O'Malley hits plan for death penalty
Calling the death penalty "state-sponsored violence," Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley yesterday blasted Governor Mitt Romney's proposal to restore capital punishment by creating a system in Massachusetts that would be "as infallible as humanly possible."
O'Malley, in a lengthy column in this week's edition of The Pilot, said he is aware that most Catholics support the death penalty, but insisted that "Catholic teachings are not based on polls or prevailing sentiments."
He rejected arguments that the death penalty serves as a deterrent, as a justifiable form of punishment, or as a necessary tool for protecting society.
O'Malley's detailed critique of capital punishment suggests that the new archbishop intends to be an active voice in the state's public policy debates, even when he is preoccupied with internal church crises, such as repairing the damage caused by sexually abusive priests and preparing to close a substantial number of parishes.
It also suggests that the archbishop will take strong public stances even when it means taking on a political ally. Together, Romney and O'Malley have been the state's highest-profile opponents of same-sex marriage, yet the archbishop's reaffirmation of the church's death penalty position leaves him diametrically opposed to the governor's views on another issue where religion and government meet. Shawn Feddeman, a spokeswoman for Romney, said yesterday that the governor and state law enforcement officials "appreciate and respect the archbishop's point of view."
"We understand that reasonable people can differ on the subject of capital punishment," Feddeman said. "Governor Romney believes that the worst of the worst murders deserve the death penalty and that, with scientific advances, we can create state-of-the-art safeguards so that only the guilty are punished."
Romney outlined his proposal earlier this week. Based on the work of a commission of specialists, the plan seeks to weed out potentially innocent defendants by requiring reviews by scientific and legal specialists and a jury finding of "no doubt," rather than the customary "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, before an execution could take place.
Although O'Malley never mentioned Romney by name in his column in the archdiocesan weekly, the archbishop took aim at the governor's proposal, saying it offered nothing new. He even suggested, as some Democrats have, that it could be more of a political distraction than anything else.
"The present proposal here in the state of Massachusetts to create a capital punishment system that seeks to be as infallible as humanly possible does not offer any compelling reason to return to a barbaric practice that actually needs to disappear," he wrote. "Our efforts should be to encourage other states to ban capital punishment and not try to breathe new life into an institution that should end."
He also cited a recent survey in which 87 percent of criminologists and 57 percent of police chiefs said they believe that "debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems."
While strongly worded, O'Malley's opposition to the death penalty and Romney's proposal generally did not come as a surprise on Beacon Hill yesterday. The archbishop's stance is in keeping with repeated statements by Pope John Paul II and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. His stance is also in keeping with that of recent Massachusetts bishops. His predecessor, Cardinal Bernard F. Law, testified on Beacon Hill and urged the Legislature not to reinstate the death penalty.
The Catholic Church's position on the death penalty is that capital punishment, although theoretically justifiable to protect a society, is not currently necessary and is therefore not acceptable.
In his column, O'Malley raised a number of pragmatic arguments against the death penalty, suggesting that it is so slow that it fails to serve as a deterrent, that it is so costly as to be wasteful, that it is disproportionately imposed against ethnic minorities and the poor, and that "it deludes the public into a false sense of security about a complex social problem." He also raised a number of moral and theological arguments, saying that "nowhere does Jesus offer violence as a solution to set things straight."
"Violence should not be our response to violence," he wrote. "Justice is never revenge. Killing murderers does not deter murderers, but, rather, promotes an attitude that life is cheap and that when we have the power, it is all right to kill."
Because the church's position on the issue has been so well publicized, most lawmakers interviewed yesterday said they doubted O'Malley's statements would have a profound effect on the renewed death penalty debate.
"I think people expect the archbishop to be an opponent of the death penalty," said Representative James E. Vallee, a Frankin Democrat who is cochairman of the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice. "That's not a surprise."
Vallee and other lawmakers said yesterday that death penalty opponents generally break down into two camps: those who are opposed to capital punishment on moral grounds and those who accept it in theory, but who believe the justice system is too prone to human error to risk imposing an irreversible penalty. Romney's proposal is aimed at the latter camp, whose members include House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini.
Finneran, a Mattapan Democrat, declined comment on O'Malley's statements yesterday. The communications director for Travaglini, who is Catholic, said that even though the East Boston Democrat makes his political judgments independent of church influence, the governor would nonetheless find him a tough sell.
Travaglini, spokeswoman Ann Dufresne said, "has a firm belief that you are simply not able to guarantee that an innocent person wouldn't be executed."
