It's shameful for a state to execute a person they have reason to believe MIGHT be innocent. Don't they get that it's irrevocable? I'm not sure Carter has much clout in a Republican Georgia, but I respect his willingness to speak up. If you haven't signed a petition, you can do so on the ACLU site or at Amnesty International.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am appalled that a state would execute a person for a crime that s/he may not have commited. What's wrong with this country? I thought at one time we would rather have let a guilty person go than kill or imprison one who was innocent. What if that innocent person was you facing the death penalty? This country is getting very scary indeed when the execution of someone is more important than finding the truth. I think this country has simply forgotten what the truth is. Maybe this country never knew or never cared and I just thought it did. We are a shameful bunch because this country is only a reflection of us and who we vote into office and who we allow to set the rules. Too bad there aren't more Jimmy Carters in this world who are willing to give their time to better this world and our country. He must get very frustrated trying to do the right thing only to end up dealing with a bunch of automotons who couldn't think on their own if they had to or certainly unwilling to stand up for what's right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In a pamphlet entitled The Death Penalty: Cruel & Inhuman Punishment, Amnesty International USA reports that "the United States is the only western industrial nation which still practices capital punishment."

Moreover, the death penalty does not deter violent crime:

"Most people who murder do not see beyond their action; they kill quickly in moments of great fear or emotional stress and under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When the crime is premeditated, the individual rarely believes he or she will be apprehended or executed…in 1976, the United States Supreme Court found no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime. The United Nations came to similar conclusions."

According to Amnesty International USA, capital punishment tends to discriminate against minorities and the poor. In the United States since 1972, over 65 percent of the people on death row have been unskilled, service, or domestic workers, while 60 percent were unemployed at the time of their crimes.

"In the United States," reports Amnesty International USA, "blacks and other minorities face a much greater likelihood of execution than whites similarly charged...The victim’s race still factors heavily in determining the offender’s punishment. In Texas, blacks who kill whites are six times more likely to receive the death sentence than those with black victims. In Florida, black offenders who murder whites are forty times more likely than whites who kill blacks to end up on death row."

Responding to the concept of "an eye for an eye," Amnesty International USA asks, "If capital punishment is appropriate because it takes a life for a life, why doesn’t the government also burn the arsonist’s home and rape the rapist? Because justice does not mean punishment that imitates the crime." Amnesty International USA states further that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment.

United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once observed: "The death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment… While police and law enforcement officials are the strongest advocates of capital punishment, the evidence is overwhelming that police are no safer in communities that retain the sanction than in those that have abolished it. It also is evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society."

United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once argued against capital punishment, saying, "The calculated killing of a human being involves, by its very nature, an absolute denial of the executed person's humanity."

Justice Brennan claimed the 8th Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet the 5th Amendment refers to "capital or otherwise infamous crime" and says no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

This clearly implies that persons can be deprived of their right to life, but only under due process of law. Capital punishment, therefore, is constitutional, and, ultimately, the only way death penalty opponents can correct this apparent injustice is through a Constitutional Amendment.

Attacking capital punishment, the early church father Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted for the guiltless to put even the guilty to death."

Religious leaders throughout the world have taken a stand against capital punishment. Leading Jewish organizations, Protestant denominations, and the United States Catholic Bishops Conference all oppose the death penalty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Using the Bible to advocate ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals is comparable to using the Bible to advocate the emancipation of women or the abolition of human slavery: the secular arguments are stronger.

A vegetarian interpretation of the Bible IS possible, as St. Jerome, Thomas Tryon, William Metcalfe, John Wesley, Ellen White, and other distinguished figures in the Christian tradition have demonstrated, but arguments can be made on both sides of the coin. Christian activists often cite the Bible with regards to other contemporary moral issues.

In his book Death as a Penalty, Howard Zehr makes a Christian case for the abolition of capital punishment. He notes that retaliation in the Old Testament was not as much of a requirement as it was a limitation on vengeance. In early Hebrew history, vengeance had to be controlled. "An eye for an eye" was a rule to make retaliation proportionate to the offense.

Hebrew society thus moved from unlimited to limited retaliation. "An eye for an eye" was not a command to seek vengeance, but a limitation on retribution. According to Zehr, "Retribution, like divorce, reflected a concession, not God's highest intent." (Deuteronomy 24; Matthew 19:8)

Zehr points out that the Old Testament death penalty included many offenses that our society does not consider capital. "To be consistent with the Old Testament," Zehr argues, "we would need to apply the death penalty much more broadly than we do today, including for accidental manslaughter and rebellious teenagers without regard to intent or mitigating circumstances. (Exodus 21)"

Moreover, the Old Testament and later rabbinic tradition placed many restrictions on the application of capital punishment. An "eye for an eye" was one such limitation. Mosaic law and the later rabbinic tradition established a strict set of judicial procedures for cases involving capital punishment. The standard of proof required to convict someone went beyond our own standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" and required almost absolute certainty.

