Worth, Dignity, and Capital Punishment
Sermon by Stephen D. Edington
October 15, 2000
Worth, Dignity, and Capital Punishment
In sketching out a sermon schedule for the fall, I decided I'd write some of them with an eye to the Presidential campaign, speaking to some of the issues that I see as germane as we choose, in a little over three weeks from now, a new Chief Executive. One of the reasons I've chosen to address the matter of the death penalty, however, is because it does not appear to be an issue as we prepare to elect a new President. While they may differ on the circumstances under which they would use it, both the Vice President and the Governor of Texas support the death penalty, with the State of Texas leading the nation in executions. The only time the issue has come up in this campaign was in last Wednesday's debate when Governor Bush approvingly noted that the three men responsible for the horrible, racist-inspired murder of James Byrd, who was chained to the back of a pick-up truck and dragged to death, were going to be put to death themselves. The main response from the media was to correct the Governor by noting that it is two of the three men convicted of this heinous crime who are under the sentence of death. The chief criticism of the Governor came from the lawyers handling the sentencing appeals of the two condemned men.
The last Presidential candidate of a major party to oppose the death penalty was the then Governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis, in 1988. The way in which he fumbled a question during one of the debates about what his response would be if someone were to rape and murder his wife, was one of a number of factors Mr. Dukaksis' opponents used to portray him as an ineffectual individual who was not up to handling the Presidential office. Four years later then Governor Clinton interrupted his campaign for the Presidency to be in Little Rock, Arkansas during the execution of Ricky Rector, a man whose mental capacities were so diminished that, by all reliable accounts, he was not even aware that his last meal was his last meal.
It appears, then, that support for the death penalty has become something of an article of faith for those who seek the highest office in our land. To oppose it is a political liability. In the New York Senate race one of the few points of agreement between Representative Lazio and Mrs. Clinton is that they have both expressed support for the death penalty. Closer to home, our own Governor last year vetoed a bill that would have outlawed the death penalty in New Hampshire. Her veto may well have reflected her personal views, but it had to have been cast with at least one eye on her forthcoming re-election effort. So, as I say, it's very politically risky these days to oppose capital punishment at whatever level of office one may be running for. But the fact that it has become, by and large, a political non-issue is a issue in and of itself, I feel. Has it become so accepted that we need not even talk about it anymore?
Those of you who have heard me speak from this pulpit for a long or short time know that I prefer to keep my sermons upbeat. I want people to leave our services with positive, uplifted spirits. Capital punishment, I readily admit, is not an upbeat subject--for either its opponents or proponents. But it's one that needs addressing for a variety of reasons, I believe. It does raise questions about some of our core values and principles as Unitarian Universalists about how justice is best served and about what we mean when we speak of the "inherent worth and dignity" of all people.
Even if I think it's morally wrong to execute any of the three men who dragged James Byrd to death, do I believe there is any "worth and dignity" contained in their lives? Are there some human beings whose depraved actions have demonstrated that they've become so cut off from any humanity of their own, that they should forfeit their very right to be alive? These are not easy questions for persons who stand in a faith tradition that views and affirms human beings in a largely positive light. Those, many of those anyway, who support the death penalty claim that they are in fact making a positive statement about the value of human life. By ridding society of those who have shown a complete disregard for human life, so their argument goes, we are in fact affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Personally I don't accept that, but I'll grant it's an argument a reasonably minded person could make. My response to that, however, is to say that even if I accept this argument in principle, do we have a system of justice in this country that assures that such a principle can be fairly and flawlessly carried out? The answer to that question is increasingly becoming "no we do not;" which is why the arguments against capital punishment are now more pragmatic or operational than they are philosophical or religious. But, I'm getting ahead of myself here.
I want to come at this troubling topic from three angles. First I believe the death penalty serves neither the purposes of deterrence or justice. Second, even if it did we do not have a system of justice that would permit it to be fairly enacted. And third, the presence of capital punishment in this country has a demeaning effect upon those who administer it, and ultimately upon us all.
Perhaps I should start by posing for myself a variation on the same question that was put to Governor Dukakis during the 1988 Presidential campaign. What would be my response were I to come home one day and find my wife and son had been murdered. As horribly incomprehensible as that is for me to comprehend, my gut reaction would probably be to get a gun, track down whoever did it, and blow that individual's brains out. The reality check here is that the last time I had a loaded gun in my hands I was 17 years old and was taking supervised target practice with a .22 caliber rifle. That was my last experience with weaponry. So I probably couldn't exact that kind of revenge even if I truly wanted to. But I think any opponent of the death penalty--as I am--also needs to at least try to comprehend the life-long devastating effect on the family and loved ones of a murder victim. The issue I'm looking to raise with this gruesome scenario, however, is that since there are both laws and practicalities that would prevent me from personally getting revenge for the murders of loved ones, is it the proper role of the state to exact revenge or retribution on my behalf by executing the killer?
