I've written many posts about the death penalty, but this one may be the most important. In one of my first entries, I announced that I considered myself to be a Conservative when it comes to criminal justice and to the death penalty in particular. This statement was based on my understanding of conservatism.
I wrote: "The true Conservative is skeptical of governmental power over the individual and seeks to restrain its use. The most power a government wields, short of the ability to wage war, is the police power to incarcerate and execute individuals. I fight for the rights of the individual against the power of the government. That makes me a conservative."
Now I have found confirmation of that view from an unexpected source. The Death Penalty Information Center recently reprinted an op-ed piece written by Richard Viguerie, who is described as "one of the architects of" the Conservative movement. Viguerie has been credited as one of the most important activists on The Christian Right, having organized massive fund raising efforts for conservative causes and candidates from religious conservatives. His efforts resulted in the swing to the right for the past twenty years.
Although that trend has resulted in re-invigoration of support for capital punishment over that time, Viguerie has now decided to speak out AGAINST the death penalty. His reasons, as revealed in his op-ed piece, originally published in the Christian conservative Sojourners Magazine, are spot on.
When Governments Kill
A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty.
by Richard A. Viguerie.
... I’m a Catholic. Because of my Christian faith, and because I am a follower of Jesus Christ, I oppose the death penalty. I’m a conservative as well, and because my political philosophy recognizes that government is too often used by humans for the wrong ends, I find it quite logical to oppose capital punishment.
I have been criticized by some conservatives for my opposition to the death penalty. On the other hand, some conservatives have told me they question capital punishment or even oppose it, but believe that the conservative "position" is to support it. Fortunately for me, even if someone were to question my conservative bona fides (I’ve never been called not conservative enough, trust me), I wouldn’t care.
The fact is, I don’t understand why more conservatives don’t oppose the death penalty. It is, after all, a system set up under laws established by politicians (too many of whom lack principles); enforced by prosecutors (many of whom want to become politicians—perhaps a character flaw?—and who prefer wins over justice); and adjudicated by judges (too many of whom administer personal preference rather than the law).
Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice. But here the end result is the end of someone’s life. In other words, it’s a government system that kills people.
Those of us who oppose abortion believe that it is perhaps the greatest immorality to take an innocent life. While the death penalty is supposed to take the life of the guilty, we know that is not always the case. It should have shocked the consciences of conservatives when various government prosecutors withheld exculpatory, or opposed allowing DNA-tested, evidence in death row cases. To conservatives, that should be deemed as immoral as abortion.
The death penalty system is flawed and untrustworthy because human institutions always are. But even when guilt is certain, there are many downsides to the death penalty system. I’ve heard enough about the pain and suffering of families of victims caused by the long, drawn-out, and even intrusive legal process. Perhaps, then, it’s time for America to re-examine the death penalty system, whether it works, and whom it hurts.
On how society would ever get to the point of abolishing the death penalty, if it were to do that, I have my conservative views. It must be done in a way consistent with our constitutional system. That means it cannot be imposed by the courts or by the federal government (except for federal cases). In my opinion, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban the death penalty in the states. That must be left to the people’s representatives in their respective states, which also means that judges must not take it upon themselves.
This is why I am joining my friend Jim Wallis in a coalition of liberals and conservatives calling for a national moratorium and conversation about the death penalty, so people can study, learn, think, pray if they wish, about whether or how the various state death-penalty systems should be changed. I hope you’ll join us."
(R. Viguerie, "When Governments Kill," Sojourners Magazine, July 2009). See New Voices and Religion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mr. Viguerie makes a very weak argument for repeal of the death penalty.
ReplyDelete1) Mr. Viguerie writes: "I’m a Catholic. Because of my Christian faith, and because I am a follower of Jesus Christ, I oppose the death penalty."
Sharp replies: There is no conflict with Catholic/Christian faith and support for the death penalty. There has been nearly 2000 years of biblical, theological, traditional and rational support for the death penalty within the Catholic Church. Even today, a Catholic in good standing can support the death penalty and an increase in executions, based upon their own prudential judgement. I would ask Mr. Viguerie to review the requirements of his faith, re the death penalty.
see "Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
2) Mr. Viguerie "I’m a conservative as well, and because my political philosophy recognizes that government is too often used by humans for the wrong ends, I find it quite logical to oppose capital punishment."
Sharp replies: Because some seek any goal for the wrong ends, doesn't mean that the death penalty is not sought, most often, for honorable ends , the just and appropriate sentence for the crime committed. As Mr. Viguerie does not have a case for an opposite finding, he gives no support for ending the death penalty, with this statement.
3) Mr. Viguerie: "The fact is, I don’t understand why more conservatives don’t oppose the death penalty. It is, after all, a system set up under laws established by politicians (too many of whom lack principles); enforced by prosecutors (many of whom want to become politicians—perhaps a character flaw?—and who prefer wins over justice); and adjudicated by judges (too many of whom administer personal preference rather than the law)."
Sharp replies: Mr. Viguerie, the same arguments can be used against all legal sanctions. You provide nor argument or evidence that the death penalty is not, most often sought and given by honorable persons for honorable reasons. Furthermore, 80% of US citizens support the death penalty for true, capital, death penalty eligible murders. Again, Mr. Viguerie provides no foundation to oppose the death penalty, with his statement.
4) Mr. Viguerie: "Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice. But here the end result is the end of someone’s life. In other words, it’s a government system that kills people."
Sharp replies: Yes, they do.
A) Costly/inefficient: Rebuttal. Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned. With the high costs of long term imprisonment, a true life sentence will be more expensive than such a death penalty protocol. Therefore, again, Mr. Viguerie does not provide a solid reason to oppose capital punishment. Improve the system in other states.
See: "Cost Savings: The Death Penalty" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/07/cost-savings-the-death-penalty.aspx
B) Injustice: Rebuttal. Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty? Unlikely. Therefore, this may be the least likely government program to end, based upon Mr. Viguerie's reasoning.
See "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
and
"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
Mr. Viguerie, a very weak case, indeed, for death penalty opposition.
Whatever one feels about the practicality of anti-abortion arguments, one must respect the Catholic Church at least for its rational and consistent urging against it AND the death penalty. Isn't the Pope still vocally and consistently opposed to the deat penalty? Mr. Sharp is certainly a man of faith: his beliefs that the death penalty is a deterrent, that it is cost effective, that it protects innocents, and that it is pursued by "honorable" people in an honorable system is quaint. The evidence, however, is entirely to the contrary, which Mr. Vigerie recognizes. M. Sharp, which honorable prosecutors concealed evidence, refuse DNA tests to contradict their corrupt verdicts, deny habeas corpus relief when witnesses recant?
ReplyDelete