By the Rev. Mark Lingle, published in the Stamford Advocate on
January 22, 2005

Convicted murderer, Michael Ross, will be executed on Wednesday, January 26. Governor Jodi Rell and many others support this action as necessary and just. Heinous crimes were committed. The killer received a fair trial. He was convicted and sentenced. Justice must be served. Or so the thinking goes.

But while many things may be served by the execution of Michael Ross, justice is not one of them.

Before continuing, let me underscore that I do believe that whenever crimes are committed, society must respond with consequences of substance. In this case, life imprisonment without any possibility of parole is appropriate. Justice, however, is not served by using the death penalty.

Justice, one of the foundational principles of a society that places responsibilities as well as liberties upon the shoulders of every citizen to do that which is right, is ultimately undercut by the execution of Michael Ross and the use of capital punishment, period.

Justice is not served when society kills to express its outrage at killing. When we punish by killing, we engage in revenge, plain and simple. Many justify capital punishment using the biblical warrant, “An eye for an eye,” but this rule was in itself an evolution in the human effort to create justice. It began as a way to limit revenge within ancient society and furthered the concept of retributive justice. Perhaps after a few millennia we may still evolve and adjudicate issues in life recognizing the essential virtue that this ancient code raises: finding ways to limit revenge, while seeking and promoting justice.

Justice is not served when the wrong people are accused, sentenced, and executed. (Certainly, there is no doubt in the case of Michael Ross that he is a killer, but executing him allows the door to remain open for future executions where someone unjustly accused and tried is killed.) DNA and other technologies that allow us to pinpoint perpetrators notwithstanding, it is evident that human error is always a possibility. In March 1988, Willie Darden was executed in Florida for a murder he did not commit, and the example of the state of Illinois where innocent individuals sat on death row are chilling examples to us of the dangers of meting out this ultimate punishment.

Justice is not served by holding up the illusory “deterrent” argument of death penalty advocates. The death penalty does not deter. If anything, it perpetuates the cycle of violence. Sanctioning the death penalty implicitly teaches that taking life is an acceptable way of reacting when we have been wronged.

Finally, justice is not served by the death penalty because, well, it’s just too easy. It’s too easy to flip a switch or inject the end of life. It’s too easy, and there is nothing human about it. In fact, such an act cheapens the very sanctity of every life, our own lives included. We abhor the inhumanity of those who murder—and we are right to do so—but we are complicit in that inhumanity not only because we kill, but we justify it as the best we can do.

It’s too easy to execute someone, and justice is hard.

Justice requires all of us to engage more fully in the liberties and responsibilities of our humanity. It requires foresight, conviction, a willingness to recognize a mutual connection and commitment to those nearest to us and those we do not understand.

The death penalty is too easy, and it is embarrassingly uncreative. We can send people into outerspace; we can place computers in the palm of our hands; we can create medical solutions to solve health crises; and we can mobilize people instantaneously to deal with tragedies; but this ingenuity, creativity, inventiveness, and foresight seems to elude us when it comes to punishing criminals. Caught up with the need for revenge, lost in the helplessness that such violence can create, we wrongly rationalize that killing a killer is just.

Yes, many things may be served by the execution of Michael Ross, but justice is not one of them.