I am posting this statement because I take the prevalence of the death penalty in my home country very personally, and I simply do not think I could live with myself sitting back and saying nothing about it while ever greater numbers of convicts are being officially destroyed on my behalf, with my tax dollars, in the name of “justice.” Unpleasant as it may be to focus on this topic, it is important that attention be paid to it, and I do not believe in restraint from free expression just because some people might be offended, even at possible cost. Let them reflect deeply on their positions. This matter from my point of view is not “political,” but deeply personal on a basic, moral level, and it is too close to everything I stand for to go unaddressed in direct connection with my personal endeavors. It is important to me, at least, that all who cross paths with me know how strongly I feel about this barbaric practice and those who are gratified by it, and be challenged to do some deep, personal reflecting.

While execution teams are directly accountable for the sanctioned murders that they carry out - and let's not fail to call a spade a spade here - the actual origin of the madness lies in common citizens misguidedly embracing the practice of revenge and giving it their support, when in fact we should be handling each and every convict in a professional manner, without stooping to his supposed level. The majority of citizens in Canada and in most of Europe have ceased supporting revenge killing; why do many Americans remain so arrogant and preoccupied with materialism that they cannot see a basic light of spiritual truth in a timely manner?

The issue, complicated though it may seem, boils down in fact to a simple question: In the course of setting limits, teaching necessary lessons, or protecting ourselves from danger, what role does so-called “punishment” play? Posed in slightly different terms, do the consequences for committing a crime assist in promoting constructive results for the community without backfiring or perpetuating vicious cycles of victimization, or are they merely serving to gratify an angry ego or two for a period of time, in the name of “closure?” It seems to me that “making someone pay” is an arrogant and ignorant act in itself, easily distinguishable on an objective level from notions of protecting the rights and safety of the community, standing firmly for virtue, or promoting character and healing. It seems to me that only the baggage of human ego prevents people in too many instances from thinking in an educated manner and making this basic distinction.

In contrast to necessary limit-setting, teaching, or protecting, revenge killing accomplishes nothing of a constructive nature. It teaches no lesson of inherent value beyond reminding us continually of how far the hatreds of the human ego are capable of going when people feel victimized. It does not deter crime any more than the promise of imprisonment would anyway. It does not promote healing or true closure for anyone; how can it, when closure is being defined in terms of satisfying the vindictive instincts of human ego, rather than promoting enlightenment, compassion, and understanding? Nor does it save us from unnecessary expenses involved in imprisoning the accused for life (in view of the average cost of trying a capital case), not that this question ever deserves to be raised in connection with such a basic moral issue involving principles of humanity. To be sure, punitive killing does have its effects; it effectively degrades all of us to a level beneath the accused, who at least may be honest enough in some cases to admit that he is not above error. It robs additional families of their beloved members, thereby creating even more victims, rather than genuinely promoting any kind of peace or healing for anyone. As such, it compounds problems and ruins lives while deceptively gratifying a few grieving egos who might better channel their anger toward protecting others from victimization, rather than longing to see the perpetrator fry reciprocally within a high-voltage circuit or be poisoned by malpracticing health professionals to the further victimization of another family or community. In the eyes of the arguably more civilized nations of the world, revenge killing drags us down as a people, substantially robbing us of credibility as a beacon of enlightened humanity in the world.

With the administration of death as “punishment” so utterly out of control within our borders, we in the United States have a long way to go if moral greatness is our goal. What we have at present is a profoundly sick and cowardly institution running rampant in our country to the decided detriment of everyone, which is why it strikes me as my inescapable moral duty to speak out against it in any way possible, - not solely on behalf of condemned or incapacitated individuals who may or may not be guilty of the charges against them, but more fundamentally, on behalf of what I know in my heart to be the universally ethical position on the subject, inherently above consensus. For whatever reason, too many people nowadays are deluding themselves into connecting righteousness with vengeance or even gene pool cleansing, and everyone pays when this delusion leads to misguided actions that perpetuate victimization or cycles of violence. Rather than imitating by our actions the magnanimous spirit of our Creator, Americans demonstrate all-too-often the unfathomable arrogance to play God by inducing involuntary death and calling it justice.

