Last night I was thinking about the upcoming execution of Tookie Williams, and my thoughts are not the standard. First, I am opposed to the death penalty, in all cases, and second, I actually believe that Mr. Williams has more of a case in this regard because he has denied committing the crime. In other words, I'm not really thinking about this in terms of clemency, though obviously that deserves an airing when Jesus is the subject, and Jesus is the subject of this diary, but I'll leave clemency for another time, place, and advocate.
So, how does Jesus play into my thoughts on this matter? Simple.
"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her."
The
above episode in the Gospel of John has always been stunning for its many aspects, only one of which is a commentary on stoning (there is an attempt to trap Jesus). Often, when we hear these stories, at least in my case as a child, we don't realize that stoning equals a death sentence, and a brutal one at that. Follow these links for a history of
stoning and
Mosaic law.
As I ruminated on this story, I tried to make it real to my imagination, as if I was there, when "the people", so to speak for the times, were demanding this woman be executed for the crime of adultery. Obviously, today we find such a penalty for adultery "cruel and unusual", but for the time this was standard stuff under the Mosaic law.
Finding myself in the story, I marveled at Jesus response. For, in a way, he set up a radical break from the Mosaic custom that the death penalty was not only allowed, but demanded as necessary (required). Even this thought on human fallibility, on sin, and on judgement, is not really what I'm trying to get at in this diary, though I encourage you to meditate on it.
Yes, what I'm trying to get at is my realization that when a mob or legal party is demanding the stoning of a criminal, that we can think of this like "the people", in the sense of being tried and convicted (or not) by one's peers. Peers is really what I'm aiming at here. For, one can imagine that if there is a group or mob that is going to carry out a stoning, there is likely a certain amount of unanimity in this judgement and decision. For to carry out the brutal killing of a suspected criminal requires the complicity or at least the silence of nearly everyone in the crowd. It would be hard to imagine a stoning crowd that has only 70% unanimity, with the other 30% not convinced at all in her guilt, and perhaps even of the mind to stick up for her, causing the desired stoning to turn into a big scrum between differing parties.
And this thought got me thinking about one's "peers", and not only in terms of the actual trial, but also the conviction. For it would not be possible to stone Tookie Williams in California for this crime. There are far too many people in California, Mr. Williams' peers, who are opposed to the death penalty in all cases and/or opposed to the death penalty in his case (reasons not important for this discussion). But we carry out death penalties on the sly, in a sterile and hidden manner, which itself is dishonorable in my opinion, and shields citizens from the reality of their choices. It would be far better to hang people in the public square, or stone them, or, if we prefer death without too much suffering, electrocute or poison them in the public square, where everyone can see it.
If we were to do this, if we were to be honest, we would have a much better marker of the unanimity of the community as far as carrying out a death sentence. And, in the case of Mr. Williams, there is nothing closely resembling unanimity of "the people" of California, and Mr. Williams' peers, in the determination of his immediate fate.
Frankly, it would be impossible to execute Mr. Williams in an orderly and relatively unanimous fashion in the public square, because the bottom line is that his peers are not united on this matter.
Putting aside the obvious arguments that Jesus would not have favored the death penalty over clemency, revenge over redemption, we have a case of a man who has denied involvement in a capital crime by which he has only been convicted by cirumstantial evidence. If even there may not be reasonable doubt, there is some doubt, and in the case of the death penalty, and the sanctity of human life, we should never allow ourselves, the state, to be cavalier with taking life.
This is not a case that one's "peers" ought to be considered the whole community, as I know that won't work. I'm not talking about making juries the whole community, in terms of trial and conviction, but only when it comes to sentencing, at least the ultimate sentencing in the form of the death penalty. There would be no harm in imprisoning this man for the rest of his life, should no reasons for clemency or innocence be forthcoming in its duration. And there is certainly some good that could be found in keeping the man alive, in that it is universally acknowledged that he has performed good works in relation to his activities preaching against the gang lifestyle. And revenge is not a community interest, but a private one.
Ultimately, I can't go into every reason to be opposed to the death penalty, and not even into every reason to be opposed to the death penalty by Jesus philosophy and practice in the Gospels. The bottom line in this matter is that man protests his innocence, and has been convicted by circumstantial evidence. We are going to sneak an execution of him in the middle of the night that practically noone will witness, as opposed to the more definitive practices of executions in the public square, including stoning, and when there is much division amongst "the people" and Mr. Williams' peers about the righteousness of this punishment. And once he is dead, there will be no more right to habeas corpus, should new exculpatory evidence come to light. Every citizen has this right, if not in letter than spirit, that exculpatory evidence could require the state to relinquish its hold on you. Execution violates this right, as the state's hold over you becomes eternal (in death), as it also, due to the abrogation of this right, denies equal protection under the law.
After all, we can't just give preferential treatment to prisoners for arbitrary reasons, can we? Obviously not. This means that no matter what crime you have committed, the state never has absolute claim over you, and you never absolutely forfeit your rights under the Consitution and Bill of Rights. There is certainly no passage in the 1st amendment that says, "all shall have the right to free speech, except if you are in jail". Practically, we do limit rights of prisoners, but no prisoner ever forfeits due process of law or equal protection under the law. Mr. Williams will be denied this right by his execution, should it go forward, this evening.
These last few arguments stray somewhat from the meditation on stoning, and the Gospel of John, and specifically the notion of "ye who is without sin, cast the first stone", but they act in unison, in realizing that we are not very responsible about executions, and that our 'civilized' way of doing it is not only more barbaric, but also a radical violation of classical liberal rights doctrine, especially in regards to the limited state.
And last, I cannot see how a Christian can support the death penalty. For Christians, Jesus should be the primary source and inspiration, especially his actual words and actions, and in several cases this seems to go against strict interpretation of the older Mosaic laws, including in the case of mercy and redemption that Jesus transformed the imminent execution of the woman told in the Gospel of John.