KILLING KILLERS

On May 15, 2015, when it was announced that DzhohkarTsarnaev, 21, was  given the death penalty for the bombing attack during the Boston Marathon two years ago, I was in a car, being driven to a fitness club by a friend.  We heard the news on the radio.  My friend shouted, "Hooray!"  I, however, felt a sudden stab of sorrow and didn't say a word.

That the United States continues to execute people is an abomination.  Look at the company we keep--The five countries which are the biggest offenders are, in order of frequency: China, Iran, Iraq, The United States and Pakistan.  The rest of the world must be reacting with anger or with sad amazement when the United States attempts to lecture  other countries on morality.  I feel ashamed.

I also feel hopeful.  I have no doubt that eventually this type of killing will no longer be legal in my county. It is inevitable, since more and more Americans are realizing that the death penalty is a barbaric anachronism. Unfortunately, "eventually" undoubtedly means that some will die before a ban on death-by-jury goes into effect.  It is incumbent on all seekers of justice to work together to change "eventually" into "now and forever" as soon as we can.

Permitting capital punishment is, unfortunately, just one part of a dysfunctional system of justice. I have long argued against the horrors of the American penal system.  The emphasis should be on protecting society, not on punishment.  I don't think punishment should be central in the raising of children--leading by example works so much better.  With adults, it obviously doesn't work at all. 
So many offenders exit the prison system more dangerous to society than at the time they entered it.  Recidivism rates are high.  In most European countries, especially in Portugal, prison conditions are much more humane, and more funds are spent on reintroducing offenders to society--helping them get jobs, etc--than in warehousing them, the recidivism rate is much lower.

I suppose it's not surprising that the U.S. still permits the death penalty, since injustice doesn't end there: The United States has 5% of the world's population--and 23% of the world's prison population!  No other country imprisons non-violent offenders the way my country does.   There are no absurdly long mandatory sentences for non-violent crimes in other democracies.  Solitary confinement is not common in other industrialized countries; in the U.S. it is widely imposed. The average prison sentence in the Netherlands is seven years; in the U.S. it is twenty-nine years.  Receiving a life-sentence is extremely rare in the Netherlands; in the U.S. it is common. Can you imagine a European country forbidding its felons, who have served their time, from every voting again?  The list of the offenses of the American justice system is legion. What are we doing wrong?  Nearly everything.
Many people argue against the death penalty since it is not at all rare that someone on death row is proven innocent, as several recent DNA-mediated exonerations attest.  Others argue against the death penalty since the poor--especially the black poor--are much more likely to be condemned to death.  Another valid point is the fact that it costs much more to execute a person than to keep him in prison for however long the sentence stipulates.

These and other factors are true, but such arguments miss the point: the death penalty is always morally wrong.

It would be good if citizens in the so-called Bible Belt states, where most American executions occur, would practice a central teaching of Jesus of Nazareth: Judge not lest ye be judged.  It is permissible--society in fact requires it--to judge behavior, but not the person performing that behavior.  We can never get into a person's head deep enough to prove that he (nearly all the condemned are men) is responsible for his actions.  Personal responsibility is a paradox: to live justly, one must assume it for oneself while cognizant of the fact that it is impossible to determine whether another person is truly responsible for his actions.  Can one be sure that if one was raised the way one who has committed a violent crime was raised and if one's brain was wired in the same way, that one would have not committed the same crime?  The answer is no. Our behavior is more determined than we think.  

Refraining from judging others does not lead to a permissive society, since we are responsible for the protection of all citizens,  necessitating that offenders be removed from society for a reasonable amount of time, while every effort is made to reform them.

I think that most of the people who support the death penalty--and our out-of-control judicial system--have an "us" versus "them" mentality.  "I would never do that!" they tell themselves.  "I am not a thug.  A thug must be held accountable for his behavior.  I am good; he is bad.  If we let him get away with it, goodness doesn't pay!"  Why bother to be humble and walk a mile in his moccasins before judging a neighbor when, in self-righteous dudgeon, one can lock him up and throw away the key?

The truth should be obvious to all: everyone is us.

Regarding capital punishment, however, things, albeit still bad, are getting better.  Only 15% of the population of Massachusetts, where the terrorist attack of the Tsarnaev brothers occurred, supports the death penalty for the surviving brother.  I was delighted to learn that the parents of Martin Richard, an eight- year-old boy who died in the terrorist attack, are very much opposed  to sentencing Tsarnaev to death.  "Closure" comes with time and, especially, with forgiveness; finding satisfaction in the murdering of  murderers is not the way to heal.

