A hero of mine died last week. Stephen Jay Gould was one of the most articulate and imaginative scientists of our day. He wrote on many subjects, from baseball to terrorism, but his favorite subject was the incredible process of evolution that has brought us to where we are today.
I especially appreciate Gould’s sense of wonder. The Washington Post reported that “In his final column for Natural History, he said the continuity of life on Earth for 3.5 billion years, through planetary cataclysms and ice ages, is ‘most worthy of pure awe -- a metaphorical miracle, if you will.’”
There is no doubt that Stephen Jay Gould loved this life journey we are on, and he hated to let it go. I would like to begin my sermon this morning with this common awareness that life is a precious gift we have been given and each of us needs to hold it gently in our hands.
During this past year our congregation has been having a conversation about one of the most controversial issues of our day: capital punishment. Our Task Force Against the Death Penalty has sponsored a number of programs to help educate the congregation and community about capital punishment and to provide a forum for everyone to express their opinions.
As a church we believe that every social issue is an ethical issue and every ethical issue is a religious issue. And so we struggle with these issues in a conscientious and respectful manner.
At our congregational meeting last year we passed a resolution in support of a moratorium on the death penalty. And now on Sunday, June 9th, we will vote on whether we want to publicly take a stand against the death penalty.
I must confess that I have ambivalent feelings about this vote. I am proud that we are willing to take ethical stands, expressing our values and beliefs as a religious community.
But I fear that when we do so, we alienate those in our congregation who do not agree and thus shut down the conversation that enlivens our presence here. We are a church with no religious creed, and we should have no political creed.
My hope is that this church will offer a safe environment where everyone may take part in an ongoing conversation about the issues of the day, expressing our religious and political opinions in a respectful manner with the assumption that all of us are upholding our principles and purposes.
In that same spirit, what I say this morning is my personal opinion. I cannot speak for this congregation. And I do not claim infallibility. My purpose is not to have you agree with me but to stimulate a creative conversation on the subject of the death penalty.
Murder and what to do about it has been a problem since the beginning of humanity. One of the most ancient stories in the Old Testament concerns the murder of Abel by his brother Cain.
So what did God do to the first mythological murderer? Did he smite him down with a thunderbolt or maroon him on a desert island? No, God proved himself to be a liberal do-gooder by simply putting the Mark of Cain on his forehead as a sign of God’s protection for him.
Theologians have scratched their heads over this puzzling story for a long time. What was God thinking? Why would he ignore such a terrible crime – not only ignore it but reward the murderer?
Some believe it was God’s first act of forgiveness after chasing his parents out of the Garden of Eden, while others believe it was an act of favoritism. Though we know not why, it was the first time God chose to be merciful.
Certainly in other parts of the Old Testament capital punishment is supported by “an eye for an eye” punitive theology, but when I study the religions of the world and their most sacred teachings I am inspired by a clear and overwhelming message of forgiveness and compassion over judgment and punishment.
The issue we face is not whether we should let those who kill go free but how should they be punished. Those who favor capital punishment argue that by executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again and do, thereby, save innocent life. They claim that the execution of murderers also discourages and dissuades others from murder.
A poet by the name of Hyman Barshay writes, “The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.”
Proponents of capital punishment also believe that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for such a violent and evil act as to take the life of another human being. They make the point that human life will only be held sacred if we are willing to take it away from those who kill.
Proponents also state that the imposition of the death penalty is extraordinarily rare. Since 1967, there has been one execution for every 1600 murders. The number of executions is proof that great effort has been made to minimize the chance of an innocent being wrongly executed.
A growing number of death penalty proponents assert that capital punishment should be retained, but used only for the "worst of the worst" cases CC those particularly heinous crimes in which there is no doubt that the defendant is guilty and there are no mitigating circumstances. Many of these people also believe there should be a moratorium on the death penalty until we can be sure that the innocent are fully protected.
But the question we must ask ourselves is whether it’s possible to make the imposition of the death penalty full-proof. The most compelling argument against the death penalty for me is that we can never be absolutely certain that the person we are killing is guilty, and once that person is dead there is no opportunity for appeal.
In a recent NYT editorial (Feb. 11, 2002) Bob Herbert writes that, “In the spring of 2000 a team of lawyers and criminologists at Columbia University released the first phase of the most far-reaching study of the death penalty in the United States. It showed that the system of capital punishment was riddled with unfairness and incompetence, with serious errors erupting with alarming frequency at every stage of the process.”
