October 31, 2004

                               A Halloween address on the Death Penalty

Happy Halloween!  What a terrific holiday.  Adults could act like children, eating candy, dressing up.  Neighbors, who don't ordinarily interact, will open their doors and give free candy in a peaceful demonstration of community in its finest.  Children parade through the neighborhoods with unbridled enthusiasm, stumbling over long princess gowns and oversized costume shoes.  Smiles sticky with candy.  Yet, like in all things, this is my perception. 

There is always another perception.  A few years ago, I was standing in front of the post office in Monument, Colorado, and I asked a woman what her children were going to be for Halloween.  "I hate Halloween," she said.  She thought it was an evil holiday.  And as a Christian from a fundamentalist perspective, she believed Halloween to be against her religion.  To me, this is a perfect example of people following a distorted belief system and a perfect example of people being stifled by a religion that operates out of fear.

In a 2001 Ontario Consultant on religious tolerance, B.A. Robinson reports on the death penalty in a similar context of distorted perceptions.  He explains that most of the liberal denominations of religions have formally opposed the death penalty, however the fundamentalist and conservative followers of various religions support the death penalty. The fundamentalists misperceive scriptures from the bible to justify their viewpoints.  According to Robinson's report, one fundamentalist Christian group held an assembly and agreed to approve capital punishment as a biblical position.  In fact, the proponent for the death penalty tried to justify their position by actually saying, "God authorizes punishment for murder after the Noahic flood, validating the legitimacy in human society."

In response to the fundamentalist's '"biblical position," abolitionist, Lowry argued against the fundamentalist group, saying, "You interpret the bible to conform to Southern mores, the same argument that was used to justify slavery.  That's why they dehumanized black folk so they could enslave them and there were a lot of biblical arguments for that."

But as Robinson points out, in the New Testament when Jesus approaches an adulteress who is about to be stoned to death, he says in John 8: 3 -11, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her."

It is a dangerous thing to pick out pieces of the bible like a smorgasbord and use it to justify own agendas.  What is important is to look into the meaning behind the scriptures.  In the story of the adulteress, we see Jesus responding not with judgment, but with love and compassion.

Let me tell you a story about a man of Islamic faith in the Sufi branch, who follows a similar way of love and compassion.  In Rachel King's book, "Don't Kill in our names," she speaks about a man, Azim Khamisa, who lost his son, Tariq, in a brutal murder.  Tariq was delivering pizza and was carjacked by a gang.  When he failed to hand over the pizza, a 14 year old boy, Tony Hicks, shot Tariq to death.

I wish I could talk the rest of the day about this case, because it is the epitome of forgiveness and grace.  Not only did Azim not go after the perpetrator with a vengeance, but he had compassion on the boy and blamed the failure on society for not steering the boy away from violence.  He actually looked at the perpetrator as a victim as well; a victim of societies' failure.

So in response, Azim set up a foundation involving the perpetrator's grandfather, called the Tariz Khamisa Foundation.  Its' mission is to help children solve conflict non-violently, and to end youth violence.  They set up programs and speak in schools, making a positive impact on the youth in our society.  In King's book, she gives about 10 examples of people who were relatives of homicide victims and did not wish to seek the death penalty.  She speaks about remarkable people who actually developed relationships with the rehabilitated perpetrator. 

According to King, Azim said, "the only way to defuse unabated anger is through forgiveness."  Azim has subsequently met Tony Hicks, the man who shot his son.  Hicks is in prison, a rehabilitated man.  Azim believes that because of forgiveness, all parties were healed at the soul level.  Azim calls for a justice system that is more holistic, and not based on retribution.

Let's now turn to the moral issue of capital punishment.  How can we as a society execute even one innocent man?  Doesn't that make us a country that condones state sanctioned killing?

In Stanley Cohen's book, "The Wrong men," Cohen talks about wrongful death row convictions as an "epidemic."  According to Cohen, from the Death Penalty Information Center, Cohen reports 102 cases between 1973-2002 in which innocent people were freed from death row.  This begs the question, so how many more have been executed if 102 were exonerated?

