LETTERS: ETHICS OF DEATH PENALTY

To the editor:

In response to Scott Moyers recent piece "Death penalty imperfect but still worth keeping," the following comments come to mind:

The "big legal question has been ... whether the death penalty is unfair" misses the point. When the question in the balance is life and death, the concern must be whether it is ethical/moral, not whether it is fair or not.

Mr. Moyers refers to the discussion as "the whole mess." I disagree. It is a question well worth the most serious discussion. And I have been hoping there would be some intelligent discussion, some discussion not based on feeling and emotion, but on good clear thinking. The pros and cons of the case should not be dismissed with ad hominem arguments.

The ABA did not say the present system is unfair. It said that it is imperfect to the extent that innocent people are being put to death. This moves the question to the field of ethics. Should not the innocent be protected? The principle of protecting the innocent has been a foundation of ethics and morality affecting human behavior from Old Testament times. Up to and including the Geneva Conventions. it was applied to Mei Lei, Viet Nam, and it applies to everyday judicial determinations.

I think we all have cause to be concerned when the prosecuting attorney has no concern for the innocent. and if that is indeed his position, as it seems to be, I think he sides with the terrorist who says there are no innocent people but they are dispensable for the sack of the "cause." The result is that if a few innocent people are put to death, what's the big deal? Logically, such a person, in putting the innocent to death, now becomes the criminal even when it is done in the name of the law (capital punishment).

I am appalled at the author's arrogance in saying another human being "no longer deserves to breathe air." Who made you God? is the only response I can come up with. Or are you so angry and blinded by some terrible hurt? Or do you think you must be cruel so as not to appear "out of touch"? Violence, vengeance and cruelty are sadly signs of our times!

The most ancient argument against the death penalty that seems even to predate all the Old Testament pro-death penalty laws is the story of Cain and Able. cf. Genesis, Chapter 4. I suggest all pro-death penalty adherents read it. In case you don't have a Bible, the story goes like this: Cain is jealous of Abel so he kills him. God comes down and asks Cain "Where is your brother?" Cain says, "Am I my brother's keeper?" The implied answer from God is "Yes, you are your brother's keeper." When Cain admits what he has done, God as punishment banishes him. Then he appeals to God saying: "I will put my mark upon you so that no one may kill you. You will be safe because you are under my protection." (Sorry for the condensed version. The original is much better.) Although it is true that many of the laws that come later have death as a punishment, none of them has a story attached and indeed can be determined to be human law and not divine law. The story of Cain and Abel, shows a good, loving, forgiving but just God. And he does not choose the death penalty. And I think it is up to us to try to discern the reasons God acts like that and not like our human nature would lead us to act.

In closing, I just wish to repeat that all life is sacred, even that of the sinner. (Let him who is without sin throw the first stone.) In no way do I think that punishment should not be given. I simply say that the death penalty is going too far.

My apologies to Mr. Moyers if I have somewhat taken advantage of what he certainly meant to be an article in a lighter vein.

The REV. PAT WISSMAN

Scott City