|
Kentucky Council of Churches
A Resolution Opposing the Death Penalty
Adopted at the 50th Annual Assembly, October 23-24, 1997
PREAMBLE
Since the slaying of Abel by his brother, Cain, the blood of
countless victims and the voices of their families have cried
out to God. As Christians we, too, cry out to the creator God,
the giver of life. We grieve with the friends and families of
victims of violent crime. We seek justice and a just society
where all may live without fear, in peace and harmony with their
neighbors. We also seek justice for all persons who have been
victims of violence and for whom we feel deep compassion. We
struggle between our righteous anger at those who harm others
or commit terrorist acts that kill and maim large numbers of
persons, and our call to believe in the potential for redemption
of every human being, no matter what heinous acts he or she may
have committed.
All member communions of the Kentucky Council of Churches have,
on record at the national level of their denominations, statements
opposing the use of, or calling for a moratorium on the implementation
of, the death penalty as a method for punishing those convicted
of violent crimes. This statement sets forth the grounds on which
the Kentucky Council of Churches shall, on behalf of its member
communions, oppose the further implementation of capital punishment
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
THE SOCIAL CONTEXT
On July 1, 1997, the Commonwealth of Kentucky reinstated the
use of capital punishment, ending a thirty-five year hiatus during
which no death-row inmate had been executed in the state.
Despite efforts by states, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
to comply with the Supreme Court decision of 1972 which outlawed
many capital punishment laws because the lack of legal guidelines
led to discrimination and inconsistency in the application of
the death penalty, there is strong evidence that such discrimination
still continues. A study conducted in 1993 at the request of
the 1992 General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky concluded
that Kentucky's revised laws and system of capital sentencing
have failed to eliminate race as a factor in this process.
The American Bar Association (ABA), acting at its national convention
in 1996, has called upon "each jurisdiction that imposes
a capital punishment not to carry out the death penalty until
the jurisdiction implements policies and procedures that ...
(1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and
impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize
the risk that innocent parties may be executed...." The
ABA states that discrimination in capital sentencing continues
on the basis of the race of the victim or the defendant, and
it argues that we should not execute mentally retarded persons
and persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of their
offenses."
In 1997, there were 31 inmates on Kentucky's death row. All
of them were indigent, and only one was able to afford private
legal counsel at any phase during his prosecution. Of the 162
persons executed in Kentucky since 1911, 85, or 52 percent were
black, while the proportion of African Americans in the population
of the Commonwealth has been less than 10 percent. Of 127 persons
whose educational or occupational records were available, 41
had less than an eighth grade education; 17 were illiterate;
and no person with a college degree has ever been executed in
this Commonwealth. Further examination of records shows evidence
that many of the death row inmates had been drinking or using
drugs prior to the crime. Many were severely marred and psychologically
maladjusted due to horrific social, economic or family influences.
· Social scientists have been unable to prove any deterrent
value in the death penalty.
· Further, studies have shown consistently that it is
more costly for a state to condemn a criminal to death, due to
the constitutional safeguards that must be observed, than it
is to imprison that criminal for the entirety of his or her life,
without parole until their natural death.
Additionally, some police science professors have begun to argue
that the implementation of a capital sentence may, in fact, result
in a corresponding rise in the murder rate. The example of the
state taking a life, no matter how carefully, apparently desensitizes
people to the value of life, and implies that killing another
human being is an appropriate solution to a problem. Murder rates
tend to rise in the immediate aftermath of an execution.
Even families and friends of victims are of different views on
the value of the death penalty and whether it contributes to
healing their hurt and loss, and its consequences for the social
order and peace.
In summary, the following points have been made by social scientists,
legal experts, and social ethicists regarding capital punishment:
· that capital punishment has been proven to be unfairly
administered to the poor, the uneducated, those who cannot afford
private legal counsel, and on the basis of the race of both the
criminal and the victim;
· that the American Bar Association has called for a moratorium
on the administration of capital punishment until such inequities
can be removed;
· that there is no proven deterrent value to the death
penalty;
· that the death penalty is more costly, financially,
to the state than incarcerating the prisoner for life;
· that capital punishment is an irremediable punishment;
· and that there may be a concomitant rise in the murder
rates of a state in which the death penalty is administered.
Therefore, by these measures alone, capital punishment, as
it is currently applied, is not just and equitable, and therefore
does not enhance the upbuilding of a just and caring society.
THEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
In making ethical decisions, Christians appeal to the Gospel
of God's unconditional love and grace for all of creation, especially
as revealed in the life, teachings, death and resurrection of
Jesus. The Great Commandment "You shall love the Lord your
God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your mind. You shall love your neighbor as yourself"--found
both in Matthew 22:37-39, and in Deuteronomy 6:5 with Leviticus
19:18 is normative for determining social ethics.
