Apr 99

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

From the editor's desk

A reporter phoned our colleague Kazi Toure last week. She wanted to know how to get in touch with organizations that support the death penalty. Since Kazi works with the AFSC Criminal Justice Program and has been organizing in the streets and lobbying in the corridors of the Massachusetts State House as a vote on a bill to reinstate capital punishment in this Commonwealth comes down to the wire, I suppose she figured he would know who his opponents are. He didn't help her out. Should he have? Is this a case where "reasonable people disagree"? What about Peacework? Perhaps we should offer execution a balanced treatment?

We don't think so. There are a number of places to find the pro-death penalty arguments, starting here with the Governor of Massachusetts and the front pages of some local newspapers. We view Peacework's scant 24 pages as precious and our commitment to peace and justice as permanent. Our bias is toward nonviolent social change: we want to change a practice which puts the US in the company of rogue states and pariah nations. Our vision for this country does not include state-sponsored killing.

What we have assembled this month are some materials and arguments that may prove useful to people who want to know how to talk about the death penalty and who are intent on getting rid of it. Hugo Bedau, a senior scholar in the field, assesses the national landscape and arrives at a measured optimism about prospects for abolition. Charlie Wilton looks at the horrendous possibility of wrongful conviction, incidentally detailing-and refuting-some of the major arguments in favor of capital punishment. We include Laura Magnani's statement about life without possibility of parole, acknowledging that it is a large topic which merits broader consideration in a later issue.

Both Ed Rodman and Byron Rushing (and indeed each author writing for this issue) tackle the racism imbedded in this country's system of justice. It's an overriding fact that has to be included in the debate. If we hope for societal healing, this is where we must start.

Howard Zehr takes us to the heart of the matter, the person who suffers at the hands of another. He shows us how historically we got off track in our thinking about justice and the righting of wrongs; he then charts a path from vengeance to reconciliation and shalom. We found his perspective on the "an eye for an eye" doctrine in Leviticus-that it represented at the time a measure of rough equity, teaching that you don't take out a whole village to avenge one murder, and that it continued to evolve over the centuries-particularly useful. Pat Clark names the abolition imperative for people of faith; and Betty Zisk, a Quaker, goes to the State House to talk about redemption.

Then come the voices-the  stories told by survivors. Ponder them. Their dignity and compassion comes at unspeakable cost. An elder in our Meeting keeps on pleading with us not to be afraid to stand and speak our faith. Some murder victims families have used their anguish to become unafraid. We hope you can use this material as we grapple with our nation's peculiarly violent custom.

We have another peculiar custom in this country: dropping bombs to solve complex problems. Dave McReynolds talks about the confusion and disarray many of us feel over Kosovo with remarkable candor.