Vatican Says Death Penalty Is ​“Affront to Human Dignity”

In a posi­tion paper issued this month dur­ing the World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris, the Vatican said that the death penal­ty ​“is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity.” Echoing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the paper not­ed that while gov­ern­ments have an oblig­a­tion to pro­tect their cit­i­zens, ​“today it tru­ly is dif­fi­cult to jus­ti­fy” using cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment when oth­er means of pro­tec­tion, such as life in prison, are pos­si­ble. The Vatican also gave sup­port to all inter­na­tion­al cam­paigns to pro­claim a mora­to­ri­um on the use of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment and the abo­li­tion of the death penalty worldwide.

​“The Holy See takes this occa­sion to wel­come and affirm again its sup­port for all ini­tia­tives aimed at defend­ing the inher­ent and invi­o­lable val­ue of all human life .… Consciences have been awak­ened by the need for a great recog­ni­tion of the inalien­able dig­ni­ty of human beings and by the uni­ver­sal­i­ty and integri­ty of human rights, begin­ning with the right to life,” the Vatican stat­ed. The Holy See added that the death penal­ty car­ries ​“numer­ous risks,” includ­ing the dan­ger of pun­ish­ing inno­cent peo­ple, and that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment pro­motes ​“vio­lent forms of revenge rather than a true sense of social jus­tice.” The paper con­clud­ed that the death penal­ty con­tributes to a ​“cul­ture of vio­lence” and that for Christians it shows ​“a con­tempt for the Gospel teach­ing on for­give­ness.” (Catholic News Service, February 7, 2007)

Leading Baptist Theologian Calls for National Halt to Executions

Professor David Gushee, Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, called for a nation­al halt to exe­cu­tions because the death penal­ty as a pub­lic pol­i­cy ​“fails the most basic stan­dards of jus­tice.” Prof. Gushee, writ­ing for the Associated Baptist Press, stat­ed that the recent mora­to­ri­um in Tennessee sur­round­ing lethal injec­tion prob­lems should be extend­ed to review the entire appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty, and that oth­er states should take similar action.

Prof. Gushee wrote:

In a move that received very lit­tle atten­tion, Gov. Phil Bredesen recent­ly sus­pend­ed all exe­cu­tions in Tennessee until May, pend­ing a full review of what he called our ​“slop­py” exe­cu­tion pro­ce­dures. The gov­er­nor is to be com­mend­ed for this brave and wise decision.

But I sug­gest that he take this oppor­tu­ni­ty to review not just the exe­cu­tion pro­ce­dures, but the entire appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty in this state. That will take far longer than a few months. We need a death penal­ty mora­to­ri­um — not just in Tennessee but in all states.

When the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that states could resume exe­cu­tions, they man­dat­ed that any state doing so must apply this ulti­mate penal­ty in a fair and con­sis­tent, rather than arbi­trary and capri­cious, man­ner. No one can hon­est­ly look at the cur­rent appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty in Tennessee and believe that we have met that test.

Tennessee’s death-penal­ty sen­tenc­ing is rife with error. Half of all death sen­tences in our state are over­turned on appeal due to seri­ous con­sti­tu­tion­al error, accord­ing to a study by the Tennessean. That num­ber does not include those sit­ting on death row who are, in all like­li­hood, inno­cent of the crimes for which they were con­vict­ed. One exam­ple is Paul House, await­ing exe­cu­tion for over 20 years despite uncon­test­ed DNA evi­dence that he did not rape the woman he was accused of mur­der­ing (rape being the state’s the­o­ry of the crime). In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court found that ​“view­ing the record as a whole, no rea­son­able juror would have lacked a reasonable doubt.”

Then there’s the way that race affects the use of the death penal­ty. It is real­ly no coin­ci­dence that pub­lic-opin­ion polling finds far less sup­port for cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment among blacks than among whites. National stud­ies repeat­ed­ly find both race-of-per­pe­tra­tor and race-of-vic­tim bias in death-penal­ty sen­tenc­ing. In Tennessee and most states, racial/​ethnic minori­ties are vast­ly over-rep­re­sent­ed on death row, and a full quar­ter of African-Americans on Tennessee’s death row were sen­tenced by all-white juries.

Besides race, social class is anoth­er dis­tort­ing fac­tor in the use of the death penal­ty. If you don’t have mon­ey for an attor­ney, your goose is cooked. In Tennessee, near­ly every one of the 102 peo­ple on death row could not afford an attor­ney at tri­al. With all due respect to our pub­lic defend­ers, if my life were on the line I would want the best pri­vate attor­ney that mon­ey could buy. But that is not an option for almost any­one who faces this sit­u­a­tion in our state — with predictable results.