Herbert explains that “of every three capital sentences reviewed, two were overturned on appeal. Those were cases in which at least some of the mistakes were caught. No one knows what percentage of the remaining cases were tainted.”
Take for instance the case of Robert Lee Miller Jr. William Shulz, past president of the Unitarian Universalist Association and presently the Director of Amnesty International, writes in his book, In Our Own Best Interest, that, “In 1987, Miller, a vagrant, told Oklahoma City detectives of a dream he had in which he had raped and murdered two elderly women. Miller also told them that he was the Lone Ranger, an Indian warrior, and that his family had visionary powers. Nonetheless, on the basis of his ‘confession,’ he was convicted and sentenced to death…until DNA testing in 1995 proved he could not have committed the crime and identified a convicted rapist as the killer.”
There is certainly no doubt in my mind that the capital punishment system is broken, and it has cost far too many innocent lives and will continue to do so until we fix it.
Often the injustice in the justice system is the result of politics. The Columbia University study found that, "The more often and directly state trial judges are subject to popular election, and the more partisan those elections are, the higher the state's rate of serious capital error."
Others are executed because of the incompetence of law enforcement or defense attorneys or both. And there can be no doubt that many are executed primarily because they are black or another minority group.
The periodical, Christianity Today, writes that “…The death penalty as it is practiced in this country is unfair and discriminatory. Race, class, and geography are the best predictors of who will get the death sentence for first-degree murder. If the victims are white and the perpetrators are poor minorities who commit their crimes in one of a handful of mostly southern states, their chances are greatest of receiving the death penalty. Nearly 90 percent of persons executed are convicted of killing whites, yet people of color are the victims of homicide in a majority of cases. Geographically over half of the executions since 1976 have been in Texas, Virginia, and Florida…”
You may have read the article in today’s Washington Post titled, “Is the Death Penalty a Lottery? You Bet.” It states that a primary reason Gov. Glendening announced a moratorium on executions in Maryland earlier this month is that the death penalty is a lottery system based on where the crime in committed. Nine of the 13 men on death row are from one county where the local prosecutor is especially zealous, and eight of those nine are African American.
It is becoming more obvious that whether or not you get the death penalty depends a great deal more on who you are and where you are than what you did.
The recent focus of the capital punishment debate has been in Illinois. Two years ago Republican Gov. George Ryan took the courageous step of declaring a moratorium on the death penalty after a number of innocent men on Illinois's death row were found to be innocent – some thanks to a journalism class that worked on capital punishment cases as a special project.
Gov. Ryan appointed a bipartisan commission, whose members include the former United States Senator Paul Simon, the lawyer and author Scott Turow, and, as a special adviser, William H. Webster, the former director of central intelligence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That commission has called for a sweeping overhaul of capital punishment in the state, with a narrow majority concluding that it should be abolished.
I think it's appalling that in so many other cases of capital murder defendants are moved through the system as if on an assembly line, with little or no serious consideration given to possible extenuating circumstances, including age, mental retardation and severe mental illness.
You may be familiar with the case of Mario Marquez who was tried for murder in Texas. He had an I.Q. of 65 and was savagely abused as a child. His parents abandoned him to the streets when he was 12. He was too limited mentally to talk with his lawyer about his case, usually not being able to do more than draw pictures. And yet Mario Marquez was executed in 1995. [Deciding Who Will Live by Bob Herbert, NYT, March 18, 2002]
There are many ways in which the judicial system can be improved, but it’s obvious to me that the death penalty can never be administered consistently with any reasonable degree of fairness and equity. Too many prejudices and preconceived notions are held by the inherently fallible humans who participate in the system. And there are too many unknowns when complex issues of culpability arise: Who's insane, or not insane? Who's mentally retarded? Who’s too young to be executed? Who is telling the truth and who isn’t?
But it’s not just the judicial system that needs to be improved. Christianity Today notes a 1995 Hart Research poll showing that “…Police Chiefs ranked the death penalty dead last as an option for deterring violent crimes. Their preferred strategies included reducing drug abuse, providing jobs, simplifying court rules, lengthening prison sentences, and reducing availability of guns (in that order).”
Conventional wisdom says that most Americans support the death penalty, but a recent poll (The ABCNEWS.com) found that 65% of Americans support the death penalty when no alternative is offered. When given the sentencing option of life without the possibility of parole, only 46% of Americans support the death penalty.
Life imprisonment is a viable alternative to the death penalty. It’s a crushing punishment that some convicted killers reject in favor of execution. And life without parole is an even less costly alternative to the death penalty. According to the results of an Indiana study, it costs 35 percent to 38 percent more to execute a criminal than it costs to send someone to prison for life.
