that the details of what took place that are vivid and harrowing and should not be read without caution.’ I would echo my subscriber’s additional warning: ‘It’s quite a long disturbing heartbreaking read, you’ll need half an hour in a quiet room to take this in.’
Now I am still angry but I have decided to write it anyway. I believe that any reasonable person should be angry at what they read and should remain angry. The piece recounts the horrific details of the attack and the subsequent rejoicing of murderer Axel Rudakubana: ‘I’m so glad the children are dead, so glad. So happy, six-years-old. It’s a good thing they are dead, yeah.’
The victim statements by the parents of the murdered girls and the survivors are painful to read. Their honesty and dignity in their suffering is unforgettable. Just as the bravery of the children and helpers at the Taylor Swift-themed dance class shows what courage truly is. They confronted horror with a remarkable willingness to sacrifice themselves to save others.
Rudakubana was sentenced to 52 years in prison, not life, because of a ruling by the Court of Appeal in 2019 that imposing a whole life order on under-18s is incompatible with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Rudakubana was nine days short of his 18th birthday when he committed the murders.
There has been subsequent debate in the media about whether a whole life order would be appropriate in this case no matter the age of the offender. In the general public the debate is about whether the death penalty would be appropriate.
Since becoming a Christian I have held the view that whilst I believe in the death penalty in principle I reject it in practice. This case has caused me to reconsider my view.
The death penalty for murder is mandated by God. ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image’ (Genesis 9:6). Some argue that there are any number of laws and penalties in the Old Testament which we do not implement today. Why should we hold to this particular instance?
The reason given in Genesis 9:6 holds true whatever the time or culture in which we live. In all creation only human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and killing a human being is a unique crime. When someone murders he is destroying an image bearer, he is directly defying God.
Man still bears the image of God, and God’s view of murder has remained the same. Murder is consistently listed as a sin throughout the New Testament (I Timothy 1:9, I Peter 4:15, Revelation 21:8 etc). God has instituted the death penalty for murder in his Word and we should think carefully before assuming we live to a higher moral standard than God.
I opposed the death penalty in practice because of the Fall. The Reformed doctrine of total depravity does not mean we are utterly immoral, rather it means that every part of our being is flawed to some extent. This means our intellects: our minds and reasoning powers are less than perfect. We are all fallen creatures and are liable to error; this includes police, judges and juries.
There have been too many instances of trials reaching unsafe verdicts and convicting the innocent or convicting on insufficient proof. If an unsafe verdict results in a prison sentence, this can be remedied, the prisoner released and some form of recompense attempted. There is no remedy for an execution.
As individuals we are not to attempt to take revenge but to ‘overcome evil with good’, Romans 12:21. In the immediately following passage, Romans 13:1-5, we learn that God has given to human government the authority to determine when such a punishment is merited and to enact it for the good of all society.
Some argue for the death penalty on grounds of deterrence effect. History teaches us that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The only justification for the death penalty is as punishment for the most heinous of crimes.
To punish is to treat with dignity all human beings made in God’s image, both the victim and the perpetrator. Moral accountability is essential to a civilised society. Unwarranted mercy shown to the undoubtedly guilty creates a corrosive injustice which is eventually destructive of all moral order. When they fail to punish evil appropriately, the governing authorities are rejecting their God-given responsibility and diminishing the value of all.
There were no mitigating factors in the Southport case. Rudakubana confessed to and even gloried in his crimes. His defence counsel was forced to concede: ‘There is no psychiatric evidence before the court that could suggest that a mental disorder contributed to the defendant’s actions.’ He offered no defence because there was none. There can be no doubt that Rudakubana committed the crimes of which he was accused.
There are times when there is simply no other appropriate response than execution if justice is to be served. This is such a time.