A conviction required at least two eyewitnesses, and witnesses who lied were subject to the same penalty as the accused. (Deuteronomy 17, 19) Hebrew law regarding capital punishment was much more restrictive than our own. Further restrictions were added, and by the 2nd century, the sanction was rarely carried out.

Zehr says a frequent theme in the Old Testament is that of mercy for the offender: "The first murder recorded was followed by an act of God protecting the murderer (Genesis 4). Cities of refuge were to be provided where the guilty could avoid revenge by the victim’s family (Numbers 35; Deuteronomy 4, 19; Joshua 20). These sanctuaries allowed time for tempers to cool and a solution to be worked out.

"The themes of Deuteronomy 32:35--‘To Me belong vengeance and recompense’--and of Leviticus 19:18--‘You shall not take vengeance... but shall love your neighbor as yourself’--recur frequently in the Old Testament."

Zehr states that taking a life for a life in the Old Testament was more of a sacrificial and ceremonial action, rather than a legal one: "A killing was a religious evil that demanded compensation through a religious ceremony. (Genesis 9, Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 19)" Executions, Zehr insists, were not as much a device for maintaining social order as they were a way of righting a moral imbalance. "The death penalty had a sacrificial and ceremonial more than a legal function," observes Zehr, "and to draw parallels to modern use of capital punishment is fallacious."

Zehr concludes, "The Old Testament allowed capital punishment, but as a concession. Retribution was possible, but as a limitation, not as a command. Mercy was preferred. The death penalty served a primarily ceremonial function and was hedged with serious restrictions and reservations."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the New Testament, Jesus refers to capital punishment in one of his parables. (Luke 19:27) However, Jesus’ response to capital punishment undermined the penalty by his demand that both judges and executioners be sinless.

"On one occasion," Zehr writes, "Christ was asked to rule on a death penalty case (John 8). His response: ‘Let one without sin cast the first stone.’ And this was consistent with Christ’s other teachings. He reminds his listeners to beware of condemning others because God’s judgements do not necessarily coincide with our own (e.g. Matthew 25, Luke 6). If our judgements are so fallible, how can we make the decision to take a life?"

According to Zehr, the sacrificial aspect of taking a life was fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ:

"Christ's death on the cross, itself an application of capital punishment, wiped away the Old Testament ceremonial and moral basis for the death penalty (e.g. Hebrews 10). No more blood needs to be shed to testify to the sacredness of life. Christ died that others may live. By trading places with the guilty and the enemy, by dying in place of the murderer Barabbas, Christ closed off the Old Testament reason for the death penalty.

"Christ did not simply eliminate the rationale for the death penalty. He constantly reiterated our responsibility to see Christ in our needy neighbor, even in our enemies."

A theme repeated throughout the New Testament is that of love and forgiveness towards one's enemies and persecutors:

"When Christ himself was executed," observes Zehr, "he gave a model response to his enemies in his dying words: ‘Father, forgive them.’ Jesus teaches that we are to love those who harm us and he sees no way to love a person without caring for life.

"If we love God, Jesus says we are obligated to show that love in our actions toward others. Christ moves us from the Old Testament perspective of limited retaliation to nonretaliation and active love (e.g. Romans 12, I John 4, Luke 6:27-36).

"In Jesus’ teaching," Zehr concludes, "life belongs to God. It is not ours to take. We also have to repudiate capital punishment because it is incompatible with the basic focus of the Gospel--reconciliation and redemption."

Attacking capital punishment, the early church father Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted for the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.

Zehr asks, "When the state takes a life, is it performing a function that belongs to God?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If there's ANY doubt at all about an individual's guilty in a capital case, then the death penalty should not apply. I shudder to think of all the innocent people (who could now be proven such by DNA and other evidence) that Bush and other Southern governors have put to death over the years. It's frightening...and it's unbelieveably racist.

Can a President prevent this in a state case? Maybe with a black Democrat in the White House, someway could be found to stop these MURDERS...and that's exactly what they are!

Another reason to elect Barack Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is my opinion tha,t what this is clearly about, is a system of government, who's agenda is BLOOD THIRST!!! They do this for thier own amusement, not for our safety, or justice! We the people, are peons, uneccessary but for thier lust for blood, and the additional income they can rob from us 'we the people' !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]