I've been looking forward to my visit with you. And I come happy in the knowledge that while we UUs do not have to agree either on theological questions or on various issues, we do have our splendid statement of seven principles that we might regard as the glue that holds us together.

I also come knowing that on the issue of capital punishment, we may not all be in agreement. And that's OK. I feel sure that many of you are opposed to the death penalty, and if this is where you stand, I hope to inspire you to become more active in your opposition. Some of you may be undecided, with honest doubts and unanswered questions, and if this is where you are at this time, I hope to encourage you to further reflection on this issue. And I would like you all to know that the UUA, along with almost every major religious denomination in this country, has policy statements calling for the abolition of the death penalty. In fact, in our organizational history, we have made no less than five resolutions opposing capital punishment.

In our UUADP brochure we have tried to show the relationship between each of the seven principles and capital punishment. Our first UU principle calls for us to recognize the "inherent worth and dignity of every person." And here is our response: "We acknowledge that at the core of every living person lies a human soul worthy of respect and dignity, no matter what he or she may have done. We understand that execution not only denies condemned persons their birthright, but also violates the humanity of those who are forced to carry out this sentence."

I have heard people say "they don't deserve to live." Do we have the right to play God, to say who deserves to live or die? Sr. Helen Prejean, writer of the book "Dead Man Walking" has said "it is not a matter of whether they deserve to live,-- it's a question of whether we deserve to become killers

My daughter Jill is a nurse practitioner devoted to the preservation of life. When I asked her about her feelings, she told me that she couldn't ask someone else to do something she could not do. Yet we ask juries, judges and prison staff to perform acts that frequently torture their spirits. Can you imagine their horror and remorse if they were to discover that they had participated in killing someone later found to be innocent? There are at least 23 such people who we know about who have been executed since 1976. Undoubtedly there are others. To date, 96 people who have been on death row have been released, having been found to be innocent. With the current pressure to carry out executions with greater speed, people like these would likely have been executed before their innocence was discovered .

On a recent TV program, Judge Wisnewski, of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said that he has always refused to witness an execution because he is afraid,-- afraid that he could never again sentence someone to death. In a recent radio program with a panel of prison personnel in Huntsville, Texas, the execution capital of the United States, we heard that a former prison guard who had served as part of the "tie-down" team at over 100 executions had broken down into uncontrollable weeping, suffering a post-traumatic stress reaction. We heard of a reporter, a frequent observer of executions, saying she could never forget the horrendous wail of a mother as her son died. You and I live in the state with the largest death row in the country - over 600 - and when there is an execution, it is done in our names. I experience this as a violation of my values. Capital punishment denies the worth and dignity of all of us.

The second principle calls for "justice, equity and compassion in human relations". All too often, people use the word "justice" as a euphemism for vengeance. No one is suggesting that murder be condoned. Of course, there must be accountability, but true justice calls for fairness, for serious consequences for violent behavior, not for "getting even". We try to teach school children on the playground that getting even only leads to more conflict. How can they believe us when we adults behave otherwise. After all, no one suggests that it would be appropriate for the rapist be raped, or the arsonist have his house burned down. Yet, we kill murderers, thereby replicating their crime.

Certainly, incarceration of murderers is called for, as a matter of public safety. To apply compassion to the equation, we must remember that murders do not happen in a vacuum. An amazingly large percentage of violent offenders have been seriously abused as children; and I think we have to recognize that abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome do play a role in creating violent adults. And did you know that lead poisoning, that occurs most frequently among the poor, is the leading predictor of future violent behavior? Can we expect to raise children in a sewer, and then have them emerge smelling like a rose garden? Understanding is not synonymous with excusing, but we must use compassion while demanding accountability.

And then there is that word "equity". Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has just recently stated publicly that she believes that the death penalty is being applied unfairly. Why is it that almost every resident of death row is poor, and unable to afford an effective lawyer who can insure that he or she receives due process? Why is it that a disproportionate number of African-Americans is sentenced to death, specially in cases where the victim is white? Why is the United States one of only five nations in the world that allow the execution of those who were juveniles at the time of their crime? Why do we continue to execute convicts who are mentally retarded, and unable to assist in their own defense? In one case, a man was so mentally disabled that he didn't understand what it meant to be dead, and saved a piece of pie in his cell to eat after his execution.

Many public defenders are skilled and devoted people, but in some states, the accused are defended by attorneys who are inexperienced and unqualified to deal with this very complicated area of the law. One man in Georgia appealed his sentence on the basis that his attorney fell asleep during his trial. The judge turned him down, saying that the law required that he be supplied with an attorney, but not that the attorney be awake! Those of us who work as abolitionists see countless examples of the lack of equity in our criminal justice system.