We have to be care­ful and sys­tem­at­ic in our think­ing here. It is not log­i­cal to respond to this evi­dence by affirm­ing one’s vis­cer­al sup­port for the prin­ci­ple of life-for-life. Fine, for argument’s sake, let’s grant that for a moment. Would not such a pas­sion for jus­tice also require the fair appli­ca­tion of this penal­ty? Would we not also want to assure such basics as the actu­al guilt of the peo­ple we are exe­cut­ing, the class-blind and col­or-blind appli­ca­tion of this penal­ty and the oppor­tu­ni­ty for ade­quate legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion? Would we also want to be sure that the peo­ple we are exe­cut­ing are moral­ly respon­si­ble for their actions, rather than clin­i­cal­ly insane, as are a num­ber of our death row inmates?

Nationally, the appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty is about as ratio­nal and order­ly as who wins the lot­tery. Thousands of peo­ple mur­der and are mur­dered each year. A small num­ber of (main­ly south­ern) states exe­cute the great major­i­ty of those con­vict­ed of mur­der. Evidentiary require­ments vary. Which par­tic­u­lar types of mur­der are eli­gi­ble for cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing vary. Appeals process­es vary. Quality of legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion varies. In the end, a small per­cent­age of con­vict­ed mur­der­ers get the death penal­ty, and an even small­er group is actu­al­ly exe­cut­ed. And more and more, across the coun­try, DNA evi­dence is show­ing up to exon­er­ate a sig­nif­i­cant minor­i­ty of those exe­cut­ed. How many inno­cent exe­cut­ed per­sons is too many?

It would take anoth­er col­umn to review the bib­li­cal argu­ments, which in the South are a pro­found fac­tor in sup­port for the death penal­ty. Even if we were to take the Old Testament alone as our guide, it requires the eye­wit­ness tes­ti­mo­ny of two or three wit­ness­es (Deut. 17:6), a stricter stan­dard than our own. It also requires that the jus­tice sys­tem ​“not show par­tial­i­ty” (Deut. 16:19) and there­fore that every accused per­son be treat­ed sim­i­lar­ly. And this is not even to con­sid­er the pro­found issues raised by the New Testament’s focus on mercy.

As of now, at least, the death penal­ty is a pub­lic pol­i­cy that fails the most basic stan­dards of jus­tice. It is time for a mora­to­ri­um and a com­pre­hen­sive review. (Associated Baptist Press, February 8, 2007). 

Catholic Bishops Invoke Holy Day in Calling for End to Executions

In a let­ter issued pri­or to Easter, the Catholic Bishops in Missouri called for an end to exe­cu­tions in the U.S. and urged parish­ioners to ​“build a cul­ture of life.” The let­ter not­ed that vio­lence ​“is not a solu­tion to soci­ety’s prob­lems,” and it sum­ma­rized church teach­ings regard­ing cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment and high­light­ed a cam­paign by U.S. Catholic Bishops to end the use of the death penal­ty. “(Christ) was unjust­ly sen­tenced to death and exe­cut­ed on a cross, the cru­elest form of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment at the time.… [R]ecent court inter­ven­tions have focused atten­tion on the inhu­mane­ness of exe­cu­tions. As Catholics who believe in the sacred­ness of life, the use of state-autho­rized killing in our names dimin­ish­es us all,” the Bishops wrote. In the let­ter, the Bishops urged Catholics to con­tact their elect­ed offi­cials to advo­cate for a halt to exe­cu­tions. (St. Louis Review, April 7, 2006). Read the Bishop’s Letter on the Death Penalty.

New Resource from Death Row Chaplain

In Florida, Catholic Lay Chaplain Dale Recinella (pic­tured), who serves as a spir­i­tu­al advi­sor to those on death row, has ini­ti­at­ed a new Web resource at http://​www​.iwas​in​prison​.org. Dale and his wife, Susan, a clin­i­cal psy­chol­o­gist and Catholic lay min­is­ter to the fam­i­lies of the exe­cut­ed, use the site to post week­ly arti­cles about cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment and about their expe­ri­ences min­is­ter­ing to those fac­ing exe­cu­tion and their fam­i­lies. See the Web Site.

