I am opposed to the death penalty, and have been for years.
The usual arguments have never been refuted, or even meaningfully challenged; it doesn’t deter crime, its effect is clearly and obviously racist, innocent people periodically get executed, and it is enormously expensive, given the appeals process. These considerations alone ought to have spelled the demise of capital punishment decades ago, but it persists in this country, among the very few, because for some reason it appeals to a peculiar sense of justice; if you kill someone, the state kills you. It feels like there is some sort of rough equivalence there, some sort of evening of the account. But that is an odd notion of how justice works in modern society, and we don’t apply it in other ways. If I rob a house, the judge does not declare that my victim gets to rob my house, rather the judge sends me to jail. If I beat up someone, the court does not allow my victim to beat me, but rather, again, sends me to jail. Only in capital cases do we literally attempt to requite “an eye for an eye.” In addition, people also talk about being unable to get “closure” until the murder is also murdered. However, it is not the responsibility of the state to make sure that the families of victims feel good about what has happened, it is the responsibility of the state to see that justice is done. “Closure” is something that arises from the spirit of those involved, and I have seen it happen many times regardless of the outer circumstances which necessitated that work.
Finally, although the state has long recognized the right of people to use deadly force in certain, limited circumstances, for example warfare, and the defense of one’s home, family or person, the death penalty is the only place in our society in which we declare that premeditated murder, with malice aforethought, is not only permitted, but seen as somehow virtuous. That is a bad message to send, because it puts the nation squarely on the side of those who believe that deadly violence is a good idea at times, and the only question at issue is when to apply it.
Life in prison without the possibility of parole is a remarkably severe penalty, as anyone who has ever even toured a prison well knows. Solitary confinement is even worse. Nearly every industrialized country, and a great many that are not, has come to see that this is a sufficient punishment for the crime of murder, and that justice is well served by applying it.
So, do you believe in Hell? Given what you have said about justice, I sure hope not.
Why is that Ryan?
Because Hell is the most unjust and purposeless “punishment” ever devised! As a buddhist, I would think you would agree, since Hell essentially amounts to infinite suffering.
I was not saying I disagree, I just wasn’t making the connection between Rev. Ellis’s statements and his belief or lack of belief in hell.
He is stating that a life in prison is an extremely severe punishment and therefore it is serving justice well to endorse these forms of punishment.
As I interpret his view, he is against the death penalty because he views the system of an eye for and eye to be flawed because it is tantamount to premeditated murder. Indeed it is the murder of criminals, but it is murder nonetheless, and that murder is perhaps not the best system of justice to endorse.
How these beliefs could be viewed as negating a belief in hell was and still is somewhat outside of my comprehension.
-Disclaimer:
I am simply restating my interpretation of the statements made by Reverend Ellis, and I should go further to say that I may be misrepresenting his views on this matter. If that is at all the case I hope he will be so gracious as to forgive my transgressions and provide correction to any inaccuracies I may have unwittingly perpetuated.
I hadn’t imagined my closing comment would take us in this direction, but I can see why it did. My point was simply that those who consider life without parole insufficient punishment are simply wrong, but since I didn’t say that explicitly I can well understand why these questions about the relationship between my views and a belief, or not, in hell would arise. As for that belief, I suppose it depends upon what people mean by the term “Hell.” If we mean a punishment imposed upon people by God that lasts forever, then no, I do not believe in hell, and can’t remember when I did. If on the other hand we mean that human attempt to live as self sufficient, self created, beings unaware of our fragility and massive dependence, then yes. I believe in hell because I live there at least part of the time, and so do most people I know. As far as what happens after death, I believe that sooner or later God’s love overwhelms even the stoutest resistance, and all freely choose the love of God in favor of an isolated, solipsistic, state. This makes me a universalist, I guess, and I am fine with that.