To jump to the current version of this note (at my new address!!), click here.
The Barbarians at Our Gates Are Us---the Duty to Oppose the Death Penalty.
There are voices of reason still on the Supreme Court.
Justice: 'Serious flaws' in death penalty. John Paul Stevens sharply condemned the country's death penalty system, steering the debate over President Bush's Supreme Court nominee to a new subject. His remarks also provided the first sign of internal dismay over the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor. [CNN.com - Law]
In a speech to the American Bar Association over the weekend, Justice Stevens expressed the concerns that he shares with all opponents of the death penalty. Many of them are spelled out in the CNN.com article, quoted in pertinent part below:
Stevens said DNA evidence has shown "that a substantial number of death sentences have been imposed erroneously." "It indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice," he said.
Death penalty cases dominate the work of the high court. Week after week justices deal with final emergency appeals, sometimes filed in the late night hours. In their last term which ended in June, justices overturned the death sentences of four inmates, ruled that states cannot put to death killers who were not at least 18 years old at the time of the crime and held that it was unconstitutional to force defendants to appear before juries in chains during a trial's penalty phase.
Justices already have four capital cases on their docket when they return to work in October, including a potentially significant issue of letting inmates have a new chance to prove their innocence with DNA evidence.
Other Supreme Court justices, including O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have also spoken out about concerns that defendants in murder cases are not adequately represented at trial.
But Stevens told the ABA that the problems were more dramatic. He said the jury selection process and the fact that many trial judges are elected work against accused murderers. He also said that jurors might be improperly swayed by victim-impact statements.
According to me, not a single one of the questions that the Court has recently decided should even be before the Court in a civilized country because they shouldn't have been issues in the first place.
Does nobody among the supporters of the death penalty feel really bad about the number of executions which have been shown by DNA evidence to have been carried out on the wrong person?
And why is it the same people that were perfectly okay with letting everyone else's spouse or parent die of Alzheimer's in order to protect the soul that they apparently believe inheres in the lowliest stem cell and who fought for the long-lost life of Terry Schiavo who think that this risk is acceptable, that even the smallest chance of getting it wrong is acceptable in a Christian country? How can someone claiming to be a follower of Christ not feel a responsibility toward these victims?
In fact, how can they find the death penalty acceptable at all?
And of course I ask myself how any practicing Christian---I said a Christian, meaning according to me a person who actually tries to follow the teachings of Jesus, and to live by them, not just someone who goes to church and lets the minister tell him or her what it's all about---could advocate the death penalty or indeed any solution to sin that is merely expedient to society or any solution that is motivated by the desire for revenge. Note to right wing so-called Christians: revenge, personal revenge whether carried out personally or by the state, is not actually a Christian value.
Why are Christians the first to sneer at the notion of redemption of even hardened sinners or so very like the opponents of Christ? After all, all the nice priests and scribes just wanted to see the law carried out and the evil sinners given what they had coming to them.
I truly would deal with it better if the death penalty defenders were a lot of secular humanists who were arguing that the death penalty is socially useful to the extent it gets rid of at least one murderer and that it is easier, quicker, and cheaper than penning up murderers for life. I wouldn't like it any better, but I could deal with it better. But no secular humanist would ever make that argument, because secular humanists tend to be, you know, pro-human (which I guess is different from being pro-life).
A relative---a terribly sincere member of the Church of his/her choice---reportedly referred to me not long ago as a 'bleeding heart liberal.' Which is practically the definition of a Christian, if you consider the things that Christ actually said (as opposed to the things people have said about what he said). In a community of sinners, we are all equal and we all have an equal responsibility to our fellow sinners. To the sinners as well as their victims, I mean. The solutions are all hard and were never intended to be easy. "The law was made for mankind, not mankind for the law.' If you take Christ literally, you have to accept that being a Christian means that it is not enough to be perfectly upright in your own conduct. In fact, it's not much at all, particularly if you sit on your ass on the sidelines and watch with glee while the sinners are being stoned to death. If you're Christian, it's your job to help them find their way back to the light, not to preempt the power of God to dispense judgments while you sit back on your fat profit margin counting up your tax deductions and credits and gloating over the skyrocketing real estate market.
To quote a quote quoted by Mark Twain, the death penalty rationalizations of so-called Christians on the 'right'---who are anything but--- resemble the peace of God.
Meanwhile----Sandra Day O'Connor, how could you leave us now? How?
Justice Stevens is in his eighties. Please, God, let him hold out until the next regime change.
But: there are voices of reason still on the Supreme Court. Let us hold onto that thought.
RELATED LINKS
Whited Sepulchres & the Odor of Sanctimony [progressive Christianity; Christianity v. “Christianism”]
The barbarians at our gates are us---The Duty of a Christian to Oppose the Death Penalty [progressive Christian; Christianity v. Christianism]
“Christianity” v. Christianity [Christianity v. Christianism]
Easier to Legislate than to Persuade [the Morning After Pill]
Hijacking My Religion (Taking it Back from the Christian So-Called “Right”)
Hijacking My Religion Part 2 (Fighting Back Against the Christian Right): Why Secular Humanists Need Left-Leaning God-botherers like Me.
First, Take that Plank Out of Your Own Eye: A Marginal Christian looks at Leviticus on Sexual Sin, Matthew on Adultery specifically, and what we can learn from Christ’s encounters with two adulteresses.
A Marginal Christian Looks at Corporal Punishment, Sexual Assault, Transvestitism, Divorce, and Crushed Testicles in the Old Testament.
Jesus IS the Christian Left.
2:23:48 AM 
|