In Cohen's book, he talks about a 1998, national conference that was held at the Northwestern School of Law in Illinois, featuring 28 former death row prisoners who had been later proven innocent.  Folks, aren't we supposed to prove guilt in this country and not innocence?  Well subsequently, a professor, David Protess, was obviously taken with this conference, and had his students probe deeper into one of the cases of an exonerated man named Porter, and this parlayed into a center on wrongful convictions from 1999-2000.  The purpose was to identify and rectify wrongful convictions and other miscarriages of justice. 

Further in Cohen's book, he tells us that next, in January, 2000, the governor of Illinois at the time, George H. Ryan, once a supporter of the death penalty, declared a moratorium on executions in Illinois.  This launched a nationwide examination of the death penalty ever since.  It's amazing to me how a professor and his students in Illinois were a catalyst for these events, and how a small group of people really can make a difference.

Right now is such an important time for abolitionists of the death penalty. We are on the brink of serious breakthroughs that I believe will eventually lead to the abolition of capital punishment in this country. 

As we further probe into this heinous punishment, according to Cohen, we will find:

*DNA testing exonerating death row inmates

*Faulty trials that were found on eyewitness error, corrupt practices and misconduct

*Jailhouse snitches, false confessions and junk science used as evidence

*Corruption at the prosecution and judicial levels, as well as inadequate defense counsel

*Cases based on racial bias and economic injustice

In Hugo Bedau and Paul Cassell's book, "Debating the Death Penalty," they give an essay by Bryan Stevenson who says, "In the last year of the 20th century, the world's 'leading democracy' executed close to 100 of its residents.  All of the executed were poor, a disproportionately high number were racial minorities convicted of killing white victims, many were mentally ill, and some were juveniles at the time the crime occurred.  There is no meaningful assurance that all executed were guilty."

Subsequently, there has been a lot of activity in the Supreme Court regarding the death penalty.  The Supreme Court has recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a person who is mentally retarded.  And just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether or not it is unconstitutional to execute a juvenile.  The court is deliberating on these arguments as we speak. 

Let's turn now to the political question of capital punishment.  As a democracy, each one of us has the ability to make a difference.  Right now, we are the only westernized country in the world to implement the death penalty and the rest of the world finds our practices barbaric. 

The Supreme Court is the most important authority on the death penalty.  A president against capital punishment will be more likely to appoint a justice that coincides with abolitionist perspective.  Candidate John Kerry has boldly declared that he is against the death penalty.  And I say boldly, because other candidates who have shared this position, have been afraid to run for office.  Our vote for president could directly impact the abolition of the death penalty.  If John Kerry wins, he could be in the position to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.  A liberal justice, might swing the court to overturn the death penalty.

In 1972, a more liberal Supreme Court struck down the death penalty under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment.  However, many states revised their death penalty statutes, and the death penalty was reinstated for those states in 1976.  So not all states implement the death penalty, furthering a system that is already arbitrary and capricious.  A person is executed in this country because of where they live, what there race is, and how much money they have.

And speaking of money, it is much more expensive to implement the death penalty than to imprison someone.  In an internet report from the Amnesty Houston website, it is stated that in a 1992 Dallas Morning News Study, they found it cost the Texas taxpayers on average, 2.3 million dollars for a capital trial and appeals (not including the federal appeal process where 50 -70% are overturned).  In  comparison, the cost of housing an inmate in a single cell for life, cost approximately $750,000.

There are alternatives to the death penalty.  It is better to give life imprisonment than to execute, as they do in other Westernized countries.  But better yet, would be Azim Khamisa's idea of restorative and rehabilative justice.  I for see a world where we educate children from the beginning against violence, a world where every person is important, and if someone makes a bad choice, we help them.  They are hurting, too.  Of course we have to isolate them from society if they are dangerous, but couldn't it be done in a more restorative, holistic environment.  Our punitive system, actually creates more offenders when they get out of jail.  We need to move in the direction of rehabilative justice. 

How do we do this?  We vote,  we join local groups, we petition moratoriums.  Together, we can write letters to congress, participate in vigils, be part of a lobbying group.  We can make a difference. 

In Robinson's report he listed three groups as being exceptionally active in the fight against the death penalty.  He mentioned:  Mennonites, Quakers, and Unitarians.

So I am honored to be in your presence today.  And I want to end this speech with a call to action. Thank you and have a Happy Halloween.
 
Erica McIlroy