United Methodist Church Marks 50th Anniversary of Stance Against Death Penalty

Marking the 50th anniver­sary of the United Methodist Church’s pub­lic call for an end to the death penal­ty, the church’s General Board of Church and Society recent­ly issued a state­ment echo­ing the sen­ti­ments of the church’s orig­i­nal call for abo­li­tion and urg­ing all United Methodists ​“to prac­tice trans­for­ma­tive love, to com­fort the vic­tims of crime, to human­ize those con­vict­ed of crime, and to advo­cate for an end to the death penal­ty in our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem.” The state­ment comes five decades after the his­toric 1956 United Methodist General Conference, dur­ing which the church offi­cial­ly stat­ed, ​“We stand for the appli­ca­tion of the redemp­tive prin­ci­ple to the treat­ment of offend­ers against the law, to reform of penal and cor­rec­tion­al meth­ods, and to crim­i­nal court pro­ce­dures. We deplore the use of capital punishment.”

In the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Church and Society’s 2006 state­ment rec­og­niz­ing the 50th anniver­sary of church oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty, the Board noted:

We cel­e­brate this prophet­ic state­ment and the fact that The Methodist Church was one of the first denom­i­na­tion’s in the United States to for­mal­ly come out against the death penal­ty. The United Methodist Church main­tains a strong stand against cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment as exem­pli­fied in the Book of Discipline,

We believe the death penal­ty denies the pow­er of Christ to redeem, restore and trans­form all human beings. The United Methodist Church is deeply con­cerned about crime through­out the world and the val­ue of any life tak­en by a mur­der or homi­cide. We believe all human life is sacred and cre­at­ed by God and there­fore, we must see all human life as sig­nif­i­cant and valu­able. When gov­ern­ments imple­ment the death penal­ty (cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment), then the life of the con­vict­ed per­son is deval­ued and all pos­si­bil­i­ty of change in that person’s life ends. We believe in the res­ur­rec­tion of Jesus Christ and that the pos­si­bil­i­ty of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion with Christ comes through repen­tance. This gift of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion is offered to all indi­vid­u­als with­out excep­tion and gives all life new dig­ni­ty and sacred­ness. For this rea­son, we oppose the death penal­ty (cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment) and urge its elim­i­na­tion from all criminal codes.

In Matthew 25:38 – 39, Jesus point­ed­ly refutes revenge as a basis of jus­tice and com­mands his fol­low­ers to com­pas­sion­ate­ly serve even their ene­mies. In John 8:1 – 11, Jesus exon­er­ates and redeems the woman caught in adul­tery who was to be put to death. Jesus refus­es to uphold the use of the death penal­ty and as his fol­low­ers we are called to do the same.

Therefore, we urge all United Methodists in their church­es to prac­tice trans­for­ma­tive love, to com­fort the vic­tims of crime, to human­ize those con­vict­ed of crime, and to advo­cate for an end to the death penal­ty in our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. (General Board of Church and Society Statement on the 50th Anniversary of the United Methodist Church’s Opposition to the Death Penalty, April 23, 2006).

Religious Leaders of Wisconsin Issue Statement on Death Penalty

A broad spec­trum of reli­gious lead­ers from Wisconsin issued a joint state­ment regard­ing their views on the death penal­ty on October 14. The statement follows:

‘Simply put, we can­not sup­port the death penalty’

Posted: Oct. 14, 2006

There are many artic­u­late and com­pelling argu­ments for reject­ing the death penal­ty ref­er­en­dum on the Nov. 7 ballot.

We will not rehearse those argu­ments here. As reli­gious lead­ers, we wish to present a straight­for­ward, val­ues-based argu­ment. We believe that it is impor­tant to go beyond the elec­toral and polit­i­cal aspects of this issue and focus on the deep­er moral, eth­i­cal and reli­gious ques­tions raised by capital punishment.

Simply put, we can­not sup­port the death penal­ty. Some reli­gious tra­di­tions believe that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is sim­ply wrong. Others of us believe that either it is not need­ed in a mod­ern soci­ety or it can­not be applied justly.

We are deeply con­cerned about the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the death penal­ty might be restored in Wisconsin.

Our state has been with­out the death penal­ty for 153 years. We do not believe that rein­stat­ing the death penal­ty will bring heal­ing to our com­mu­ni­ties nor address the seri­ous con­cerns we all share regard­ing vio­lence and its impact on all of us.

