Reprinted from the March 2004 issue of The Winona Catholic Worker, Winona, MN

Are some crimes so heinous that the only appropriate punishment is death?
This assumes that the purpose of criminal justice is to exact revenge. But the ancient root of justice means “to make right.” Since ancient times, great civilizations have taught that the main purpose of justice is to restore the good as much as possible. That is the Christian ideal of justice as well: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2266). Does executing criminals “make things right”? The evidence strongly suggests it does not, which is why the Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong when other means of defending the common good are available (Catechism #2267).

Is the death penalty necessary as a deterrent to crime?
Violent crime is irrational, most often committed by people who are impaired by a mental disorder, fear, passion, or drugs. The consequences of their actions aren’t foremost in the minds of would-be killers.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime, and many studies suggest otherwise. For example, Canada’s homicide rate is 27 percent lower now than when it had the death penalty. And a 2000 New York Times survey found that during the previous twenty years the homicide rate in states with the death penalty had been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
It’s not surprising that violent crime would be higher in death penalty states; when society resorts to violence to solve its problems, it legitimates the use of violence in general.

Is the death penalty fair and just?
The evidence that the death penalty is unfairly applied is overwhelming. For example:

• Ninety-five percent of death row inmates cannot afford their own attorney.
• Since 1977, blacks and whites have been the victims of murders in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed in that period were convicted of murders involving white victims.
• More than 112 people have been exonerated from death row since 1972—some just days short of being executed.
• A 1987 study published in the Stanford Law Review found 23 instances in the last century in which a person with an extraordinarily strong case of innocence had been executed by the government.
• Compelling evidence suggests that the government may have executed at least seven innocent people since 1990. For example, the state of Texas executed Jesse Jacobs in 1995 even though the prosecution changed its mind about his guilt after the trial, claiming that it was Jacobs’ co-defendant, not Jacobs, who had committed the murder. The codefendant was later convicted of the same murder for which Jacobs was executed.

Is seeing their loved one’s killer die the only way families of murder victims can find healing?

It’s true that some people say they found satisfaction and closure in seeing their loved one’s killer die. It’s also true that the survivors’ need for justice and healing ought to be our primary concern in the aftermath of violent crime.

But it’s possible to support the victims’ friends and family without supporting the death penalty. While some families are satisfied by seeing their loved one’s killer executed, many others are left dissatisfied—they find it’s not enough to heal the hurt and anger they feel. Some families believe they have found a better path to healing. The organization Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation says: “Most criticism of the death penalty focuses on how it affects the person on death row. Our concern is how the death penalty affects the rest of us in society. Our opposition to the death penalty is rooted in our direct experience of loss and our refusal to respond to that loss with a quest for more killing. Executions are not what will help us heal.”

Should the people decide this issue by voting on whether to re-institute the death penalty in Minnesota?

Governor Pawlenty wants to let Minnesotans vote on the death penalty in a ballot initiative in November. At first glance that looks fair and democratic, but some ideas are so wrong they shouldn’t even be raised for consideration. Would it be a good idea for people to vote on a ballot initiative to reinstate segregation? Forty years ago, that might have been popular; today, civilized societies reject racial segregation. State-sponsored execution ought to be another idea whose day is past.

• For more information about the death penalty:
  Minnesotans Against the Death Penalty: www.mnadp.org • Catholics Against Capital Punishment: www.cacp.org • Amnesty International USA: http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/ • Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation: www.mvfr.org • The Moratorium Campaign: www.moratorium.org • Death Penalty Information Center: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
  
  Stop the Death Penalty In Minnesota
  1. Learn About the Death Penalty
  Educate yourself about the death penalty; the information on the reverse side of this sheet is a good place to start.
  2. Talk to Friends and Neighbors
  Most of us dislike conflict, which is perhaps why we avoid talking about controversial and emotional topics with our friends and neighbors. But talking with one another about important issues—such as what our system of criminal justice should look like—is the best way to build a better society. Here are some tips for discussing controversial social issues with others:
  

  • Discuss rather than debate. “If you share what’s on your mind, and I share what’s on my mind, then we’ll both have more on our minds,” said Peter Maurin, co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement. The point of good conversation is for everyone involved to come to a better understanding of the problem or topic being discussed. Focusing on shared problem-solving rather than “winning” an argument makes for more respectful, fruitful conversation.
    
  • Be a good listener. Listen to others’ perspectives; try to understand their feelings, even if you disagree with them. Affirm points that you both agree on. If you listen to others, others will listen to you—and will be more likely to respect your views.
    
  • Speak the truth in love. It’s important to be open to others’ views-, since it would be blasphemous to suggest that we know the truth fully and with 100 percent certainty. But that doesn’t negate our responsibility to speak up for what we think is right. When we do speak up, we can do so in ways that are respectful of others.
    
  3. Call Your Elected Representatives
  Many folks are intimidated by the idea of calling their elected officials, so here’s what to expect:
  1. When you call an elected official’s office, a member of his or her staff will answer. Simply say, “I’m a constituent calling for (name of person). I’d like to express my opposition to legalizing the death penalty in Minnesota. Can you tell me how (name of person) intends to vote on Governor Pawlenty’s pro-death penalty ballot initiative?”
  2. If the official intends to vote for the proposal, leave a simple (one or two sentences) message urging him or her to reconsider. You can use the information on the reverse of this sheet for your message. 3. If the official intends to vote against it, leave a message thanking him or her.
  4. The staff member will probably take your name and address and thank you for calling.

If you’re really intimidated by calling an elected official’s office, call after hours and leave a message on the answering machine; include your street address when you call. Not sure who to call? The Minnesota House Public Information Office can connect you with your representative and senator: (651) 296-2146 or 1 (800) 657-3550. Winona’s state representative is Gene Pelowski: (651) 296-8637 or (507) 454-3282. Winona’s state senator is Bob Kierlin: (651) 296-5649 or (507) 454-5241. Governor Tim Pawlenty: (651) 296-3391.