How much evidence do we need that punitive killing in the name of “righteousness” is universally, inherently unethical and a blasphemous insult to God Himself? Instinct alone perhaps should make us aware of this fact, if our instincts are guided by higher thought and inspiration, rather than by the base passions of mortal ego. Since Christianity is still the most prominent religion in the United States and is often used misguidedly to rationalize relished notions of retribution, a reference to Christian scripture may be fitting in this connection. Let us not twist this passage out of context to suit any vicious agenda of human ego; for anyone with half a brain knows that Jesus stood for compassion and humanity toward sinners, and not for evening so-called scores in pompous wrath. That Jesus refused to support death as vindictive retribution is plainly illustrated in John 8:3-11 as follows:

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they said unto Him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now, Moses and the law commanded us that such should be stoned: what sayest thou?” This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger, wrote on the ground. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.” And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard, being convicted by conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted himself up and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more.”

Some may argue that the contents of many scriptures have been altered from their original forms along the way by various clergymen and thus cannot be taken too seriously in their present forms. Regrettably, this proposition is probably true; but is it reasonable to suggest that the last few lines in the passage above were added in a later century by some disgruntled Pope who wanted to justify his position on punitive killing through fabrication of scripture? It makes much more sense to speculate that these words found their way into scripture because Jesus actually spoke words to this effect and actually stood for a compassionate approach toward even the most unfortunate souls who have lost their way. It should be clear to anyone that a belief in the vindictive killing of sinners cannot be reconciled with the true essence of Christianity, nor of God, no matter what earlier scriptures may say.

I was first moved to post a statement of this type, plus a set of links, after the sheer publicity of a recent official destruction of a human being in the United States recalled to mind the mob mentality of the guillotine picnics and left me with a sense that we literally are back in the dark ages, where we may be doomed to remain until our collective spiritual wisdom by some miracle or planetary cycle manages to catch up with all our developing technological conveniences. The killer who was so artfully poisoned in a publicly self-righteous spirit on June 11, 2001 may not deserve specific mention, and in fact my concern is not about him in particular, except for the fact that in my lifetime of 34 years (at the time), he was the first victim of that instrument being carried out directly under the banner of a government which is supposed to represent me as a citizen. Thus, for the first time in my life, someone has forcibly snuffed out a life directly on my behalf, as though to reassure me that I am a beneficiary of righteousness and can rest now in the light of darkness. Is anyone really that expendable in the entirety of his being, convoluted though his thoughts and actions may have been? His willing services could have been used within the confines of his cell for any number of constructive purposes, and I do not mean on a chain gang, nor in “Tent City.” (The lowlifes who conduct these latter types of institutions might want to rethink their lives while they still have a chance.)

Instead of any kind of justice or closure prevailing in the wake of that dark event, yet another family now has lost a member, and no one has gained anything except perhaps a false, smug sense of vindication to reinforce some cherished delusion about the nature of justice. Furthermore, where someone manages to get an initial foot in the door in any given context, an identical incident tends to follow soon thereafter, as though invited by the encouragement. Sure enough, another federal lethal injection did follow after a mere few days, seemingly launching us all on a perpetual course of degeneration analogous to George Orwell's Animal Farm shortly after the Battle of the Cowshed.

Incidentally, my age (disclosed above) may be seen by some as tending to reaffirm what they imagine to be a certain rashness inherent in my style of expression. Some may go so far as to counsel me, coming from the conventional presumption that seniority necessarily correlates with wisdom, particularly the supposed wisdom of mellowness and humble caution in word selection. In my estimation, there is no wisdom in dumbing down one's expressed opinions to conform to the kind of mellowness that aged mediocrity wants to see. Those who would counsel me on the supposed maturity of cautious expression may as well be advised that my present lifetime is not my first, and that anyone who believes in punitive killing or in stifling creativity for the sake of conventionalism is already effectively my junior. Let him instead match the humanity and writing ability which are so threatening. Besides, who is mellower - indeed, who is humbler - the one who condemns the miscreant harshly and calls it justice, or the one who resourcefully and conscientiously runs some fierce risks, as Jesus did, to uphold the righteousness of clemency for even the lowest of humankind?

The relatives of murder victims know only too acutely that whatever passes for justice within the system is never sweet enough to bring back the deceased. Does it not follow that the only true justice following a violent act lies in the prevention of further violence and in the saving of lives? Why is imprisonment thought by some to be not enough? Where there can be no ultimate justice (at least on Earth) in connection with a tragedy, why do some people in their search for a “next best thing” settle upon further violence as a makeshift itch-scratcher for the aggrieved - at a direct and ultimate price for another family or community?