Death sentences can be sought when so-called "special circumstances" are present, and prosecutors have considerable leeway in deciding whether or not to pursue this course. Factors having nothing to do with the actual crime frequently affect their decisions. Judges and prosecutors seeking to be reelected wish to create a public image of being "tough on crime", and the poor, and people of color are all too easily exploited to this purpose. In some cities, there is competition to see which assistant DA can secure the most death sentences. Even the location of the crime alters the situation. While 12 states have no death penalty at all, small counties in states where capital punishment is allowed never pursue this option because the exorbitant cost of a death penalty trial could bankrupt them.

The arbitrary nature of capital trials is demonstrated when several people are involved in a crime and differing sentences are given based on the same evidence. Not long ago, this happened in Richmond, VA. Four young women were involved in a murder. In separate trials, the three white women were given life sentences, while the African-American defendant was recommended for a death sentence. On the eve of the sentencing hearing for the African-American woman, I am proud to say that our UUADP chapter organized a vigil in protest. There was media attention, and word reached the mother of the victim, who acknowledged the unfairness, reversed her earlier position and asked the judge the following morning not to give a sentence of death. Happily, he complied. But all too often, there is no one to step in and remedy the inequities in the existing system.

One of our principles speaks of encouraging spiritual growth in our congregations. We need to ask ourselves: --is spiritual growth compatible with vengeance? When a person loses a loved one through violence, the experience of rage is fully understandable. I would feel outraged beyond description if one of my children were murdered. But we shouldn't assume that all victim families want to act on their anger. There is an organization - Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation - the MVFR - whose over 800 members are powerful voices opposing the death penalty, and because they have experienced this terrible loss, have far more credibility than I could ever have. I have become friends with a number of these people, and respect them enormously for their ability to rise above their own personal grief to recognize that further killing simply emulates the destructive behavior of the murderer, and creates still another grieving family. They have found that their own healing has been aided by their willingness to forego further violence, and even to forgive.

Marietta Jaeger, whose seven-year-old daughter Susie was brutally kidnapped, abused and murdered, is one of MVFR's most vocal members. She writes: "Victim families have every right to the normal, valid human response of rage and hatred. However, to legislate that same gut level desire for bloodthirsty revenge will have the same deleterious effect on the community as it does on individuals. It degrades, dehumanizes, and debilitates us as a society. The capacity for mercy and compassion is what sets us apart from the rest of creation..... We violate our own honor and dignity by unabashedly killing a chained, restrained, defenseless person, however deserving of death we deem that person to be. We become that which we deplore-people who kill people-an insult to the memory of our beloved victims. I say, 'Not in my name! Not in my Susie's name!'" Marietta and her fellow MVFR members are demonstrating a level of spiritual development that I hope I could live up to if I were ever in their shoes.

When thinking of the grief that violence brings to victims' families, we shouldn't overlook a group often ignored--the families of those on death row. I know several people in this situation, and am witness to the anguish and isolation they experience. Lois and Ken Robison are a UU couple whose son Larry was executed a year ago last January, after 15 years on Texas's death row. He was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic long before he got into trouble with the law. Lois and Ken had sought medical help for him, but the state of Texas ranks down near the bottom when it comes to provision of mental health services. It was only after he killed five people that attention was paid. His parents have become national spokespersons regarding the plight of the mentally ill on death row. I wish you could have been at the workshop they gave for UUADP at GA last June. People in the audience were in tears as they told their story.

People point to the case of Timothy McVeigh as an example of one who should surely deserve a death sentence. He abandoned his right to appeals, saying he didn't want to live his life in a cell. Frankly, I don't think he should have gotten the right to decide his fate. It would have been much more appropriate for him to suffer the consequence of a long life in prison to contemplate the horrendous crime he committed. Perhaps he could have found redemption, as some criminals have done. Perhaps we could have studied him, to learn more about how his thinking became so distorted. Now, it is his parents and sisters who must live with the pain. A parent of one of his victims, MVFR member Bud Welch, befriended the McVeigh family, and the two fathers sobbed in each others arms over their shared tragedy. is parents HHHe had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizaphrenic long beforeHHHHH

Consider our principle that calls for a responsible search for truth. We live in a veritable fog of misinformation on this issue:

1. DETERRENCE

Nowadays, few people believe that executions deter crime. Even in a group like the Association of the Police Chiefs of America, most of who are philosophically in favor of executions, only 2% believe that there is any deterrent value. However, some people still feel that surely any sensible person would refrain from doing something that would result in his death. They forget that murders are not committed by sensible people.

Rather than deterring crime, there is evidence that the death penalty actually increases violence. Murder rates are considerably lower in states that have abolished capital punishment. Canada saw its murder rate drop every year after the abolition of the death penalty in 1974.

