Secretary General Amnesty International
Dear Mr. ...,
Thank you for advising us of the campaign that Amnesty International is
launching on the subject of the death penalty and for your invitation to
express the views of the Bahá'í International Community. As capital
punishment is a subject that is dealt with explicitly in the Bahá'í
Scriptures, we feel that we can best respond by sharing with you the
attached copy of a statement we have recently drafted, elaborating the
relevant principles as we see them. We hope that this is of assistance.
We would not want to close without taking this opportunity to express, as
well, the admiration of Bahá'ís everywhere for the spirit that motivates
the work of your organization and for the immense contribution you are
making in the field of human rights.
Faithfully, Douglas Martin, Director-General
Enclosure (below)
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
The past two or three decades have seen a growing trend in many countries
to re-examine the question of capital punishment. In the view of the
Bahá'í community this discussion is a development much to be welcomed. It
is clear from contemporary reports in the media, together with submissions
made by such responsible agencies as Amnesty International, that the way
in which civil authorities in a number of countries are using this most
serious of punishments can in no way be reconciled with the principles of
the United Nations instruments to which the governments of those countries
have subscribed. In yet other jurisdictions, disproportionately high
percentages of persons representing ethnic minorities among the executed
raise disturbing doubts of yet another kind. Nor can one be
indifferent to the body of evidence suggesting that, in a great many
cases, capital punishment is accompanied by conditions that impose an
unnecessary and unacceptable degree of suffering.
It is now generally accepted that society's most powerful instrument in
influencing behaviour is education. The same age that is witnessing the
inexorable unification of the human race and the emergence of something
that may reasonably be termed a universal conscience, also finds itself
possessed of an understanding of human nature not available to previous
civilizations. For the past several decades the social sciences have made
steady progress in exploring the roots of human motivation and in
developing educational measures designed to tap this immense resource. If
the results still fall far short of the ideals that have impelled the
research, this in no way calls into question the potentialities of the
educational process nor casts doubt upon the premise that it represents
humanity's best hope for a peaceful and orderly world. It reflects merely
the human race's continuing attachment to political, racial, and sectarian
prejudices that confuse the goals and severely limit the context within
which the educational process must seek to do its work.
If, as Bahá'ís believe is the case, human nature has the potential for
goodness, then people tend to be most deeply motivated when they are
provided with the opportunity to express the physical, moral and
intellectual potentialities that characterize this nature and reflect the
attributes of its Creator. In the words of the Bahá'í Scriptures, "some
souls are ignorant, they must be educated; some are sick, they must be
healed; some are still of tender age, they must be helped to attain
maturity, and the utmost kindness must be shown to them."
The earlier these efforts are undertaken the greater and more lasting are
their influence. Even among those members of the community where
anti-social patterns of behaviour have developed, however, education
remains an essential feature of any realistic program of public order. An
impressive body of research attests to the ability of educational
techniques to modify attitudes and discipline conduct, especially where
such efforts are accompanied by action to correct the social injustices
that breed resentment and hopelessness.
Nevertheless, human beings are responsible for their actions. As can be
seen from the widely divergent types of response to privation and
suffering demonstrated by different peoples in the same culture or
society, most individuals enjoy a significant degree of choice in the
behaviour they manifest. Where educational methods alone fail to induce in
individuals behavioral change that respects the laws protecting society,
civil authority
has the right to resort to coercive measures. Fines, the deprivation of
rights and privileges, compulsory labour, and terms of imprisonment are
all generally regarded as legitimate options of this kind. Their
employment aims at ensuring a minimal degree of security for all the
members of the community as well as at protecting a social covenant which
has been the fruit of a long and arduous collective effort.
Capital punishment has traditionally been regarded as the ultimate of
these legitimate sanctions. The world's deepening appreciation of the
sanctity of human life, however, as well as revulsion at the gross abuses
of civil power that darken so much of the contemporary scene, has had the
effect of undermining the broad consensus on this subject that once
prevailed. Sharp differences of opinion exist as to the efficacy of the
death penalty as a deterrent. Public information campaigns by opposing
groups point variously to instances in which innocent persons have been
sentenced to death in error or to the rising incidence of murders by
habitual criminals paroled from prisons. Given the seriousness of the
subject, the fallibility of human judgement, and the irreversibility of
the sanction itself, it is not surprising that these questions should be
exhaustively explored.
Increasingly, however, the discussion has moved beyond these practical and
humanitarian concerns to a deeper moral level. It is here, the Bahá'í
community believes, that the real issue lies.
In an understandable urge to protect humanity from the brutal practices of
the past, concerned people have asserted that society does not have a
moral right to employ capital punishment. The execution of criminals is
equated in this view with the crime of murder. The State becomes as guilty
as those it judges.
Such an argument calls into question the authority that, in the final
analysis, must be held responsible for the protection of both society and
its individual members. With only a small minority of dissenting voices,
it is universally accepted that civil government has not only the right
but the responsibility to defend the population in time of war,
recognizing that such defense involves actions many of which are aimed
directly at the taking of human life. In the view of the Bahá'í community,
this principle applies equally to the moral authority of the State in
protecting society against attacks on its members from within. In the
final analysis, whatever statutory provisions may seem appropriate from
time to time and in a given jurisdiction, society possesses an overriding
right to defend itself through actions that may deprive an individual
member not only of freedom and property but even of life itself.
No less a principle can instil into the hearts of the generality of
society's members the conviction that, ultimately, it is justice and not
forgiveness upon which the social covenant among them is established. In
surrendering to civil government all rights to personal retaliation,
however devastating the injury suffered, human beings retain an
inalienable sense of what is just. This sense is part of man's spiritual
endowment. Appeals for the humanitarian treatment of human error and for
patience with the EDUCATIONAL
process will ultimately prove effective only to the degree that confidence
in this moral order is secure. That, for growing numbers of people in many
Western lands, this confidence is being gravely eroded by a prevailing
philosophical attitude that places an ultimate and unconditioned value on
the individual rights of the criminal seems, alas, all too clear. The
danger inherent in such a situation is, Bahá'ís believe, an aspect of the
public discussion of capital punishment that needs urgently to be
addressed.
The availability of the death penalty as an option in the judicial
punishment of wilful murder is the symbol of a commitment. Paradoxically,
it constitutes for everyone trustworthy evidence of the enduring value
that society places on innocent human life. It is no doubt for this reason
that capital punishment has been endorsed by those great religious systems
whose primary mission has been the awakening of humanity's capacity for
love and mercy. That it can be abused by evil or careless men in no way
detracts from the essential role it plays in the moral order. Those who
must assume the responsibility of legislating its provisions deserve the
understanding and support of the society whose well-being they seek to
serve.
|