Myth 4. The American public favors the death penalty

Polls that gauge a high favorable response to the death penalty generally ask for simple thumbs up or thumbs down response to the question, “do you favor the death penalty?” This question again tests our gut reactions to the death sentence. When offered a range of sentencing options, respondents in public option polls have consistently shown a preference for imprisonment rather than execution.

Myth 5. The Bible calls for the death sentence when it says “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”.

According to the same chapter in the Bible capital punishment is demanded also if a person hits his or her parents, steals a person (a verse that is used to support slavery as well), curses his or her father or mother, keeps an ox that has been known to gore people, or participates in sorcery, bestiality, idolatry, or adultery. Other crimes that received the death sentence according to scripture include gluttony, disobedience, and drunkenness. Most who interprets “eye for an eye” literally also use these verses to refer to homosexuality as a crime which was punishable by death if the death penalty were used according to the literalist or conservative view of the scriptures we would not have many people left standing to institute the punishment.

In truth the Hebrew text “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” was a limitation on mass killings of clans out of vindication. Until the law was put into effect the practice had been for a family that had one person murdered to retaliate on entire family or clan, “An eye for an eye” meant that people could not take more than one life for a life, even if the person who was murdered was pregnant and about to give birth. In practice, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” death penalty was used only when there had been two witnesses that had seen the murder taking place. These witnesses had to inform the person about to commit murder that he/she would receive the death penalty if he/she committed murder. If after that warning, the person proceeded in a premeditated fashion then the death penalty could be used. Because of these limitations, the death penalty was rarely used in Hebrew culture.

The Christian scripture adds another dimension. The people supporting the death penalty have to be sinless. The scriptures go on to explain that sinlessness in these cases does not mean merely that the people supporting capital punishment have never committed murder, but that they have never held hate or anger in their hearts at any time. Those who interpret the scriptures of “an eye for an eye” to give the right for vengeance are told to forgive their enemies and bless those who have harmed them. In general, the death penalty flies in the face of the Christian message that all are to be forgiven and are able to be redeemed.

Other religions limit or demand the abolition of the death penalty. There are other, more spiritually supportive means of ending violent crime, such as prevention and restoration. Most religions that recognize God as Creator are in unison on making the growth of spirituality the significant focus of action. If God made something such as a person, then it is sacred. No matter what that person does, that person’s life is still sacred. This is a spiritual premise that underlies most Creator-God religions.

Myth 6. The death penalty offers a “true form of justice”.

For many, “true justice” means revenge in equal measure – if you kill, you will be killed. But we do not support such a system in America. We do not steal from thieves or rape rapists. Ethically this is “stooping to the level of the perpetrator.” It places the government in a reactionary rather than a leadership role. Inevitably, this reactionary attitude is reflected in the citizens. Historically “true justice” has a much different meaning than revenge. This different interpretation places the state in a much different position from selling reactionary sound bites to thinking out preventative and cost-effective solutions to deter crime. It demands that the state place itself in the role of leadership and caretaker rather than exploiter of citizens.

This true justice has to be restorative, has to regard each person as unique, has to dignify humanity, has to be assigned with mercy, has to bring healing to everyone involved, and has to demonstrate a nature that the government wants imitated in daily life.

Restorative justice helps in healing both the victim’s family and the perpetrator so that the criminal roots of the problem is taken care of, and the victims and victim’s families have a way to heal fully. It also sets an example for the citizens of the state. Restorative Justice also focuses on preventative measures in society such as adequate childcare and parenting programs, mental health systems, foster parent systems, and effective drug treatment facilities. In almost all of the cases of the people who are on death row, appropriate intervention in one of these areas could have made all of the difference and stopped them from becoming murderers. However, in society where these systems are seen as “tax burdens,» we may ask if true justice is possible.

Дата добавления: 2014-12-17