Religion, philosophy and ethics · GCSE Religious Studies
The death penalty in GCSE RS
GCSE Religious Studies on capital punishment: Exodus versus Jesus, utilitarian deterrence claims, UK abolition, and Islamic hudud and qisas diversity — justice without a tabloid.
“Eye for eye” limited revenge; Jesus blocked a stoning. Islam allows qisas and then praises pardon. The UK abolished the noose — your job is to say why believers still argue.
The important bits
What you need to know
- 1
Capital punishment is the state killing an offender, usually for murder. Aims in play: retribution, deterrence, protection. Reformation is hard to claim of a corpse.
- 2
Exodus 21:24’s “eye for eye” in Torah limited vendetta; it did not invent cruelty. Genesis 9:6 ties bloodshed to imago Dei: by humans shall their blood be shed. That is the Old Testament retributive pole.
- 3
Jesus quotes the same proverb and then says not to resist, to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38–39). John 8:7 stops a hypocritical execution without calling the sin good. Christian abolitionists live here.
- 4
Utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number) asks whether hanging prevents more murders. That is an empirical claim: many criminologists find little extra deterrent over life imprisonment, and the executed innocent cannot be un-killed.
- 5
UK: last hangings 1964; Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965; made permanent 1969; remaining civilian capital offences removed in the 1990s. The exam wants abolition as civic fact, then religious evaluation.
- 6
Islam: qisas may permit equivalent justice for murder, with blood money and family pardon as a praised alternative (Qur’an 5:45). Hudud are fixed Qur’anic penalties with very high evidential bars; many scholars say the conditions are almost unmeetable.
- 7
Diversity: some Muslim-majority states use the death penalty; others have moratoria; British Muslims live under UK criminal law. “Shari’ah means execution” is tabloid, not GCSE.
- 8
Sanctity of life cuts both ways: the murderer’s victim had it, and so does the prisoner. A 12-mark that only weeps for one of them is incomplete.
Quotations worth analysing
Short evidence. Real method.
“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”
Retribution grounded in imago Dei: murder attacks God’s image, so the killer’s blood is forfeit. Abolitionists reply that the same image sits on the condemned. Use both halves.
“You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”
Jesus radicalises the Torah limit into personal non-retaliation. Churches then argue whether the state may still bear the sword (Romans 13) while the disciple forgoes hatred. That split is the Christian essay.
“And We ordained for them therein a life for a life… But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him.”
Qisas permits equivalent justice and then praises waiving it. Justice available, mercy better. If you only write “Islam wants executions”, you have not read the verse you needed.
Go deeper
Exodus versus Jesus is a tension, not a deletion
Students either dump “the Bible says stone people” or pretend Jesus emptied every prison. Torah’s talion was a ceiling on revenge, public and proportionate. Jesus addresses disciples’ personal retaliation and, in John 8, exposes a lynch-mob’s hypocrisy while telling the woman to leave her life of sin. Romans 13 is then used by some Christians to keep the state’s sword. Quakers and many modern Catholics (popes have called for abolition) go the other way: the state’s power to kill is too great, and sanctity includes the guilty. Write the tension. A candidate who picks one verse and hides the other is preaching, not evaluating.
Go deeper
Utilitarianism cannot bluff the data
“The death penalty deters” is not a moral axiom; it is a prediction. Countries with executions still have murder. Impulsive killings and hidden killings do not run expected-utility spreadsheets. Even if deterrence “worked”, executing the innocent is an uncorrectable disaster — name a miscarriage if you know one (Birmingham Six were not hanged, but the logic still holds; Derek Bentley’s case is the older British ghost). A utilitarian might still argue that a tiny deterrent gain outweighs rare errors. A sanctity argument says some means are forbidden whatever the spreadsheet. Separate empirical from moral in two sentences and you look like an adult in a 15-year-old’s exam.
Go deeper
Hudud and qisas without a tabloid
Hudud are a small set of offences with fixed punishments in classical fiqh, and the evidential bars are deliberately high (four witnesses for zina, for example). Many scholars argue that doubt should avert hudud. Qisas for murder centres the victim’s family: they may seek equivalent justice, take compensation, or forgive. That is a different moral world from a Crown court, not a cartoon of chopping. UK Muslims do not live under a hudud code. In evaluation, you can prefer abolition on fallibility and sanctity, and still describe qisas accurately as a system that takes the family’s agency seriously. Smear or silence both lose marks.
See the idea in action
Statement: “The death penalty should never be used.” Never: John 8, Matthew 5, sanctity, UK abolition 1965, weak deterrence, Quakers, Muslim pardon as expiation, risk to the innocent. Sometimes: Genesis 9:6, qisas for murder, retribution for terrorism, protection if someone will kill again. Judgement: in the UK, “never” should win on fallibility and sanctity; a qisas system is a different moral world and must be described, not smeared. Finish on whether the state’s power to kill is too great.
Exam technique
Turn knowledge into marks
Open by naming two aims of punishment. Then let each religion serve or criticise those aims. Deterrence claims need a “we do not actually know” clause unless you have a fact.
Common mistakes
Do not give these marks away
- 01
Writing that shari’ah is only executions, or that Jesus abolished all state justice.
- 02
Claiming deterrence as a fact without humility, or ignoring victims when you praise mercy.
- 03
Forgetting the UK abolished capital punishment for murder in the 1960s.
Which statement about UK law and religious teaching on the death penalty is accurate?
AThe UK still hangs people for murder, in line with all Christian teaching
BThe UK abolished the death penalty for murder in the 1960s; religious traditions still disagree about whether the state may kill
CIslamic teaching forbids any punishment for murder
DJesus required the death penalty in John 8
Show the answer
The UK abolished the death penalty for murder in the 1960s; religious traditions still disagree about whether the state may kill. Abolition is the civic fact (1965/69). Genesis 9:6 and qisas can support capital justice; Jesus and many modern churches pull the other way. John 8 blocks a stoning, it does not command one.
Quick questions
If this is the bit you searched
When did the UK abolish the death penalty?
For murder, the 1965 Act (made permanent 1969). Last hangings were 1964. Remaining civilian capital offences were removed later. State the murder abolition if you only have one date.
Does “an eye for an eye” mean Christians want hanging?
It is Torah limiting revenge. Jesus intensifies it toward non-retaliation. Some Christians still support capital punishment from Genesis 9:6 or Romans 13; many do not. Do not quote talion as Jesus’ prison policy.
What is qisas?
Retaliation or equivalent justice in Islamic law for some crimes against persons, with the victim’s family able to take compensation or forgive. Mercy is built in, not an afterthought.
Do I need utilitarianism on this topic?
If your spec includes it, yes: deterrence and social protection are utilitarian angles. Even if not named, “greatest good” is a clean non-religious view beside sanctity.