As reli­gious lead­ers, we know that our con­gre­ga­tions and cler­gy see the tremen­dous pain that the injus­tice of vio­lence caus­es in our society.

We know that the grief and hurt can seem unbear­able for fam­i­lies who have lost some­one to violence.

We are all sick­ened by the vio­lent behav­ior that plagues our soci­ety, and we mourn with all who have suf­fered vio­lence or lost some­one to violence.

All of us in soci­ety are vul­ner­a­ble to feel­ings of revenge and ret­ri­bu­tion when we are angered. We can­not let such feel­ings, often very per­son­al feel­ings, dic­tate public policy.

While we rec­og­nize that there is a dif­fer­ence of opin­ion between thought­ful, faith­ful peo­ple on this top­ic, we sim­ply do not believe that a death penal­ty is nec­es­sary nor will it pre­vent violent crime.

We also believe that pol­i­cy mak­ing around issues as sig­nif­i­cant as the death penal­ty, even when a pro­posed ref­er­en­dum is only advi­so­ry, should be very delib­er­ate and thorough.

Surely our state leg­is­la­tors have their own views on capital punishment.

We are also all aware of numer­ous pub­lic opin­ion polls that reveal gen­er­al sup­port for the death penal­ty (although this sup­port declines when life with­out parole is an option, as it is in Wisconsin).

We then must ask why our state Legislature felt it was nec­es­sary to place this ref­er­en­dum on the November ballot.

If, as peo­ple of faith, we believe that each per­son is cre­at­ed by God, we can­not sanc­tion an unjust and unfair sys­tem of pun­ish­ment that involves the cal­cu­lat­ed and delib­er­ate killing of a per­son who would oth­er­wise be incar­cer­at­ed and removed from soci­ety, no mat­ter how offen­sive and heinous his or her crime.

We specif­i­cal­ly ques­tion whether the death penal­ty can be admin­is­tered just­ly since, as human beings, we are inca­pable of cre­at­ing any sys­tem or struc­ture that is perfect.

We urge peo­ple of faith to give seri­ous con­sid­er­a­tion to this important topic.

In recent years, we have seen our state face very seri­ous social issues. We have also seen a trend toward a less com­pas­sion­ate approach to vex­ing issues such as pover­ty and violence.

It is our hope and prayer that this state can find ways to address vio­lence with­out resort­ing to the use of vio­lence our­selves. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct. 15, 2006).

Connecticut Archbishop Asks Parishoners to Protest the Death Penalty

As Connecticut pre­pares to car­ry out its first exe­cu­tion in over 40 years, Catholic Archbishop Henry J. Mansell of Hartford called on local parish­es to sign a Church peti­tion that calls for an end to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. ​“The death penal­ty offers the trag­ic illu­sion that we can defend life only by taking life,” Mansell wrote in a let­ter that will be read dur­ing Masses on January 8 and 9. Other bish­ops in Connecticut are tak­ing sim­i­lar actions pri­or to the sched­uled exe­cu­tion of Michael Ross on January 26. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for a com­plete rejec­tion of the death penal­ty, in accor­dance with Catholic teach­ing to uphold the human dig­ni­ty of all per­sons. Archbishop Mansell is part of a broad spec­trum of reli­gious lead­ers and groups seek­ing to halt exe­cu­tions in the state. Many of these lead­ers will hold a press con­fer­ence pub­licly call­ing for the abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty on January 12 on the state Capitol steps. (Hartford Courant, January 6, 2005).

Catholic Bishops Oppose Expansion of Federal Death Penalty for Terrorism

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick (pic­tured), the Catholic Archbishop of Washington and act­ing as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has urged House and Senate con­fer­ees work­ing on anti-ter­ror­ism leg­is­la­tion to report out a final bill that would not expand the fed­er­al death penal­ty for ter­ror­ists. McCarrick wrote a let­ter to House and Senate lead­ers craft­ing their final ver­sion of the National Intelligence Reform Act (S. 2845). The House ver­sion of that bill con­tains pro­vi­sions to expand the fed­er­al death penal­ty, but the Senate ver­sion does not. McCarrick wrote:

