As a long-time opponent of the death penalty, I have been listening with considerable interest to the national debate on waterboarding and other forms of torture (now delightfully sanitized by the CIA as "enhanced interrogation techniques"). President Obama has repelled the popular notion that torture helps keep us safe in an era of terrorism. Instead, he says, it is our values that ultimately save us, not our ability to extract information from prisoners through a veil of pain and fear.
Opposition to the death penalty puts one at precisely the same intersection between expediency and principle. The inmates on death row are rarely perceived as nice people. Most of them (not all, but most) are guilty of the crimes for which they were sentenced, often horrendous in scope. They do not warrant our sympathy and in most cases they should never again walk freely beyond their prison walls. The cause of abolition is not about them, it is about us. It has to do with the values that are foundational to this nation and that define our place in a global society.
I can already hear the clucking of right wing tongues against bleeding heart liberals who do not have the stomach to do what is necessary to protect our nation from suicide bombers, rapists, and murderers. And, in fairness, many of those clucking tongues do not come from the political right alone. Positions on this issue do not fall cleanly along ideological lines. Often it is personal experience that shapes one's view.
The arguments against the death penalty are numerous--it is disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor, it is far more costly than life imprisonment, it is barbaric, it has taken the lives of the innocent, and there is no evidence that it serves as a deterrent. These and many similar arguments can be documented and are good and sufficient reasons to abolish it. But there is one that trumps them all: IT IS WRONG!
Arguing from moral principle, as Obama has with the torture issue, makes one an easy mark for those who argue from positions of self-righteousness, machismo, or expediency. The bad guys are clearly bad guys. There is no disagreement there. When people are afraid it is easy to let go of civil liberties, constitutional theories, and even logic. Fear becomes the defining issue that pushes others to the sideline.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is reported to have said "...if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." (Matthew 5:39 NRSV) By citing the teaching of Jesus I do not mean to build public policy around biblical proof texts. We have way too much of that already, often to our detriment. I mention it only because it is a principle found not only in the Judeo-Christian tradition but in most of the great religions of the world. Although it is often used by proponents of pacifism, I prefer to think of it as a broad social principle that rejects vengeance and violence and embraces human dignity and worth as one of the values that is at the foundation of our culture.
Believing in that principle is pretty simple. Living it is not. Rejecting torture in times such as these is one important message that speaks to the world about the soul of our nation. Becoming the last nation in the Western world to abolish the death penalty would demonstrate that Americans truly do believe in the culture of life of which we often speak, but all too rarely embody.
The pursuit of vengeance brings destruction to the soul.
ReplyDeleteThank you Grant.
-Willie King
It is unfortunate, however, the Obama chooses to pick and choose when it is expedient for him to be principled regarding torture and the rule of law. He was quick to denounce the use of torture, but just as quick to lobby the UK to keep silent on released suspects who alleged torture under Obama's administration.
ReplyDeleteHe is quick to recognize the rule of law by not torturing, but just as quick to consider America above the rule of law by refusing to investigate the torturers as is required under the Convention Against Torture which Reagan signed and the US Congress adopted as law.
Obama uses the same excuses as the Nazis did - that they were ordered to do it; that they were told it was legal - and for the same reasons we righteously didn't accept that excuse, so too should we not accept Mr. Obama's.
It's too bad those on death row were not the politically elite - perhaps Mr. Obama would be inclined to "look to the future and not the past" with respect to their transgressions as well.
Wrote an article awhile back about 'a Christians view of torture.' It is an awful shame so many Christians see nothing wrong in supporting this terrible thing.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the comment by Anonymous as to prosecuting Bush insiders, I find myself twisting a bit in the wind. On the one hand, I agree that no one should be above the law. However, I do think that there is a question of serving the greater good.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way that prosecuting the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and even Bush, would result in anything but political paralysis at a time when the country must be focused elsewhere. I think the national and even global impact would be devastating.
Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon was the right thing to do, even though it probably cost him reelection. The circumstances now are far more dire than in 1974. We cannot allow the distraction that would come from a political sideshow guaranteed by that process.
The Republican administration, whether candidate or policy, has been thoroughly repudiated by the American voter. That's enough for me in these turbulent times. History will render its judgment on those who took the nation down this slippery slope. The worm has turned. Let's move on.
That's the problem with principles, isn't it? They're so darn inconvenient.
ReplyDeleteIf we are truly against torture - then we need to punish those who engaged in it - otherwise what's to stop a future administration from doing the same,... or worse?
One primary justification for criminal punishment in general is deterrance. In the US, the deterrance for leadership to follow their legal commitments has been removed. The reason the Bush administration committed torture was not because they were evil (ok, not entirely) it was because there was no punishment for Reagan for Iran Contra and becaue there was no punishment for Nixon and Watergate.
By refusing to follow US and international law and not investigating these warcrimes, we are not only saying that we are generally not a nation of laws - but we are affirming and supporting future law-breaking.
Moreover, we are letting the world know (if they didn't already) that we don't follow our treaty obligations. How will this play out for Kyoto, or other important international measures?
So yes, by moving on, we may save some "distraction" - but in the process, we could undercut international environmental and economic cooperation and encourage future leaders to commit crimes by reinforcing US tradition of non-accountability (if you are in the right elite bracket).
What was that again about "the greater good?"
Well said, Grant. Thank you.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur
ReplyDelete"The cause of abolition is not about them, it is about us."
ReplyDeleteVery well put. I may plagarize that and use it the next time I'm having this debate. My experience is proponents of capital punishment always want to make the argument about whether the bad guy had it coming, putting the opponents in the unenviable position of defending Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden or explaining exactly how many murders by the bad guy should warrant one murder by the state.
I've always found that a false choice. It could be easily dismantled with several well-reasoned arguments, but doing so with one pithy, 12-word response was tricky. Thanks for providing it!
-Jeff