| (cont.)
II. Capital Punishment in Light of This Ethic
This
change in perspective seems to have been in mind when
the ecumenical leaders of Florida stated that Jesus
shifted the locus of judgment in this matter to a
higher court: a court where there is absolute knowledge
of the evidence, of good deeds and of evil, of faith
and of works of faith, of things private and things
public—a court in which there is both wrath and tenderness,
both law and grace.
It is when we stand in this perspective of a "higher
court"—that of God's judgment seat—and a more
noble view of the human person, that we seriously
question the appropriateness of capital punishment.
We ask ourselves: Is the human family made more complete—is
human personhood made more loving—in a society which
demands life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth?
Let me acknowledge that your experience is probably
quite different from mine. You have had to deal with
heinous crimes, with persons so filled with hatred
and violence as to chill the heart. You may be wondering
whether my colleagues and I are naive or simplistic
in our approach.
Perhaps I won't be able to dispel that perception
with my response. Nevertheless, I want to affirm that
the State does have the responsibility to protect
its citizens. It deserves and merits the full support
of all of us in the exercise of that responsibility.
Although we don't have an adequate understanding of
the causes of violent crime, society "has the
right and the duty to prevent such behavior including,
in some cases, the right to impose terms of lifetime
imprisonment" (Florida ecumenical leaders).
I am not suggesting that society should be a prisoner
of violence or violent crime. On the contrary, the
consistent ethic of life requires that society struggle
to eradicate poverty, racism and other systemic forces
which nurture and encourage violence. Similarly, the
perpetrators of violence should be punished and given
the opportunity to experience a change of heart and
mind.
But, having said this, I also think that capital
punishment is not an appropriate response to the problem
of crime in our land. To take any human life, even
that of someone who is not innocent, is awesome and
tragic. It seems to me and to others that, in our
culture today, there are not sufficient reasons to
justify the State continuing Exercise its right in
this matter. There are other, better ways of protecting
the interests of society.
Recently the Gallup organization conducted a poll
about capital punishment—something they had done on
previous occasions. In 1966 42% of those polled favored
capital punishment, in 1981 66% favored it, and this
year the percentage was 72%.
Why has 24% of the population turned to favoring
capital punishment in the last nineteen years? This
question is even more urgent because that same poll
reported that fully 51% of the respondents said "they
would still support capital punishment even if studies
showed conclusively it does not deter crime"!
This is striking because people often use deterrence
as a main argument to justify capital punishment.
If it is not to deter crime, why do people support
capital punishment? Thirty percent of those who favored
capital punishment indicated their reason was simple:
revenge!
One might argue that the cycle of violence has become
so intense in our society that it is understandable
and appropriate for people to support capital punishment.
What alternative is there, some ask, in a violent
society other than to meet violence with violence?
As a citizen in a democracy whose founding dream
is of human dignity and as a disciple of Jesus, I
must reject this alternative. In fact, as a citizen
of this city which has recently been alarmed, saddened
and polarized by the senseless killing of a talented
high school basketball star and a ten-year-old standing
in front of his home, I assert that violence is not
the answer—it is not the way to break the cycle of
violence.
Pope John Paul II, speaking to Peruvians who were
living in the midst of a rebel stronghold, told them:
"The pitiless logic of violence leads to nothing.
No good is obtained by helping to increase violence."
Capital punishment, to my mind, is an example of
meeting violence with violence. What does it say about
the quality of our life when people celebrate the
death of another human being? What does it say about
the human spirit when some suggest a return to public
executions which only twenty years ago we would have
considered barbaric?
We desperately need an attitude or atmosphere in
society which will sustain a consistent defense and
promotion of life. Where human life is considered
"cheap" and easily "wasted," eventually
nothing is held as sacred and all lives are in jeopardy.
The purpose of proposing a consistent ethic of life
is to argue that success on any one of the issues
threatening life requires a concern for the broader
attitude in society about respect for life. Attitude
is the place to root an ethic of life.
Change of attitude, in turn, can lead to change of
policies and practices in our society. We must find
ways to break the cycle of violence which threatens
to strangle our land. We must find effective means
of protecting and enhancing human life.
Page 1 - 2
- 3 - 4
|