As Christians we affirm that violence against persons is also
ultimately violence against God, in whose image we are all created
and who gives to all of us the gift of life and well-being (as
is clearly indicated by such texts as Genesis 4; Exodus 20:13;
Psalm 51:4; and Mark 15:13). We suffer deeply with one another
and with our neighbors in this Commonwealth when any are victims
of violent crimes which assault, maim, and destroy their persons
and very lives. We stand with victims and the survivors of those
who have been subject to violent crime to do everything we can
to bring healing to them and to create a world in which such
terrible acts will not happen.
We acknowledge that Christians in good conscience have both
affirmed and opposed the death penalty, and we recognize that
the issue is not decided by reference to single biblical texts:
there are passages throughout Scripture which can be understood
to affirm or oppose the death penalty. The "eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth" of Leviticus 24:20 (also Exodus
21:24 and Deuteronomy 19:21) is an example that requires particular
attention. In the society of ancient Israel, the penalty of death
could be imposed not only for murder but for a number of other
crimes as well, such as adultery, blasphemy, profaning the Sabbath,
or dishonoring or striking one's parents. In its context the
"eye for an eye" formula (often, slightly misleadingly,
designated with the Latin name lex talionis) acted significantly
as a guard against personal vengeance and disproportionate retaliation.
Moreover, since ancient times, both Jewish and Christian writings
have pushed the interpretation of these laws away from their
harshest expression. Talmudic texts stressed that payment for
crimes was to be restorative and not excessive; exacting a proportionate
penalty was the maximum permissible limit of response. The reversal
saying of Jesus in Matthew 5:38ff. so repudiates retaliation
in favor of love of enemy and non-resistance to evil that most
Christian communities have sought to heed its call for generosity
to the wrongdoer while avoiding finding in this text a societal
or universal prohibition which would call into question any resistance
to forcible violation.
Finally, in many parts of Scripture we find a range of responses
to serious crimes other than infliction of the death penalty.
The law-giver Moses himself as a young man had killed an Egyptian
and fled the consequences (Exodus 2:11-14); Jesus refused to
join in the stoning of an adulterous woman, but instead offered
her mercy and exhortation to amend her life (John 8:1-10). His
own life ended as a prisoner under capital sentence, and as he
was executed he prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).
In considering the whole of Christian witness in all its complexity,
we are drawn to hold before us the vision of Amos, for a time
when "justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like
an everflowing stream." In the meantime, as Christians we
are committed to seek both the redemption and reconciliation
of the wrongdoer and healing for victims, because we affirm the
value of every human being as a child of God. Rather than responding
to considerations of revenge or assumed efficiency, we seek a
justice that is productive of love, one which will honor the
capacity of individuals to change, repent, and grow as human
beings, made in the image of God for healed relations with one
another and our Creator.
RESOLUTION
The Kentucky Council of Churches affirmed its belief in reconciliation
and restorative justice, as opposed to retributive justice, through
a statement adopted at the 49th Annual Assembly, on October 25,
1996. (See the Statement: "Reconciliation: The Christian's
Responsibility amid the Violence of our Time", adopted at
the 49th Annual Assembly, October 25, 1996.) Ten years ago (40th
Annual Assembly, October, 1987), in a study and public policy
document entitled "Crime and Criminal Justice", the
Kentucky Council officially voted to oppose "the imposition
of the death penalty."
Therefore, the Kentucky Council of Churches, acting at its 50th
Annual Assembly meeting in Middletown, Kentucky, October 23-24,
1997, does hereby resolve:
· that the Kentucky Council of Churches shall encourage
its member churches to stand with the victims of violent crime
and their families and to minister to them in their grief and
anger, and to foster those attitudes that will lead to peace
for victims and their survivors;
· that the Kentucky Council of Churches shall oppose the
imposition of a death sentence, by whatever method of implementation
that the state shall designate, whether by electrocution or lethal
injection, or any other means which may be devised;
· that the Kentucky Council of Churches shall inform legislators
about the Council's position on the death penalty, and shall
urge the Commonwealth to serve the purposes of justice without
resorting to use of the death penalty;
· that, while capital punishment remains legal in Kentucky,
the Council shall do all in its power to persuade the Governor
of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to use the executive power of
clemency to commute sentences to life in prison without possibility
of parole for those persons on death row facing imminent execution;
· that the Council will affirm the work of people who
are employed in the criminal justice system, recognizing the
special burdens that accompany such work;
· that the Council shall encourage its member churches
to seek further opportunities to serve people caught in cycles
of violence; and
· that the Council shall offer a clear voice within the
Commonwealth of Kentucky on behalf of restorative justice, peace,
order, and reconciliation.
|