One of the most pressing and well-founded arguments for abolishing the death penalty is the fact that executions can be and have been inflicted on the innocent, and in some cases botched. In a big way, they are still being botched up frequently, and many graphic descriptions of sloppy, almost creative blunders in attempting a neat and efficient violation of the Sixth Commandment are available for review at this unfortunate link. While these facts may be powerful eye-openers, there should be no less alarm in the knowledge that the madness is being inflicted at least twice as frequently on the guilty; for the plain fact, of which we should never lose sight, is that this entire practice is an abomination to its very core. Those who have committed the most heinous crimes are often victims themselves who may need some compassionate understanding, or at least an opportunity to grow through the possible development of deep remorse. How does ending someone's life prematurely serve anything but the arbitrary gratification of a victim's raw ego? Consider the words of Thomas Carlyle, who said that “A great man shows his greatness by the way he treats little men.” Do these words mean that the greatest people have the courage to retaliate in the most monumental or dramatic manner - or that God-like humility, compassion, and “amazing grace” are the keys to true greatness?

The idea that justice may be inherent in an act of “getting even” is widely acknowledged to represent one of the lowest levels of moral reasoning, in contrast to noble principles based on notions of universal ethics. According to the model of moral reasoning put forth by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, individuals who contend that just exchanges are equal exchanges are thinking (to say the least) on a primitive level which leaves much to be desired. Great numbers of Americans appear to be reasoning in exactly that manner in regard to the death penalty question. In truth, “fairness” by its very definition does not mean that the miscreant gets what he or she had dealt; it means that the convict and all other parties involved get what they truly need for necessary growth, within ethical limits. Does inducing involuntary death really assist in the necessary growth of either party, - or does it promote delusion and delay the genuine growth of both? While holding people accountable is necessary at times, all of us would do well to recognize that there is nothing but mean crookedness inherent in actively seeking to “even a score.” We might best consider the administration of ultimate justice to be the exclusive department of our Creator, whose nature would seem to be grace, peace, and conscience, not pompous wrath.

A truly “just” attitude looks upon the lowest of miscreants and confides privately to one's heart, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” The only true “justice” possible in the wake of a vicious crime for which the perpetrator has been incarcerated would seem to lie in seeking genuinely to assist or to educate others, especially by setting a living example of broad-minded, magnanimous understanding toward those who need it - the very example which Jesus sought to model. Especially when we have been victimized, we need to conquer all high-blown arrogance, remembering that it is only by the grace of a higher power that we ourselves have not become afflicted with the same misfortune that led a particular miscreant down a dark path. We may not always be able to understand the mind or background of the accused. He may give the impression of being callous or coldly calculating by nature, and maybe he is; yet we often do not have any way of knowing for certain what is going on with such a person and can only speculate. How can anyone ever presume to know that death is what would serve him best? Even the infamous terrorist who was executed by the American legal machine on June 11, 2001 did not “deserve” to die, for he was human; as with his victims, his life had been given to him by a higher power, whose will we all crossed on that fateful day, just as he had done.

The concept of “deserving death” does not even make sense. Life is not something that is “deserved” or “not deserved;” it simply is, and it is not ours to take, no matter what someone may have misguidedly chosen to do. Does a dead person feel the pain of his “punishment” any more acutely by the forcible loss of his body, or do his family and friends bear the brunt of it? Does a sudden experience of being discarnate make it any easier to reach a point of remorseful repentance of past wrongs, or does it perhaps delay that development to a future lifetime? Why is it not enough to admit that we do not understand some person, and leave it at that, without presumptuously “killing him back for what he did to us?” It seems prudent to remember always that we are no more different in natural potential from the lowest of humankind than we are from the most spiritually aware. Had any particular one of us not been blessed with certain gifts or opportunities, we might have ended up as easily on a comparable path of darkness, for one's eventual harvest always depends greatly on what has been sown in one's mind and background. No one, therefore, is inherently above the lowest of the low in basic nature, but only in degree of development made possible by divine grace given along the way. Those who are deprived for whatever reason of the spiritual nourishment which they had needed are that much more likely to lose touch with themselves and to lose sight of where they are headed, and it is only by the grace of a higher power that some of us have not fallen into that same type of predicament. No one is expendable as a person, not even those who have dismissed other lives misguidedly as “collateral damage,” and those who seek reciprocally to expend a human life in conscious spite of such wisdom would seem to have karmic lessons coming to them just as surely as they presumably will come to the convict who is directly guilty of violent crime.

