Can the pope's moral anti-death penalty argument sway American lawmakers?
 

There are many substantive policy reasons for opposing the death penalty: the risk of executing innocent people; the unfairness inherent in the judicial process; the persistent evidence of racial discrimination; and lack of evidence that killing some people deters other people from killing anyone. And, for the past 20 years, support for the death penalty has been falling more or less consistently – though a comfortable majority of Americans still support its use.

Empirical evidence, however, rarely moves Congress. So perhaps a moral argument, made by somebody with perhaps the greatest moral authority on the planet, might be more effective. Pope Francis’ impassioned speech before Congress Thursday morning might just be what it takes to move hearts and legislative pens on the issue.

Speaking before both houses of Congress, US supreme court justices, members of the president’s cabinet and to millions of viewers watching the live broadcast, Francis made an explicit call to end capital punishment.

Though he spoke more poetically – some might say obtusely – about immigration, “the family” and climate change, citing his belief in the Golden Rule, Francis said, “This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty.”

“I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes,” he continued.

No sooner had the pope finished his speech, then advocacy groups were breaking out in celebration. “The pope’s speech before Congress was nothing less than historic,” the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty executive director Diann Rust-Tierney said in a statement. “His words are a critical endorsement of our fight.”

More dispassionate voices also agreed that the pope’s statement was a meaningful boost for reformers. The executive director of Death Penalty Information Center, which doesn’t take a side in the debate, told the Guardian that his question was what impact the pope’s words might have. “I think that Pope Francis’s statement was very clear, very direct and compelling,” Robert Dunham said. “And I think that it will have a an effect. It’s hard to immediately measure what that effect will be.”

It will, almost certainly, pose a direct challenge to Catholic legislators, prosecutors and judges who are willing to be swayed by the Pope’s words. Indeed, many of the states to abolish the death penalty in recent years are heavily Catholic, including Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York. And in a couple of cases – Governor Pat Quinn in Illinois and Governor Bill Richardson in New Mexico – Catholic leaders played an influential role in abolishing it. Polling data suggests that Catholics are more disturbed by the problems posed by capital punishment than the general population.

But not all Catholics are apparently swayed by this Pope: in addition to Catholic Republican Congressman Paul Gosar, who boycotted the speech, and a variety of other criticism from ultra-conservative Catholics, of the six members of the US supreme court who are Catholic, only three (John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor) attended the pope’s address to Congress. The more right-leaning Catholic justices (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) were notably absent.

Still, now any reporter or citizen can approach Catholic lawmakers from House speaker John Boehner on down, and ask if they agree with the pope that the death penalty should be overturned. It puts pressure on them that, if it existed before, wasn’t as explicit.

And it’s not just Catholics that Francis might have reached with his remarks about the death penalty: while other popes have been mainly popular among Catholics, Pope Francis has been able to reach a wider audience, especially young people. “This particular pope has demonstrated a crossover appeal that goes beyond Catholicism” said Dunham, noting that his statements about support for the poor and dispossessed have resonated widely. “When a public figure who is that highly regarded makes a statement like this, it’s going to have an effect.”

Those trying to quantify the effect of the pope’s speech may not have to wait long for data. Last year Gallup found support for the death penalty, while down, is still as high as 63%. A more recent survey from Pew, puts the number at 56%, down from a high of 78% in 1996.

The new Gallup poll is scheduled to come out in a matter of weeks, so we’ll have an idea of just how big the pope effect really is. People’s views on the law are already affected by their views about morality and their level of compassion for humanity. Pope Francis has made a strong argument that concern for humanity and morality should lead one to oppose the death penalty; maybe he – and faith – can succeed in turning the public tide where logic, experience and evidence has failed.

Bron: www.theguardian.com

---

Ik vind het steeds intrigerend om de morele autoriteit van de paus nog steeds als geldend te zien in een tijd waarin een merkbare kloof tussen Kerk en maatschappij op te merken is.
Het belichten van het morele aspect van deze vorm van vergelding lijkt me ook wel min of meer nodig, louter rationeel gezien is de doodstraf een efficiënte wijze om korte metten te maken met delinquenten waarbij men tegelijkertijd een directe vorm van 'wraak' kan bieden aan de nabestaanden van eventuele slachtoffers. Anderzijds kan men ook rationeel redeneren dat werken aan reïntegratie een grotere positieve impact kan hebben op onze samenleving dan simpelweg een dodelijke injectie, de ganse kwestie berust dus niet volkomen op het morele karakter van de zaak.

Morele argumentatie is echter zelden uitsluitend en berust sterk op de individuele levensbeschouwing. De visie van de sacraliteit van het leven volgens de paus wordt immers niet door iedereen gedeeld en de tegenstanders kan men ook niet objectief etiketteren als fout zijnde.
Mensen die dus niet dezelfde waarde hechten aan het/elk leven, kunnen dus onberoerd blijven door deze uiteenzetting van de paus.

Het artikel haalt ook de rationele broosheid van de doodstraf aan: de mogelijkheid tot het doden van onschuldige zielen alsook de heersende problematiek in de USA waarbij raciale discriminatie nog steeds van zich laat horen.
Ook deze argumenten zijn pas geldend van zodra men dezelfde morele overwegingen over het leven deelt, deze zaken zullen immers ongewijzigd blijven mocht de doodstraf afgeschaft worden (al zal de tuchtmaatregel wijzigen). Maar ik betwijfel of we ons minder schuldig moeten voelen als we een mogelijk onschuldig iemand veroordelen tot levenslange opsluiting in plaats van de doodstraf.