From the Bishops The death penalty is unjustified in civil society

Mar 5, 2009

Editor’s note: The following was adapted from Anchorage Archbishop Roger Schwietz’s written address to Rep. Jay Ramras, chair of the House Judiciary Committee regarding House Bill 9 — a bill that seeks to authorize capital punishment in Alaska.  It is printed with permission from CatholicAnchor.org.

 

The primary reason I am against the death penalty is because it is simply unnecessary and unjustified in a civilized society. The government should not be in the business of deciding who is to live and who is to die. In your own testimony (as reported in the Anchorage Daily News) you expressed your own belief that capital punishment was not a deterrent to crime. I share that belief.

 

If deterrence is not the reason for reinstituting the death penalty, then we must carefully examine the rationale for taking this action. To think that we can protect human life by taking it is an illusion and an argument that is without merit.

 

For over 30 years, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, (the national organization for Catholic bishops in the United States) has taught that our nation should forgo the use of the death penalty for four reasons:

 

First, the sanction of death, when it is not necessary to protect society, violates respect for human life and dignity.

 

Second, state-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us.

 

Third, the application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong. It is prone to errors and is biased by factors such as race, the quality of legal representation and where the crime was committed.

 

Last, we have other ways to punish criminals and protect society.

 

Regarding the first and last points, in the United States where many of our jails have become “high tech” there is no longer a need to put someone to death to protect society. Those who commit heinous crimes can serve a life sentence without parole in an environment that ensures the safety of those around them. I have been assured that in Alaska, we have jails (and are building a new jail that will have) the capability of segregating offenders to ensure they serve out a life sentence for their crime without the possibility of harming others again. No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so. We have other ways to punish criminals.

 

In Alaska, a large percentage of the population does not support the death penalty. I have serious concerns about violating the conscience of people that might be called on to perform the act. Our U.S. Supreme Court in its decisions has held that all jurors who sit in judgment on a federal death penalty case must agree prior to being seated on a jury that they have no objection to the death penalty.

 

While Alaska’s law would need to conform to Supreme Court precedent, it does not allow for others to be released from having to carry out the jobs associated with the death penalty, including the Commissioner of Corrections, correctional employees and medical personnel. I cannot support a law that requires people who believe in the sanctity of life to be placed in a position violating their conscience because of their chosen career path.

 

My final concern is that the people most likely subjected to the death penalty are the poor and marginalized in our society and people who are unable to afford good legal representation. Prior to the death penalty being outlawed in the territory of Alaska, fifteen men were put to death either under territorial laws or under what were known as “miner’s laws.” Of these, seven were Alaska natives, two were identified as black, three were Caucasian and two were of unknown race. These statistics should concern us all. Fundamental fairness ought to cause us to consider the uneven and perhaps biased manner in which capital punishment has been applied.

 

(Column continues below)

In these reflections, I have not addressed particular elements of the proposed legislation several of which are seriously flawed.

 

For example, section 12.58.320 (b) relating to a pregnant woman on death row. Stating in unclear language that the pregnant mother will not be executed prior to the end of the pregnancy leaves the option open to pressure the woman to have an abortion thus creating a double rather than single execution. The horror of a child growing up and living with the knowledge that his or her birth was the occasion of his or her mother’s execution is hard to imagine.

 

Rather than promoting a culture of death in Alaska, we should focus our energy on promoting ways to respond to violent crimes that act out of justice for everyone. We should work to find ways to protect society and hold accountable the truly guilty in a way that reflects our society’s best values. The death penalty simply does not do this. Its application makes us all complicit in the death of another human being and in the process cheapens the sacredness of all human life.