He begins like this:
The death penalty is a barbaric anachronism, a crude instrument not of justice but of revenge. Most countries banished it long ago. This country should banish it now.
But it is next paragraph that really caught my attention:
The state of Georgia was wrong to execute convicted murderer Troy Anthony Davis as protesters and journalists kept a ghoulish vigil Wednesday night — just as the state of Texas was wrong, hours earlier, to execute racist killer Lawrence Russell Brewer.
For those who don't remember, Robinson reminds us that Brewer was one of those who dragged James Byrd to his death, and then expressed no regret about it.
But the Brewer execution is almost an afterthought to the link of thinking in Robinson's piece, which has the title With the death penalty, ‘probably’ isn’t good enough.
I find that while I agree with Robinson that the death penalty is barbaric, I do not agree with the reasoning process he uses, that of the possibility of error in assigning the sentence of death. And it is because he cites the example of the other man executed that day, about whose guilt there was absolutely no doubt, that I feel he missed a real opportunity to explore more deeply.
Let me explain.
By now the facts in the Troy Davis case are well known - the lack of physical evidence, his insistence of his innocence until his death, the recanting of witnesses, the apparent confession by another to the crime for which he was convicted. There became doubt in the minds of many that Davis was guilty of the crime for which he was being executed. Robinson reminds us that the likes of William Sessions, former head of the FBI, and former Conservative Republican Representative Bob Barr had sufficient doubts about his guilt that they argued he should not be executed. Robinson then writes:
The Davis case makes a compelling case against the death penalty — but not because it is exceptional. On the contrary, it’s fairly ordinary.
He includes in his argument his own belief that Davis was probably guilty. Then he writes
But “probably” isn’t good enough in a capital case — and this is why the death penalty is flawed as a practical matter. Someone who is wrongly imprisoned can always be released, but death — to state the obvious — is irrevocable.
It is here that I find myself parting company with Robinson, whom I greatly admire. I think to attempt to make the argument on these grounds means that we will never confront the basic immorality of applying the death penalty to anyone. It is immoral because it corrupts us, however much some of us might believe that execution provides "closure" or just retribution.
To me the death penalty is just one more example of how unadvanced America is as a society. I know the remarks I am about to present will be used by some on the right as "proof" that people such as me are morally suspect, that we have "abandoned" moral principles as they see such. I would respond that their small-mindedness and insistence upon literalism - biblical and constitutional - has kept them from growing beyond what I have to view as a state of being stunted in their understanding of both Bible and Constitution, and of being severely lacking in moral development and human kindness.
We still have the death penalty. We have yet again a Texas Governor who seems to be basing part of his campaign for the nation's highest political office on the number of executions over which he has provided.
At the same time we have large number of people who question or reject basic science.
We have people who oppose allowing gays to have equal rights including full marriage equality.
We certainly have those willing to use hatred or fear (and there may be no difference) towards gays, those transgendered, those of different skin color, those of different or no religion as justification for policies that diminish human freedom. Some would go so far as to advocate death for those whose sexual orientation is towards someone of the same sex, as some of the "Apostles" supporting Rick Perry did in supporting such a law in Uganda.
Consider instead what so much of the rest of the world has recognized:
The death penalty is itself a moral wrong, which is why it does not exist in the European Union or in Canada.
Gays have served openly in the militaries of most of our closest military allies for years.
Among the places that have accepted gay marriage are Spain and Mexico City.
I see our continued justification of the death penalty even for the most certain of vile acts as a rejection of the moral teachings of the man so many who advocate for its application call the Christ. In insisting upon humans condemning others to death they seem willing to deny the possibility of redemption, even as many of the same are willing to say that their previous wrongdoings are forgiven because they accepted Jesus as their savior.
They also seem to forget the clear words spoken by Jesus to a mob about to kill the woman taken in adultery: let he who is without sin cast the first stone. None did, all recognizing that they too were tarnished by sin. How can someone who takes that teaching lesson seriously then justify state sanctioned killing of other humans?
From a political standpoint, I understand that it is easier to make the argument against the death penalty on the basis of possible error. Tonight on Countdown I heard Michael Moore make that argument, citing the Innocence Project. I remember the courageous decision of George Ryan to commute all extand capital sentences in Illinois to life without parole because of the number of errors that had been found.