Where, then, does the spirit of righteousness in killing come from, if not alone from some notion of revenge? It is said by some that this “righteousness” lies in the sense of “closure” for the victims of the one being killed in turn by society. If you have lost a loved one to the tragic actions of a violent criminal, consider this question: How can there be any kind of “closure” for you when you know that a retribution is now occurring at the close, personal expense of another family now being victimized in turn, and how do you propose to console or to compensate the friends and family of the condemned who now are being robbed reciprocally of a part of themselves, and for something they did not do? Some might answer selfishly that they have no reason to care about the welfare of strangers, for the matter has no bearing on their own lives. Should it be rationalized that such self-centeredness is merely the way of the world - that the relatives of the condemned simply need to take what life is dealing them and make the best of their situation, and that that is all there is to it? Or should we finally give up this ego-based relishing of revenge - indeed, this frequent rationalization that endorsements of punitive life-taking could be arising from anything else, - and take care not to burden other families with the same grief that the original victims had been put through?

Some relatives of murder victims channel their grief and anger, commendably, into helping others, rather than seeking to retaliate against a portion of humanity. Such people truly deserve our respect and admiration, as they are setting living examples of the compassionate outlook, examples which others would do well to emulate. If you are among those victims who proudly feel gratified by the reciprocal violence of public vindictiveness, I can only admit that I feel sorry for you up to a point, but that I get tired of empathetic expressions that seem hypocritical, when in fact you should be sharply called upon to reflect deeply upon the impact of your victim-conscious attitudes. What exactly does the Sixth Commandment mean, especially in the “Bible Belt,” where the omnipresence of sanctioned murder suggests a lot of confusion on this subject? Is this Commandment considered applicable only to common citizens, whereas governments are somehow exempt? How do we explain this kind of logic to a young child? So-called “capital punishment” - indeed, any form of “punishment” as something distinct from necessary protection or limit-setting - is always a presumptuous activity which typically has the effect of destroying rather than creating or healing, starting with the destruction of trust, reciprocity, and love. If these elements are destroyed, on what path are things now headed, and who will pay in the end?

Even if “punishment” in any given context is supposed to serve a useful purpose, how does one get around the conclusion that the punitive action is constructive only to the extent that it teaches its recipient a valuable lesson and paves the way for some form of rehabilitation or restitution, or at the very least, some form of growth on a spiritual level? If the one being “punished” is not even alive to learn his lesson or to develop remorse, what is accomplished by the punitive act, other than another mindless gratification of another grieving ego at the direct expense of another family? The basic question of whether two wrongs make a right is precisely the question at hand in the matter of the death penalty, and it seems safe to bet one's life on the proposition that two wrongs do not make a right under any circumstances, ever. Why, then, do some people continue to insist otherwise, if not to uphold a base relishing of mob justice within their egos, perhaps under a perpetual delusion that their reasoning has nothing to do with vindication?

Please take a look at the map at the top of this page and ask yourself whether you perhaps see a pattern somewhat reminiscent of the slavery issue not too many decades ago. A civil war once was fought in our nation while it was being torn apart by sectional differences in connection with an issue involving many of the same elements as that of the death penalty. Then, as now, the north tended, generally speaking, to be more morally attuned in regard to the issue in question, whereas the south tended to be more narrow and vainly self-righteous about what most southerners must have known to be a great wrong. Take another look at the map if you are inclined toward skepticism on this point. With all due respect to free-thinking southerners who practice tolerance, the southern states for whatever reason have a long history of perpetuating in similar contexts a vindictive approach to classes of people who differ in some fundamental way from the ruling majority. These states also have been well known for rationalizing misguided attitudes by twisting Biblical passages out of context to suit their own prejudices and domineering habits. Although they now are doing better in some ways, the southern states have not been especially noted over the decades for welcoming necessary societal changes in regard to how certain groups of people within the sphere of their influence ought to be treated. The map speaks for itself and does not command any surprise; it may point indeed to a possible cause of our present problem, namely, sectionally enculturated prejudice centered in the former cotton kingdom.

The continued popularity of officially violating the inalienable right to life is being rationalized in many of the same ways, and most prominently in the same states, as the slavery issue of an earlier generation. The “eye for an eye” rationale does not work for me, because I cannot conceive of that Biblical passage as reflecting an invitation to take God's work into our own hands, nor do I interpret it as such any more than Jesus did. If Jesus had supported the idea of returning violations in kind, he would not have directly refuted the “eye for an eye” concept (Matthew 5:38-39) and admonished us to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). On the other hand, “Thou shalt not kill” could not be easier to decipher, and it seems like quite a stretch to interpret this Commandment as, “Thou shalt not commit illegal murder, but government executions are okay.”