I frame the question this way because it's quite clear to me, at least, that the death penalty is enacted for reasons of revenge and retribution rather than for reasons of deterrence. About three weeks ago there was a rather comprehensive article in the New York Times showing that over the past 25 years the homicide rates in states with the death penalty have been consistently and markedly higher than in states that do not have the death penalty. I'll not load a bunch of eye-glazing figures on you here, but the evidence was pretty clear. Consider just this one statistic: Taken together states with the death penalty saw on an annual basis 4 more homicides, per 100,000 people, than states that do not have it; and that difference remained consistent, as I say, over a 25 year period from 1970-1995. The presence of death penalty does not, in any way, assure that less murders will happen; the evidence, in fact, runs to the contrary.
Since there is, then, no demonstrable deterrent effect then why do we have the death penalty in 38 of our 50 states, and at the federal level as well? The usual answer is so that just retribution will be served for the families and loved ones of the victims; and I'm sure that there are any number of cases where family members have felt justice was done following the execution of the one who killed their son, daughter, wife, husband, etc. But consider this: Tragically, some 25,000 persons are murdered each year in this country, which is not all that unusual in a nation where practically anybody who wants to get their hands on a gun can do so. About 1% of those--250 are prosecuted as capital crimes each year. About 20% of those, 50 persons, on average, are executed each year--the preponderance of those being in the State of Texas. Twenty five thousand murders and 50 executions. If the purpose of capital punishment is, in fact, to serve justice for the family and friends of murder victims it's not being served up in very large proportions now is it? My own view is that the death penalty serves only a ritualistic purpose, and an illusory one at that. We select out and execute a miniscule percentage of those who commit murder each year as a way of convincing ourselves that we're being tough on murderers. It's a ritual that perpetuates an illusion.
But don't I think there are certain crimes that are so horrible that the perpetuators should pay for them with their lives? Yes, in fact I do. It's how I feel they should pay with their lives that separates me from proponents of the death penalty. To be deprived for a lifetime of the liberty that does indeed give us life is a just response to certain deeds. Among the most horrific crimes of 20th century America were the 9 murders which Charles Manson instigated in August of 1969 in Los Angeles, California; and for which he was later convicted. The gory and grisly details need not be recounted here. If you were around then you probably remember them. Manson is serving 9 life terms in a state prison in Corcoran, California. He'll be there for the rest of his life. On the day he dies, he will have paid for his crimes with his life. It will have just taken him longer to repay that debt than he had been put to death on a designated date.
Second point: Even if the death penalty, in the abstract, can be defended, we do not have a system of justice that allows for it to be justly enacted. This is the point on which the capital punishment debate is currently turning. Last spring, George Ryan, the Governor of Illinois and a death penalty proponent, suspended executions in his State after several capital convictions had been overturned and he felt he could not in good conscience let any executions continue. Just two weeks ago, in the State of Virginia, a borderline mentally retarded inmate named Earl Wilson was released from death row as evidence came forward that he did not commit the rape and murder for which he was convicted in 1982. He is the 88th person to be released from death row in the past 38 years in light of subsequent evidence. The Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington DC based investigatory organization, reports that between 1993 and 1999, an average of 4.6 persons per year were released from death row either on evidence of innocence, or on evidence that their crimes were not of the severity for which they were originally convicted. There is also a preponderance of evidence available ("preponderance of evidence;"I apologize for the lawyerese here) that there is a clear racial bias present in the administering of the death penalty. Again, just one piece of that large collection of evidence: Of the 500 persons executed between 1977 and 1998, 82% were convicted of murdering a white person, even though blacks and white are victims of homicide in almost equal numbers nationwide. What this demonstrates is that, all other things being more or less equal, killing a white person in this country is more of a capital offense than is killing a black person.
Now, think of those 88 people who have been released from death row over the past 38 years. Consider also that over 500 people have been executed during roughly that same span of time. Did the system work? Was it only those 88 who did not "deserve to die" while the other 500+ did? How do we know? The point, it seems to me, is we don't know with complete certainty. This is why the current Executive Director of Amnesty International--and former President of our Unitarian Universalist Association--Rev. William F. Schulz stated in a letter to the New York Times back on September 26 (2000): "What these studies show and what the American people are realizing is that the death penalty is unnecessary and beyond repair. There should be a moratorium on state and federal executions." This is also why our UU Association, at last June's General Assembly passed a Resolution of Immediate Witness calling for the end of the death penalty in America. I've placed copies of it on the Information Table.
