"When we abolished the punishment for treason that you should be hanged and then cut down while still alive, then disemboweled while still alive, and then quartered, we did not abolish that punishment because we sympathized with traitors, but because we took the view that this was a punishment no longer consistent with our self-respect." These words, spoken by Lord Chancellor Gardiner during the 1965 death penalty abolition debates in the British Parliament, illustrate the feeling of most individuals opposed to capital punishment. It's not sympathy toward the murderer that we feel; indeed, most of us feel a great deal of anger and revulsion toward all murderers and their actions. Our objection is that the death penalty is a complete renunciation of all that is embodied in our concept of humanity. More simply put, executions degrade us all. In today's society, the execution process is far removed from most individual citizens. We may, or more likely may not, be aware of the criminal acts that put an individual on death row — and if we are, it is usually only through sensationalized press accounts — but very few of us know of the human being whom society has condemned to death. Even fewer of us have witnessed, or ever will witness, an actual execution. They are carried out in the middle of the night, in the dark, away from us all, to hide what they really are: a barbaric punishment symbolic of our less civilized past. The public is kept as far away as possible from the whole process to keep them from seeing that human beings — real flesh and blood, real people — are being put to death. This deliberate dehumanization of the entire process makes it easier for us to distance ourselves from capital punishment and to accept it as "something government does," which in turn allows us to avoid accepting individual responsibility for the consequences of such actions. But we are in fact responsible, for our state and federal government are killing people in our names. There are acceptable alternatives to capital punishment that are more in line with the values of our supposedly enlightened and humanistic society. The state is supposed to be the pillar of our ideals, and its institutions should emulate the best values of our society. Are not the greatest of these values our compassion, our concern for human rights, and our capacity for mercy? By continuing to conduct executions, aren't we undermining the very foundations of our greatness? As Zimbabwe poet Chenjerai Hove wrote, "The death sentence is abominable, as abominable as the crime itself. Our society must be based on love, not hatred and victimization. Our penal code must be based on rehabilitation rather than annihilation." For so long as the spirit of vengeance maintains the slightest vestige of respectability, so long as it pervades the public mind and infuses its evil upon the statute books of law, we will make no headway toward the control of crime in our society. There are suitable alternatives. Individuals who are a danger to society must be removed from society. Society has the right to protect itself; there is no disputing that. If rehabilitation is not possible, or is not a consideration, then that removal must be made permanent, but that permanent removal need not take the form of the death penalty. Those who favor the abolition of capital punishment do not advocate releasing convicted murderers into society. The choice is not between the death penalty and unconditional release, but between the death penalty and meaningful long-term sentences. Life without the possibility of parole, or a natural life sentence, meets the necessary requirements of society without being excessively brutal or barbaric. Feelings of retribution, vengeance, blood atonement, and the like are difficult to suppress. Perhaps there are some individuals who, in some sense, "deserve" to be executed. But the real question that needs to be asked is, Do we really need the death penalty? In light of such suitable alternatives as natural life sentences, is society in general paying too high a price when it executes its own citizens? The late United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once wrote, "I cannot agree that the American people have been so hardened, so embittered that they want to take the life of one who performs even the basest criminal act knowing that the execution is nothing more than bloodlust." It is time for us to acknowledge the death penalty for what it really is — barbaric savagery, pure and simple — and abolish it nationwide by replacing it with natural life sentences. By rejecting the seemingly simple solutions that compromise our values and undermine the fundamental principles of society, we maintain the greatness of our country. It is certainly true that by giving in to our basest emotions, we lower ourselves to the very level of the persons whom we wish to execute, and in the process weaken the moral fibers that bind and protect our society. While it is admittedly difficult at times, when we recognize the humanity of even the vilest criminal — when we acknowledge them as fellow human beings rather than as objects to be discarded — we pay ourselves the highest of tributes and celebrate our own humanity. What can you do? You can get involved, for no justice is done if everyone leaves the work of justice to others. There are numerous local, state, and national organizations working hard to rid this country of capital punishment. They need your help and support. For a list of these groups send $3 for The Abolitionist's Directory to The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty; 1436 "U" Street NW, Suite #104; Washington, DC 20009, or call (202) 387-3890. And please tell them that Michael Ross sent you. Together we can make a difference. Michael Ross is a condemned man on Connecticut's death row. He has been on death row since June 1987, and is currently under a stay of execution pending the resolution of the appeals process. |