There are certainly valid arguments for and against the death penalty, and in the end it may be a more emotional issue than a rational one. I’ve had some emotional conversations about the death penalty with my brother, David, who is now retired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in northern Florida. Dave has prosecuted a number of men who were executed by the state, and he has no regrets.
In fact, he has described to me in vivid detail some of the murders and murderers he has prosecuted, and I confess that I was shocked. Too often we are blind to the horror of murder and the painful consequences on family and friends as well as society itself when a life is so brutally and unnecessarily taken. Perhaps there are people who deserve to die, the Bin Ladens and Timothy McVeighs who kill in such horrific and capricious ways.
But my question for you and for me is, “Do we deserve to be the ones who kill them?”
My fear is that by killing the killers we are tearing a hole in the fabric of our souls. Isn’t there a danger that we are becoming what we are destroying? Though none of us actually insert the poison into those who are executed, we are the executioners no less. We are responsible for taking the lives of these individuals, not knowing with certainty whether they truly deserve to live or die.
I know that if my wife, Terry, or any of my children were murdered I would be enraged, perhaps even enough to want the person responsible to die. But I am inspired by those who are able to move beyond such hatred.
You may know the story of Bud Welch. His daughter, Julie Marie, was, in his words, “the light of his life. She was so bright, so kind, and so caring. She was my friend and confidante. After graduating from college, Julie worked as a Spanish interpreter for the Social Security Administration in Oklahoma City. Every Wednesday, we met for lunch at a Greek restaurant across the street from the Murrah Federal Building. Our lunch date on Wednesday, April 19, 1995 was never to be.”
Julie Marie was murdered that day along with 167 others when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building. “…the pain I felt was unbearable. I was also filled with rage. I wanted Timothy McVeigh executed. I could have done it with my bare hands.”
“It took me a full nine months to get to the point where I didn't want the death penalty for them. One day, I went down to the bomb site. I sat under an old elm tree near where Julie used to park her car. I asked myself the question, 'How would it help me the day that Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were tried, convicted and executed?' I knew then that it wouldn't benefit me… I finally realized that the death penalty was nothing more than revenge and hate - and revenge and hate are exactly why Julie and 167 others are dead.”
I must agree with Bud Welch when he says, “It is wrong for the government to kill, no matter how heinous the crime. A person commits violence, and then our government compounds the violence. We somehow believe that we can teach our children not to kill by killing.”
I’m not sure I would have the moral strength of Bud Welch, but that is why we need to protect ourselves and our society by abolishing the death penalty now.
In the sacred books of the Hebrew people there is the story of Moses, near the end of his days, going before the people and saying: I have set out two paths before you, one is the path of death, the other the path of life; therefore choose life that you and your children may live. May we choose life over death.
Amen.
This I Believe
Personal Statement by Ric Blacksten
26 May 2002
Title: I Oppose Capital Punishment
In my capacity as Chair of the Task Force to Abolish the Death Penalty I have been invited to make this personal “This I Believe Statement.”
I believe that we make the meaning in our lives. I believe we must make, more than find, our own individual religion, so must choose for ourselves what religious teachings to honor.
I honor the teachings of the Jeffersonian Jesus who commanded us to love one another, to forgive one another.
I honor the teachings of the prophets when they commanded, “Thou shalt not kill.”
But I honor neither the Old Testament “God of Vengeance” nor the New Testament “God of Damnation.”
I believe there are times and situations—namely war—when we may justifiably kill fellow human beings in the defense of ourselves and our society.
But I do not believe that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime nor in any way protects us and our society.
I believe there are sick, twisted, wrongly wired persons among us who are beyond any means we have to reform them so must be removed from society and never allowed to return.
But I believe there is no justifiable reason to kill a safely incarcerated person.
In waging war I know that we will inevitably kill innocent non-combatants, and I consider that “collateral damage” as regrettably acceptable.
But I believe we need not, so should not, accept the collateral killing of innocent, wrongly convicted persons, which is inevitable under capital punishment.
I believe we should abolish the death penalty.
When we as a congregation are substantially in agreement on an issue, and when we can help effect important change in our society by passing and publicizing a congregational resolution on that position, then I believe we should do so.
But I respect the right of friends and members of our church to dissent from any such congregational position.
Our task force is presenting a resolution on the abolition of the death penalty for congregational approval at our annual meeting.
I believe we, as a congregation, should adopt that resolution.