“The cow­ard­ly acts of September 11 and their trag­ic human costs still haunt our nation. There can be no dimin­ish­ing the hor­ror of ter­ror­ism or the respon­si­bil­i­ty of those who employ wan­ton vio­lence on the inno­cent. As you know, the bish­ops of the United States oppose the use of the death penal­ty in any instance. Catholic teach­ing on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is clear: If blood­less means are suf­fi­cient to defend human lives against an aggres­sor and to pro­tect pub­lic order and the safe­ty of per­sons, pub­lic author­i­ty should lim­it itself to such means, because they bet­ter cor­re­spond to the con­crete con­di­tions of the com­mon good and are more in con­for­mi­ty to the dig­ni­ty of the human per­son (Catechism of the Catholic Church). Congress need not go any fur­ther. Secondly, we feel strong­ly that ter­ror­ists are not going to be deterred by the death penal­ty. In fact, many ter­ror­ists believe that if they die com­mit­ting an act of ter­ror­ism they will become mar­tyrs. At the very least, it would seem that exe­cut­ing ter­ror­ists could make them heroes in the minds of oth­er like-mind­ed advo­cates of ter­ror. As pas­tors, we believe that the use of the death penal­ty under any cir­cum­stances dimin­ish­es us as human beings. As we said in Confronting a Culture of Violence: ​‘We can­not teach that killing is wrong by killing,’ ” (October 25, 2004, Statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

New York Religious Leaders Unite Against Death Penalty, Call for Moratorium

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)

Texas Baptist Commission Calls for Moratorium

The Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission has joined the call for a mora­to­ri­um on the death penal­ty. Declaring the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem ​“bro­ken” and ​“unfair,” the orga­ni­za­tion issued a cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment report exam­in­ing the death penal­ty from bib­li­cal, his­tor­i­cal and social jus­tice per­spec­tives. The report, which includes con­cerns about racial and socio-eco­nom­ic bias in how the death penal­ty is applied in Texas, con­cludes: ​“In the final analy­sis, bib­li­cal teach­ing does not sup­port cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment as it is prac­ticed in con­tem­po­rary soci­ety.” Moreover, the report stat­ed, ​“The prac­tice of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in our nation and state is an affront to bib­li­cal jus­tice, both in terms of its impact on the mar­gin­al­ized in soci­ety and in terms of sim­ple fair­ness.” (Business Wire, January 13, 2002) For more infor­ma­tion about the report, con­tact Becky Bridges or Kenneth Camp at the Baptist General Convention of Texas Communications Center (214 – 828-5229).

Former Death Row Chaplain Decries Capital Punishment

Rev. Carroll Pickett, who served as chap­lain on Texas’ death row in Huntsville for 20 years, recent­ly stat­ed that the death penal­ty is akin to legal­ized mur­der. During a talk at Texas A&M University, Pickett said that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment degrades soci­ety and caters to the low­est human impulse. He also point­ed out that the death penal­ty sys­tem lacks equi­ty, not­ing that some­one who is wealthy, has an edu­ca­tion, and is the right race will not be put to death. (The Battalion of Texas A&M University, November 5, 2002).

Former Texas Death Row Minister Now Opposed To Capital Punishment 

Carroll Pickett, who spent 15 years as chap­lain of Texas’s death row, is now speak­ing out about the death penal­ty. ​“The more I worked for the Texas prison sys­tem, the more I began to see there is not total jus­tice in pun­ish­ment,” said Pickett. ​“At one point, I did sup­port cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. I was wrong.” Pickett, who appeared on National Public Radio’s ​“Witness to an Execution,” has co-writ­ten the soon to be released book, ​“Within These Walls: Memoirs of a Death House Chaplain,” with Carlton Stowers. The book will be issued in May. (Houston Chronicle, 3/​18/​02)

Pope Expresses Death Penalty Opposition to President Bush

Pope John Paul II admon­ished President Bush for his sup­port of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, say­ing the death penal­ty does not belong in ​“a free and vir­tu­ous soci­ety.” At his sum­mer res­i­dence in Castelgondolfo, the pon­tiff told the vis­it­ing President, ​“In defend­ing the right to life, in law and through a vibrant cul­ture of life, America can show the world the path to a tru­ly humane future.” The Pope, an ardent oppo­nent of the death penal­ty, told Bush that America ​“must reject prac­tices that deval­ue human life.” (Agence France Presse, 7/​23/​01)

Union of the Orthodox Jewish Congregations Supports Moratorium

The Union of the Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tion rep­re­sent­ing near­ly 1,000 syn­a­gogues nation­wide, announced its sup­port for efforts to impose a nation­wide mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions. The orga­ni­za­tion endors­es the cre­ation of a com­mis­sion to con­duct a com­pre­hen­sive review of how the death penal­ty is admin­is­tered in America’s courts. (The Union of the Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Press Release, 6/​13/​00) See also, Statements and Resolutions from Religious Organizations and Leaders