Robinson asks, among other things,
Were witnesses coerced into testifying against Davis?
Is the issue then doubt because witnesses may have been coerced, or should we not then ask a more serious question: what does that say about our criminal justice system in cases that are not of such high profile? How many other people have been punished because of coerced and inaccurate testimony? What does that say of us morally as a people that we only comment upon that possibility when a person's continued existence is in doubt because of a death sentence? What about the lose of life by improper imprisonment.
Some of our places of incarceration still carry the title applied to them by Quakers many years ago, penitentiaries. The idea was that rather than merely punishing as in an eye for an eye, our application of sentence would lead them to reflect and repent, and thus be capable of being returned to society.
Gandhi warned us that if we insisted upon an eye for an eye eventually the whole world would be blind.
Jewish scholars of scripture remind us that the phrase an eye for an eye was not to be taken literally. As originally crafted, it was a limit on punishment - you could not take a life for an eye. Moreover, it did not mean to literally take an eye, but rather to limit punishment to compensation for the value of an eye.
In my lifetime we have seemingly become more bloodthirsty - we have greatly expanded the offenses for which we are at least on paper willing to apply a capital sentence. I do not see that such broadening has made us any safer as a society.
I find at the same time we have had leaders seemingly more willing to take violent actions in the name of national security. Those actions lead to many deaths through what we euphemistically describe as "collateral damage."
We have had a Democratic Secretary of State who when asked if the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children because of our boycott were justified, were worth it, argue in the affirmative.
I look at all of this, and I have to wonder if we are morally bankrupt as a people and a society, if our willingness to continue to accept the death penalty is meant to blind us to our unwillingness to reform the truly corrupt parts of our society, which include the imbalance of power and of wealth, and increasingly also include an abandonment of the civil liberties intended to protect us from abusive government.
The existence of the death penalty is an implied threat to all of us.
We have at least one Supreme Court Justice willing to argue that there is no Constitutional violation in the execution of an innocent person providing that person has had all the procedural protections of due process.
We seemingly insist on a higher standard to overturn a death penalty than we do to apply it.
We place time limits upon the introduction of new evidence as if truth is somehow less valid after some passage of a certain number of days.
Robinson is not wrong to note that the arguments for the death penalty are undercut where there may be doubt of guilt.
But that still allows for vengeance in cases where there is no doubt. That allows Texas to execute a man responsible for dragging James Byrd behind a pickup truck until his body was ripped apart.
Perhaps we do not rip him apart - which means we are in fact not applying an equal punishment, but that is not part of my argument.
It should not matter whether our executions are quick and without pain to the executed, or brutal and causing of great suffering.
They damage us.
They lower us to a lesser moral standard.
They place us on a slippery slope of judging some lives less worthy of preserving.
Once we start on that path, it is not so great a step to deciding not to provide medical care, or nutrition, or protection from the great forces of nature.
In "Schindler's List" the title character is given a ring on which is inscribed an important Jewish teaching - that he who saves a single life it is as if he has saved the world entire.
There is an implied flip side to that teaching - that he who destroys a single life it is as if he has destroyed the world entire.
Perhaps to some that is simplistic.
To me it is simple.
State sanctioned killing is wrong.
In a situation of war it may be the lesser of evils, but it still involves evil.
A policeman may be cleared by a shooting board - his or her killing of a subject might be classified as a righteous shooting.
Yet unless s/he is morally obtuse, s/he will be forever changed by that act.
Ancient church canons used to prohibit ordination to the priesthood of anyone who had spilled blood. After all, the eucharist is often described as a bloodless sacrifice.
I do not propose we condemn those who in our name kill others, be it in military action, in law enforcement, in state sanctioned executions.
I suggest that we condemn ourselves and our society that we continue in a practice that so much of the rest of the world has come to realize is morally deficient, even barbaric.
Even if the person executed is as morally repugnant and clearly guilty of the offense for which s/he is being executed as was Lawrence Russell Brewer, executed for the brutal death of James Byrd.
Killing another person is wrong. So we will punish you by killing you. Please explain to me the moral lesson that teaches?