Values (such as refraining from violence) are communicated mainly by example, by what we do rather than by what we say. I remember an "I Love Lucy" program in which their usual crisis was happening, and Ricky Ricardo was waving his hands in the air, and shouting at the top of his lungs "Don't get excited. Don't get excited". The laughter was at the obvious contradiction between what was being said and what was being done. But the contradiction represented by capital punishment is not so funny. We say we oppose violence and yet we commit violence every time we hold an execution.

2. LIFE SENTENCES

There is a lot of confusion on the nature of life sentences. We need to differentiate between an ordinary life sentence, which usually grants the possibility of parole after a long period of time, and a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Let me say it again - a true life sentence, without the possibility of parole. We refer to this as the LWOP alternative. A death sentence is possible only when a person is convicted of murder with special circumstances. 32 of the 38 states that have capital punishment also have the alternative-- LWOP. There are currently over 2000 people serving this sentence in California. They are truly in prison for life; they will never come up for parole; they are no longer a threat to us. They are most certainly being held accountable for their crimes, and we do not have to kill them to guarantee the safety of society. Texas doesn't have this alternative, and this is one of the reasons they have so many executions.

3. DO AMERICANS REALLY WANT THE DEATH PENALTY?

It angers me when I hear the media tell us that the majority of the American people want the death penalty. It is said so often that people believe it. But this is a half-truth that obscures the real truth. It is true that when surveys ask a simplistic question - "Do you approve of the death penalty", currently 60% answer "Yes." But on numerous surveys given in many parts of the country, when asked - "If you had a choice between life imprisonment without possibility of parole or the death penalty, which would you prefer?", preference for the death penalty falls below 50%. And when we add the demand for restitution, the percentage drops to about 45%. It is clear that the majority of Americans prefer alternatives when they know they are available.

4. COST EFFECTIVENESS

I have had people say to me "Why should I support a murderer in prison for the rest of his life?" What they do not realize is that although the cost of life-long incarceration is high, the cost of seeking a death sentence is staggering--from three to six times more. Even before a trial, lengthy and complex pretrial motions, extensive investigation, and increased use of psychiatrists and other experts are required because of the greater stakes in capital cases. Jury selection is lengthier, while the trials themselves average 3 1/2 times as long as non-capital trials. If guilt is determined, then a second trial, the penalty phase, is required. These expenses are incurred even when no death sentence results. Most people think the bulk of the cost comes from the appeals process, but this is not so. In California, we spend $90 million a year beyond the cost of non-capital trials, with $78 million occurring before the appeals process begins. Nationally, we are spending millions upon millions of dollars to prosecute capital cases, with no real gain to show for it. How much better off we would be to use those funds for crime prevention. Currently, we spend 94% of criminal justice funding after the fact, and only 6% for prevention. One of my friends says "it's not a matter of being tough or soft on crime, it's a matter of being smart on crime." I think that we are being stupid on crime.

Our sixth principle speaks of the world community. The United States is the only country in the Western industrialized world that still retains the death penalty. The European Community will not allow a country into membership if it retains capital punishment. In fact, the United States and Japan are about to lose their status as observers with the EC unless we make significant progress toward abolition by 2003. Our nearest neighbors, Mexico and Canada, as well as a number of European countries, will not extradite a suspect unless the state involved will guarantee that the death penalty will not be sought. Just recently, France released an accused murderer to us only after such assurances were made. Our behavior has cost us respect among the civilized countries of the world.

And finally, our seventh principle--respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. We acknowledge our kinship with all of life, seeing that this must surely embrace protection of our most precious resource--human life. Abusive treatment of any of our citizens pollutes the quality of life for all of us. Feeling this sense of identification is our best support in seeking alternatives to the death penalty, and devoting our energies and our resources to crime prevention. The way we treat our most troublesome citizens says a great deal about us as a society. Let us not fall into the trap of tunnel vision and fail to see the broader implications of capital punishment.

If you accept capital punishment, or even see it as a necessary evil, you must also accept these facts:

--that some of the people executed will be innocent.
--that some of the people executed will be children.
--that some of the people executed will be mentally ill or retarded.
--that severe pain and suffering will be inflicted on those who have committed no crime at all - the family and friends of the offender.
--that it is the poor who are executed, and that the race of the victim does more to determine who gets a death sentence than the crime itself.
--that our children will learn that killing is the solution to society's problems.
--that you have made a judgement that thousands of incarcerated Americans, (about whom you know only what the media has told you) are no longer human, and are incapable of change, reconciliation or redemption, and that the families of murder victims are incapable of forgiveness.

It is easy to make the case as to the impracticality of including capital punishment as part of our criminal justice system. As to the morality of this practice, --please -- search your own hearts.