Bush’s New Head of Faith-Based Initiatives Opposes the Death Penalty

The direc­tor of the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, John J. DiIulio, Jr., says he once favored the death penal­ty as ​“a sub­stan­tive tool of crime con­trol.” DiIulio, who will aid President Bush’s efforts to help reli­gious groups pro­vide social ser­vices, now says he oppos­es cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. Citing the Catholic cat­e­chism, DiIulio believes “[p]revention is the only rea­son­able way to approach these prob­lems.” (New York Times, 2/​9/​01)

U.S. Catholic Bishops Reiterate Opposition to the death penalty

“[W]e join with those who are work­ing to end the death penal­ty — in their wit­ness at pris­ons as peo­ple are exe­cut­ed, in state cap­i­tals across our land, in court­rooms and pris­ons around the nation, and in Congress, where efforts to abol­ish or lim­it the death penal­ty are being debat­ed. We sup­port calls for a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions and wel­come the courage of lead­ers who have imple­ment­ed or are work­ing to address the clear fail­ings of the death penalty.”

- Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, United States Catholic Conference, November 2000. Read the entire statement.

Cardinal Urges California Governor to Impose a Moratorium on Executions.

Cardinal Roger Mahony, the Roman Catholic arch­bish­op of Los Angeles, has urged California Gov. Gray Davis to impose a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions and to con­duct a ​“com­pre­hen­sive and objec­tive study” of the state’s ​“fatal­ly flawed” death penal­ty sys­tem. In a let­ter to Davis, who is Catholic, Cardinal Mahony stat­ed, ​“I believe that an objec­tive study will pro­vide sub­stan­tial fac­tu­al data to sup­port moral and eth­i­cal ques­tions raised by the Catholic bish­ops of California and the United States regard­ing the death penal­ty.” Citing the mora­to­ri­um in Illinois and the New Hampshire Legislature’s vote to abol­ish the death penal­ty, Cardinal Mahony wrote that ​“California has no less an oblig­a­tion to con­duct a thor­ough assess­ment of its sys­tem in order to iden­ti­fy the inequities, weak­ness­es, and bias­es of the process used to try those charged with cap­i­tal crimes and admin­is­ter the death penal­ty.” (New York Times, 5/​27/​00) California has the largest feath row in the nation, with 568 inmates as of April 1, 2000.

Pope John Paul II, speak­ing in Missouri, called for an end to the death penal­ty: ​“I renew the appeal I made most recent­ly at Christmas for a con­sen­sus to end the death penal­ty, which is both cru­el and unnec­es­sary.” His appeal was direct­ed at the U.S., where over 500 peo­ple have been exe­cut­ed since 1976. ​“A sign of hope is the increas­ing recog­ni­tion that the dig­ni­ty of human life must nev­er be tak­en away, even in the case of some­one who has done great evil,” he told a gath­er­ing of 100,000 peo­ple in St. Louis. (Reuters, 1/​27/​99). (For oth­er Catholic state­ments on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, see National Conference of Catholic Bishops) Despite the Pope’s pleas, the Oklahoma exe­cut­ed the first 16-year-old offend­er in 40 years.

The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut recent­ly issued a state­ment oppos­ing the death penal­ty. The Bishops expressed their par­tic­u­lar con­cern about the dan­ger of exe­cut­ing inno­cent peo­ple and the preva­lence of the ​“poor, young and minori­ties” on death row. They con­clud­ed: ​“while con­ced­ing that the state has the duty to main­tain pub­lic order and the right to pun­ish con­vict­ed crim­i­nals, we express our con­sid­ered oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty in the State of Connecticut at this time.” (Nov. 1998, see CACP News Notes). (For a col­lec­tion of some of the 100 offi­cial Catholic state­ments on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, see National Conference of Catholic Bishops.)

A recent issue of Catholics Against Capital Punishment newslet­ter illus­trat­ed the grow­ing reli­gious oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty: Bishop Edmond Carmody of Texas said the death penal­ty ​“is hurt­ful to us and it dimin­ish­es us. We become more and more desen­si­tized. Where do we stop? How do we decide who lives and who dies? We have put our­selves on a very slip­pery slope.” There are also state­ments from the bish­ops of Washington State and Florida, and from the lead­er­ship of women and men’s reli­gious com­mu­ni­ties oppos­ing the death penal­ty.” (CACP, Oct. 23, 1998)