I am certain that the days of the cruel and unusual punishment of State-sponsored killing are numbered, just as there is no turning back from the eventual (imminent?) legalization of gay marriage or from the provision of health care to all.  The Hegel in me is satisfied:  the zeitgeist is against capital punishment.  Soon my country will join the rest of the civilized world and prohibit the death penalty forever. Still, the Hillel in me anxiously asks, "If not now, when?"

THE CATALYST

The technical definition of a catalyst is "a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change."  An example of a biological catalyst is the enzyme, lipase, which breaks down fat so it can be absorbed by the small intestine.  Without lipase and many other enzymes (all enzymes are catalysts) life--at least as we know it--would not be possible.  The figurative definition of a catalyst is a person who precipitates an event, especially someone without a vested interest in the result.  Extending this meaning of the word, I would define a "moral catalyst" as a person who indeed has a vested interest in an event he or she is bringing about; what separates the moral catalyst from the business-as-usual variety is that the former is motivated by a will to profit humanity, while the latter is motivated by a will to profit themselves.

Pope Francis, who had a major role in ending the misguided United States embargo of Cuba and in reestablishing full diplomatic relations after fifty-three years of relentless hostility, is perhaps the most outstanding contemporary example of  this phenomenon.  The troubled capitalism of the United States and the moribund communism of Cuba certainly were ready to react together and produce a positive result; without the "moral catalystism" of the pope, however. there was a good chance that that long overdue inevitable reaction would have occurred later, perhaps much later.

Regarding the role played by the pontiff in bringing about this major change in policy, a senior official was quoted as saying, "You cannot overestimate the importance of this pope."

Barack Obama had been exploring the possibility of reestablishing diplomatic ties between the two countries for months.  He visited the Vatican some months back and discussed the matter with the papal Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin, an expert diplomat who is familiar with Latin American politics.

X and Y were coming together.  Just what did Pope Catalyst do?

In the summer of 2014, the pope wrote to Raúl Castro and Barack Obama, offering his help to "initiate a new phase" in the relationship between Cuba and the United States.  Meetings were held at both the Vatican and Canada, two countries that have had good relations with Cuba.  A major impasse involved the exchange of political prisoners.  The Vatican played a crucial role in resolving this and other issues.

Without catalyst P, X would have remained on the far left and Y would have remained on the far right.  Now, to the delight of humanitarians everywhere, both sides came together, reacted together and precipitated together a very positive result.

I have always been critical of the Catholic Church for being on many occasions more interested in protecting the institution rather than standing up for what the institution stands for.  The most egregious example of this in recent times is the horrible scandal of many bishops who kept silent after they found out about the sexual predators in their midst.  They were more interested in protecting the Church rather than in protecting the innocent members of the Church.  Another example is the pact with Hitler, negotiated by the Nazis and  Cardinal Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius X11;  the terms of this agreement required German Catholics to stop all opposition to Hitler, in return for the promise that Church property would not be confiscated.  (This, the first pact any political group made with Hitler, and, coming from the Vatican, helped legitimize Hitler's savage regime.)

Pope Francis's  behavior was in stark contrast.  He was primarily interested in doing good rather than in covering up for others in order to appear good.  Sure there was self-interest involved, but self-interest of a very noble kind.  He wanted to increase the diplomatic reputation of the Vatican--in order to better be able to do more good in the future.

What a change in tone from his predecessors!  The Catholic Church, led by very conservative bishops appointed by previous popes, had been in moral decline.  One got the impression that the unholy trinity of being anti-gay, anti-contraception and anti-abortion was replacing, well, the Holy Trinity, or at least the trinity of faith, hope and charity.

I doubt that he will make all changes that decency demands. Organized religions are by nature conservative; it will take a long time for the Church to realize that its opposition to, say, gay marriage is a violation of the law of all religions and of all legitimate forms of humanism, namely the commandment, interpreted as arising from without or within, to love one's neighbor as oneself.

"Who am I to judge?" said Pope Francis.  The pope has decided to walk two moons in another's moccasins rather mooning about in Benedict's crimson shoes.  Christ's vicar consistently imitating Christ--we haven't seen that since the brief reign of Pope John XXlll.  It is a good sign for the future.

Will a moral catalyst at the head of the Church be able to reverse the dour Catholicism of the bishops? The mitred Rubios and Cruzes in his midst will do their best to make progress difficult--but whoever said that walking in the footsteps of a sage would be easy?  At least we can say this: a moral catalyst like the pope--and there are many others--is, thank God! among us, precipitating actions for the benefit of all.