New York reli­gious lead­ers rep­re­sent­ing a range of faiths and regions recent­ly unit­ed to voice their oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty and to encour­age a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions so that issues of fair­ness and accu­ra­cy may be addressed. A state­ment issued by the group not­ed:

“[O]ur nation’s con­tin­ued reliance on the death penal­ty is extreme­ly cost­ly, inef­fec­tive in fight­ing crime, unequal­ly applied, and hand­ed out with alarm­ing fre­quen­cy to defen­dants who are lat­er proved to be inno­cent. Even most death penal­ty pro­po­nents now agree that there are seri­ous prob­lems with its imple­men­ta­tion. We in the reli­gious com­mu­ni­ty now step for­ward to set the moral tone for the debate on this issue, pro­mote seri­ous and thought­ful reflec­tion, and make known the rea­sons why we believe exe­cu­tions will not solve the prob­lem or vio­lent crime in the State of New York. We believe that:

Retribution is prop­er in soci­ety; revenge is not.
All peo­ple are capa­ble of atone­ment and for­give­ness.
The death penal­ty is not a deter­rent to vio­lent crimes.
The death penal­ty is not, and prob­a­bly can­not be, applied equi­tably and fair­ly.
The death penal­ty is not the source of heal­ing for the fam­i­lies of mur­dered vic­tims.

…

​“In the inter­im, we endorse a mora­to­ri­um on the death penal­ty in New York as an attrac­tive, fair, and moral posi­tion to assume regard­ing state exe­cu­tions. It affords an oppor­tu­ni­ty to exam­ine both the pur­pose of the penal­ty and its per­ceived effec­tive­ness, and can save the lives of the false­ly con­demned. Because we rec­og­nize that peo­ple of good will may dis­agree about the ulti­mate moral­i­ty of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, a mora­to­ri­um can rep­re­sent com­mon ground for peo­ple on both sides of the issue who care about jus­tice. The time to study New York’s death penal­ty law is now.”

(New York Religious Leaders Against the Death Penalty, May 2004) See New Voices.

Tags
Citation Guide