I'll close on this second point with this observation: I can accept the fact that people of good will, even good UUs, can differ with me on philosophical, religious, and moral grounds on this matter of the death penalty. I know also that there are certain cases they can point to bolster their case. Didn't John Wayne Gacy "deserve to die" at the hands of the State of Illinois in 1978 for the deaths of 33 young men that he had also sexually abused and then hid their bodies in a crawl space under his house? Didn't Ted Bundy "deserve to die" at the hands of the State of Florida in 1989 after murdering at least 36 young women on a cross country killing spree? Doesn't Timothy McVeigh, now on federal death row "deserve to die" for blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 171 innocent men, women, and children?
I'll acknowledge that if there is such a thing as "deserving" to die, then person such as these do qualify. But given some of what I've just cited, under our current criminal justice system, in order to execute individuals such as these we also, at some time, somewhere, and somehow are going to execute either an innocent person or someone whose crime does not rise nearly to the level of the heinous deeds perpetrated by persons such as these. That to me is not an acceptable trade-off. Let persons like those I've just mentioned pay for their crimes instead with the burden of a life deprived of liberty, and with the life-long knowledge of the evil they have done.
Last point: Contrary to the argument that the death penalty makes a positive statement about how much we honor and value life, I think it demeans us as society in which it is accepted and used. This, I believe, is why 68 countries around the world have abolished the death penalty altogether. Do we really want to say that there are some human lives that have become, by their actions, so irredeemable that the only thing to do is extinguish them? I think of Carla Tucker. Her crime of killing two individuals with a pick-axe while high on drugs was indeed horrible. A jury and judge and appeals courts all said she deserved to die. But nobody in the Texas criminal justice system later questioned the sincerity of her conversion to Christianity during her imprisonment. Everyone familiar with the situation acknowledged that she had become a positive influence on her fellow inmates, bringing a little life and hope and joy to their generally sad and sorry lives. She never asked for, and in no way expected, her freedom. She only wished to be spared execution so she could spend the remainder of her days trying in some small way to lift the spirits of her fellow inmates. The powers that be in that State saw otherwise. The ruling was that she "deserved to die;" and it was not to be reversed. Do we really want to take the position that some human lives are totally beyond redemption and need to be weeded out? As horrified as I am by the evil that some human beings can perpetuate upon other human beings, that is a stance I cannot in good faith accept.
This past week, the New York Times columnist Bob Herbert devoted two of his op-ed pieces to the effect the numerous executions now taking place in Huntsville, Texas is having upon the people who actually have to administer them. He writes of a guard, Fred Allen, who had a nervous breakdown after assisting in 130 executions. Nobody, Mr. Herbert points out, wants to set these people free. But those who have to do the actual work of killing are losing some of their life too. Mr. Allen, following his breakdown, was asked if his views on the death penalty had changed. "Yes," he answered, "There's nothing wrong with an individual spending the rest of his life in prison." The chaplain in this same prison, who has been present for 95 executions says, "You do three a year is one thing. You do 35 a year, that's a lot... Lots of guards quit. Even the tough guards you talk about, a lot of those quit." And even the warden of the Huntsville prison Jim Willett, is having his doubts: "I'm retiring next year, and this is something I won't miss a bit. You know, there are times when I'm standing there (during a execution) and I wonder whether what we are doing here is right. It's something I'll think about for the rest of my life." That's the warden speaking; ane he's someone who is much closer to the reality of the death penalty than any of us most likely will ever be.
To return to where I started, and to put forth yet another question: What is it about the death penalty that causes persons across a fairly wide range of the political spectrum to endorse it? Can one no longer be elected President, or Senator, or Governor if they begin to raise some of the same questions as does the warden at the Huntsville penitentiary? We need not avert our eyes to the evil deeds men and women are indeed capable of in order to question whether executing a small percentage of those who do such deeds somehow makes us a more humane and uplifted society. I fail to see how it does.
Let us continue to celebrate the gift of our lives. Let us continue to find ways to extend our life-gift to others. May the light within each of us grow and enrich our souls. Let us think, and reflect, and reach deep within ourselves for our response to some of the more troubling and challenging matters that confront us. Then let each of us act in ways that embody the values we hold, with our conscience being our guide. For this is what it means to be people of faith, believing in life.
Copyright © 2000 by the Unitarian-Universalist Church of Nashua NH. All rights reserved.
