The death penalty: religious perspectives

Written by changthai11 on Wednesday, October 1st, 2008

DANTHONG BREEN

“Buddhism considers it wrong to kill even a mosquito, so how can we accept that it is right to execute a human being?” These words were part of an

uncompromising rejection of capital punishment addressed to a recent gathering at Wat Suan Dok in Chiang Mai, by a senior monk. He enlarged on the theme in even

stronger words: “According to the teachings of the Buddha, every living being has a right to life; even to think of harming any creature is a mistake.”

He explained that in Buddhist thinking, harmful thoughts lead to bad speech, and hence to bad action. It is impossible to prevent harmful thoughts from resulting in

crime. The inevitable outcome of crime from bad thoughts cannot be prevented by fear of death. But shame can disable the harmful intention, change thought and

develop a human being. Every prisoner can change his nature, to become pure.

In recent months, seminars have been taking place in several locations throughout Thailand to examine religious perspectives on the death penalty. Three seminars

were devoted to a Buddhist perspective: in Chiang Mai, Ubon Ratchathani and Ayutthaya provinces, with a total audience of up to 150 monks. A seminar at a Muslim

centre considered capital punishment from a Muslim perspective. Finally, the perspectives of Buddhism, Islam and Christianity were presented together at a seminar

held at the Office of the National Human Rights Commission in Bangkok.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the agreed formulation of basic human rights held by all members of the United

Nations. There are 30 articles to the Declaration and the foundation of all other rights is that stated in Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life.”

These six simple words rejected the monstrous murder of innocents known as the Holocaust, but extended to all killing everywhere, and at every time. When the

Declaration was being composed there were some who wished to include an exception to justify judicial execution, but after months of debate, the instinct to prohibit all

killing prevailed.

The war trials at Nuremberg, which established for the first time in history the category of crimes against humanity, had just ended with the execution of 10 of the

defendants. It was as if accounts had to be settled before anger and the need for vengeance could be exhausted. The six words had to wait for future generations to

fulfil their promise.

At the time when the Universal Declaration was drafted, only eight countries in the world had renounced the death penalty. Today, that number has grown to 133. From

the rate of growth in recent years in the number of abolitionist countries, one can estimate the day and hour when the barbaric practice of judicial execution is likely to

go the way of slavery and end for ever.

On Dec 18, 2007 the General Assembly of the United Nations again took up the issue of the right to life and, by a majority vote of 104 to 54, declared in favour of a

Moratorium on the Death Penalty. The motion was bitterly opposed by some member countries, and the decision is not mandatory. But a majority vote of the General

Assembly carries immense authority. At the least, all members of the UN are mandated to consider their practice of the death penalty and to take account of a world

opinion that increasingly favours abolition. Thailand was one of the minority countries opposing the Moratorium. The Thai delegate had earlier explained his stance by

asserting that there are worthless people who do not deserve to live! His sentiment cannot be justified by the religious beliefs of the people of Thailand.

The monk in Chiang Mai continued his discourse. “Execution is a legal crime that is not different from illegal crime. A judge who orders execution by word or document

is also guilty according to Buddhism. There is no exception.”

The seminars have been organised by the Union for Civil Liberty in cooperation with the National Human Rights Commission, with funding provided by the European

Union, the Netherlands and France. The death penalty is an issue of ethics and morality, areas of primary interest in religion and in the humanism which goes hand in

hand with religion. Religions have grappled with the issue of the death penalty throughout their history. All religions value the life of the individual, and affirm the human

potential for reform of a wrongdoer. On the part of the injured, they teach mercy and forgiveness as the only exit from pain and the wrong done. It is perhaps only in

China which carries out 80% of all executions in the world that the condemned person is considered a pest to be eliminated as expeditiously as possible.

Traditionally, religions have lived with the death penalty by separating themselves from actual executions. Buddhist monks attending the seminars who accept the death

penalty, defined their objective as teaching people how to be good. Those who listen to the teaching do not incur the death penalty. If they ignore the teaching and

commit serious crime then the death penalty is their fate. There was an old rule in the monkhood that a monk must make a detour to avoid walking through a place

where executions were carried out, emphasising the separation of monks from justified secular punishment. A similar practice in the past allowed Christian courts to

find a person guilty of a capital crime, but the condemned criminal had to be handed over to secular authority to be executed. Can guilt be so delegated?

And what if an innocent person is condemned - with whom does responsibility lie?

From an Islamic perspective, the death penalty for certain crimes is commanded by Allah, as recorded in the Koran. At first sight this might appear an end to the

discussion. But Islam is a highly developed and nuanced religion. Muslim speakers emphasised that Islam is part of the human heritage belonging to the whole human

race, not just to Muslims. It contains an immense font of wisdom. The full expression of Muslim law, Sharia, is found only in a majority Muslim society where peace and

security reign. The first condition of judgement is a strict requirement of evidence which all but eliminates the possibility of wrongful conviction. The defining quality of

Allah is that he is merciful. Repentance and the forgiveness of the wrongdoer are always possible. Even as an executioner raises a sword to carry out sentence, he

looks to the relatives of the victim. If they give a sign that they accept repentance and offer forgiveness the sentence of death is suspended, to be substituted for by

restitution and a lesser penalty. Allah will reward them for their gesture of mercy.

A story is told from the life of Prophet Muhammad where he tried again and again to extend pardon to a woman who had committed adultery but who herself insisted

on execution. The Prophet continued to question her executioners, fearing that they had perhaps ignored some sign of repentance.

However, there is a contrast between practice in a Muslim state where peace and prosperity reign, and the imperfect situation elsewhere. In Thailand, Muslims are a

minority who obey and respect the law of the country. But recognising the shortcomings of a prevailing imperfect system of justice, they are ready to agree that a

suspension of the death penalty is to be preferred.

There is much to be learned from the value placed by Islam on forgiveness, which aims to undo the harm due to wrongdoing. In several cultures, a crime is seen not

just as the harm done by one individual to another, but as a harm which involves a community. Can the death penalty heal a community? Can it reconstruct damaged

relationships? Can it bring back those whose lives were lost? On the contrary, if forgiveness is extended to a culprit who genuinely repents, a community can implement

“correction,” not just in the sense of punishment, but in working to make things right.

A speaker on the Christian perspective towards the death penalty, recalled the unique experience of Christianity whose founder was condemned and executed. Based

on this memory, Christians strongly rejected the death penalty in the first 400 years. They accepted the death penalty as part of Roman law, only when they were given

citizenship in the Roman state. Many centuries passed before the majority of Christians could return to their first belief.

Today, the majority of Christians strongly oppose the death penalty and support the movement for abolition. A long and tortuous history of progressing from an

acceptance of the death penalty to its rejection, in spite of the clear example and teaching of their founder, illustrates the difficulty in changing perception and waking to

the implications of religious belief.

The seminars have strongly presented to religious believers in Thailand the dilemma of holding to beliefs on the unique value of human life, on the primacy of mercy

and forgiveness, and at the same time assenting to the taking of life in their name by a process of justice rejected by the highest authority on earth, the UN General

Assembly.

It is time to weigh the arguments which suggest that the death penalty is not a solution to crime, that it does not deter more than the punishment of long imprisonment,

and that the life of any human being has a value which cannot be taken away.

Danthong Breen is chairman of the Union for Civil Liberties.