The New Mexico governor signs a bill to end the death penalty in his state. As a long-time opponent of the death penalty--even during my wingnuttier days (Jr. High and the first year or two of high school) I'm always happy to see states end this practice.
As a matter of fact, it seems like the death penalty abolition movement has been gaining strength in the United States for the past few years. A few years ago the Supreme Court decreed the execution of minors--a horrific practice where only a handful of Middle Eastern countries followed us--was unConstitutional. States like New Jersey and Wisconsin have ended the punishment within their states. Here in California, it's virtually gone--due to an extensive, expensive, mandatory appeals process designed to avoid executing innocent people it rarely ever happens here. One wonders if the budget crunch will lead my state to finally get rid of it on expense grounds, and apply the restriction retroactively. That would be change I can believe in.
Basically, my opposition to the death penalty is based upon several things. First, from a faith perspective. As a Christian I believe that not only is it in violation of the teachings of my religion, but that it violates the spirit of Christianity, which is that nobody is beyond redemption. The death penalty effectively says that. It's final. And it's too easy. As I am not a theocrat this isn't sufficient in and of itself, but it is a major reason for my opposition. Additionally, I think that taking a life is an inherently immoral act. There are mitigating circumstances--in self-defense, in a just war--but it does not seem to me that there is a necessity to take the life of a murderer as in those cases. Self-preservation isn't at stake if you just throw the person in jail forever. There are alternatives to having killers walking the streets. Of course, there is little evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent, but supporters don't argue the matter logically: they put it in starkly emotional terms, i.e. "What if your wife was murdered? Wouldn't you want that person to die." I probably would. But I often find that I make poor decisions when I'm angry or hurt. That's why you need cooler heads to prevail in these sorts of situations. And the appeal to pathos is usually an indication that your appeal to logos isn't very strong, as indeed it isn't in this case. If it's not a deterrent, and there are other ways of keeping the public safe, what is there left to argue about? Justice? I personally don't find immoral punishments that seem to fit the crime particularly just. "An eye for an eye" has a certain logic to it, but I find it absolutely ironic that this was the very principle that Jesus condemned in the Beatitudes, and all that talk of turning the other cheek just doesn't pass muster in what we're constantly reminded is an overwhelmingly Christian nation.
And that's the truly radical thing about Christianity: it is, at its core, very simple and, if you read what Jesus actually says, not terribly moralistic. The guy even said not to judge other people. What is he, some sort of hippie liberal relativist? Kidding aside, the overriding message of the religion is to love one another. There are other things too--some of which have just been added on and aren't really a part of the religion at all--but the message is pretty simple: love other people. Forgive and turn the other cheek. Live to serve others. These are the simplest stated but hardest to live. Hating gay people is, by comparison, pretty easy, especially if you've never met one.