We all know that our judicial system is flawed, as are the human beings who sit on juries; so why should anyone feel that conviction by a jury is ever sufficient assurance of actual guilt to send a person to his death? We all know that not all who are convicted have done the crime. Is the functionality of the system the bottom line, even in connection with life and death? Why indeed are such pragmatic questions as deterrence and financial economics ever called into question in connection with a matter of such basic morality? Are suicide bombers deterred by death? Is our tax money somehow more important than someone's God-given life and spiritual growth? While the death penalty has never been shown to deter crime any more than imprisonment does, and while it is less expensive to imprison someone for life than to try him in a capital case, it seems rather conniving to dwell on such points that are tangential, after all, to the morality of the question at hand and that distract from it far too often.

Perhaps too many people value their personal comfort and convenience more than the clean conscience which comes from doing what they know is right. Perhaps too many people will stop at nothing to uphold a misguided way of thinking in defense of their precious pride. The practice of killing people is supposed to be illegal and wrong, and there can be no sound reason for drawing any type of distinction between illegal murder and legalized execution. The two acts are one and the same from an ethical point of view. While some convicts are calculatingly vicious, they are still people, and each of them potentially has a human interest story to tell and something of value to offer the world. When we have them put down like unqualified livestock, we rob and degrade ourselves, and I take being robbed very personally. Any executioners reading these words may as well be advised that your assumed line of work in my mind places you morally on a level with crocodiles. Go ahead and write to me in protest, executioner, and to your sorry face I will elaborate.

Such is not to imply that the American prison systems which commonly prevail today are a magical answer to any problem. Modern prisons - particularly those with reputations for pronounced toughness - are highly flawed bureaucracies which are largely ineffective (to say the least) at accomplishing anything other than the unnecessary perpetuation of pain and criminal behavior. It is well known that they generally tend to foster further crime by a perpetual climate of pompous abuse, rather than promoting any kind of constructiveness or healing, and none more efficiently than those disgraceful supermaxes, pink Alcatrazes, and desert cities. (Let all who conduct these last-mentioned institutions be shamed.) So if challenging the perpetrator to an abusiveness contest is not the answer to the complex problem of violent crime, then what is? There may not be an easy solution, but we might start with a refreshed understanding of what this “punishment” business really is - base ego gratification. The function of a prison is supposed to be the protection of society from dangerous people, along with the promotion of rehabilitation to whatever extent may be possible. Where a punitive element begins to introduce itself because of ego-oriented notions of vindication and perhaps a perceived hope of deterrence, there is where the problems begin, and there is where something needs to be overhauled in someone's thinking if we are to find a truly workable solution.

If the source of the problem is inherent in the very concept of punishment (a concept quite distinct from that of natural consequence or necessary protection), is the corollary really that difficult to fathom? We need to find ways of managing personal ego and promoting the professionalism and humanity which are supposed to prevail at all levels within any kind of public system. But then again, “Duh!” This idea is centuries old, yet somehow it is remarkably slow to take hold in the minds of the masses. A large percentage of the population somehow fails to comprehend what “punishment” really is and how ruthlessly the human ego is capable of avenging and rationalizing actions when it feels aggrieved. The only sound position available to an intelligent, thinking person is that any act of ultimate retribution is an act of reciprocal violence, by human ego, toward another segment of humanity. Any such retaliation therefore is a violation of you and me. There is no other sane way of looking at it, unless we somehow reconcile sanity with a denial of the inherent oneness of humanity or with some notion of each person being a mean island unto himself.

The links below lead to topics which are not especially enjoyable, but perhaps they will help in some way to stop this menace to humanity which is spiraling utterly out of control. Please follow them and do whatever you can to help put an end to that pathological practice. The time has come for all who believe in revenge to soften up and leave vengeance to heaven, and some of us are looking forward to seeing that happen within our lifetimes, if not yesterday.

LINKS:

Death Penalty Information Center: general information topics.

Botched Executions. If nothing else, at least look at this one; it's your tax money.

Innocence and the Death Penalty

Costs and financial facts about the death penalty

Deterrence studies and the death penalty

Race and the Death Penalty

Public opinion about the death penalty

DPIC: The Death Penalty in 2007: Year End Report

DPIC: The Death Penalty in 2006: Year End Report

Death Penalty Focus

Campaign to End the Death Penalty

Amnesty International's program to abolish the death penalty

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on the death penalty

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP)

Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty

Religious Organizing Against the Death Penalty

Catholics Against Capital Punishment

Fight the Death Penalty in the United States

NO to the Death Penalty, International Campaign

Human Rights, death penalty links (many links)

The Case Against the Death Penalty

Death Penalty Information and Resources

A Declaration of Life

Death Penalty