|
|
 A
Halloween address on the Death Penalty
First Published: Nov 2004
Last Update:
Nov 2004
Author: Erica McIlroy
October 31, 2004
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
adultress 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 adultress, 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 societys' 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 disproportiantely high number were racial
minorities convicted of killing white victims, many were mentally ill, and
some were juvenilles 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 juvenille. 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
AmnestyHouston 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 forsee 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.
About the Author:
My name is Erica McIlroy. I have a B.A. in English Literature and a Juris
Doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. In law school, I
spent a summer in Geneva, Switzerland and Strasbourg, France studying
International Law in Human Rights. I was the Treasurer and Vice President of
Amnesty International in law school, and worked on asylum cases for Haitian
refugees and was a speaker in a symposium against the death penalty.
As a lawyer, I worked for Nevada Legal Services in Las Vegas, representing
indigent clients in housing issues and fair housing discrimination. I taught
paralegals in a junior college, constitutional law, probate and legal research
& writing. I also worked for a law firm that did immigration law.
Currently, I live in Longview, Texas with my husband and three children. I am
active in several community organizations and public speaking. I have been an
advocate for many liberal causes, including the abolition of the death
penalty. Email:
Axelmac94@aol.com
|
