The Death Penalty

Several weeks ago I filed a column about my friend and colleague Bill Breeden, who had recently served as the minister for a man who was about to be executed,--“murdered” Bill called it. Bill had agreed to be in the death chamber with him when he died. Since that column was published I have gotten a score of replies by e-mail, by phone and on the street. Reviewing the responses, here is what I found.Most of the responders focused on Bill, and honored his faith and how he lived it. Only two referred to Corey Johnson, the man who was executed. Both said that said that they had no sympathy for him, and one expressed disgust, stating that Johnson had brutally murdered several people. The conclusion was this: he deserved what he finally got!

But there is another aspect to Bill’s belief and action; evidence of his radical commitment. His faith called him not only to give himself to an individual but also to the wider context that had allowed Corey Johnson’s execution. For Bill, the voice of Jesus was clear. While we are called to offer food to those who are hungry, we must also ask why they are hungry. Beyond that, we are called to overturn the societal structures that perpetuate hunger.

Even as Bill was with Corey Johnson and saw him executed, he has ministered to many others on death row. Now in later years he has also been dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment.

Increasing numbers of Americans are taking a fresh look both at both the morality and the efficacy of the death penalty. One of the consistent arguments in favor of capital punishment holds that it is a deterrent, a warning that violent crime will not go unpunished. Does it really deter serious crime? The overwhelming conclusion by those who have studied the matter and reported on their findings holds that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. In fact US states without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment.

It is also supported as simple justice echoing “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” a quotation taken from the Code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king, and echoed in the Old Testament. This position holds that punishment must fit the crime. But Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount responded, “You have heard it said, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you that if someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also…Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Gandhi commented that, “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.”

Others hold that the death penalty is necessary to bring comfort to families of those who have been murdered. However, interviews with members of these families fail to affirm that execution diminishes their grief. Beyond these arguments, what do they say about the American people? Is vengeance an appropriate response even to very serious crime?

Few nations have removed it from their list of available punishments. The following 14 nations still employ the death penalty, but in recent years its use has dramatically diminished: Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, the United States.

There are reasons to eliminate capital punishment.

There are increasing numbers of cases in which the already executed are later found to be innocent.

The death penalty eliminates any possibility of rehabilitation.

Even if it is only used in the most grievous cases, the barbaric way it is carried out says something about the darker nature of the American people.

An increasing number of US states have now rejected its use. Efforts by citizens groups, and dedicated individuals such as Bill Breeden, will hopefully bring an end to this barbaric practice.