Pastors, politicians beware!

Politicians and pastors should beware of preaching anti-human rights sentiments. In a country where crime and violence have us in a state of disgust and frustration, you ight easily predict what the response will be when you ground a call for the death penalty within the context of the still raw brutality of the gruesome murder of a mother and her children.

Politicians and pastors operate in spaces where acclaim is a premium capital. Without it, your relevance lacks currency. It is therefore easy to get so drawn with appealing to the gallery, that we forget basic principles of human rights and justice. People do not lose their right to life, liberty and security of person because they committed a crime! Justice for one is justice for all.

The anti-academia and anti-human rights stance might win votes in the moment. But be warned! We have seen how even within political parties they pay dearly as they fire up the base, only to find that they have become victims of the same lack of critical thinking that was catered to during a campaign.

While the call for the death penalty is made in the hearing of a desperate nation, note the anti-human rights stance which flippantly disregards not only human rights organisations, but even some of the international treaties that Jamaica has signed on to. Mind you, while we operate in a dualist state (where treaties do not have the status of law prior to legislation) versus a monist one, and some covenants are yet to be ratified, in theory our stance might often be in conflict with some.

The approach of retributionism seeks to uphold a death-penalty approach for some capital crimes. Rehabilitationism which does not give an excuse for the death penalty is understandably not welcome in contexts which are hungry for blood. The anger within seeks punishment while assuming that justice has been done.

While it is true that rehabilitationism resonates with Ezekiel’s admonition (18:23) that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that “he should turn away from his way and live”, many Christians do find a difficulty with helping the sinner versus killing him. Never mind the fact that consistency has been lacking re other Mosaic traditions such as capital punishment for cursing God, rebellious children, Sabbath-breaking, homosexuality, and striking one’s parents, to name a few.

Although a devout Jew, Jesus never promoted the death penalty. He would not have been considered a good Christian by many churches today. Imagine, when a woman caught in adultery (which was punishable by death) was brought to Jesus, he simply told her to “go, and sin no more”’. Some days I am convinced that Jesus would easily become a victim of the many who would have been concerned that he was too lenient with a woman who was now being allowed to escape the law’s prescription of death.

How interesting that our favourite Psalmist, David, who committed the capital crimes of adultery and murder, continues to be a source of inspiration to many who today fight to keep the death penalty. Many are happy to refer to him as “a man after God’s own heart”. Maybe it is time for Christians to revise Jesus’ seemingly naïve position re loving our enemies. This love thing is not easy at all. Love does not seek the death of others. Love seeks the healing and restoration of relationships and life and living.

It is painful to hear politicians simply speaking in the name of “what the people want” when it comes to the death penalty. This is irresponsible, although it plays to the gallery. Tough times call for leadership. Challenging conversations call for courageous leadership.

While a basic human rights position is sufficient to advocate for a rehabilitationist approach, it is noteworthy that the New Testament, which many Christians like to use, consistently calls for love which has no room for capital punishment. Imagine the notion of loving someone’s soul while killing that person’s body. Imagine the notion of laying down one’s life for someone while seeking the death penalty for that person. Imagine just doing like Pilate who gave the people what they wanted. They wanted Jesus instead of Barabas.

Playing to mob rule and condemning human rights activists might take away some attention from those tasked with making effective crime-fighting strategies. But this break will not last forever. People will eventually realise that chat alone will not do. Working for a safer, more peaceful society takes serious effort around conflict-resolution skills, building better relationships, and employing sensitivity to ethical awareness in what we all say and do.

Maybe a deeper appreciation for life-span potential from conception to natural death would make a world of difference in how we treat each other. Let each one start with self-worth and value in making our world a more peaceful, caring, and just society for all. May we live the golden rule, while modelling compassion in all our actions. We close our reflection contemplating the question, “what would Jeus do?”

Fr Sean Major-Campbell is an Anglican priest and advocate for human rights.