On the evening of February 3, 1998, I was forced to look deep in the heart of Texas. In the cold blood of retribution, I saw reflected the faces of religious people finding relief in killing a killer, boastful followers of Jesus showing no mercy on one who had shown no mercy. Under the banner of balancing eye for eye, these zealots demanded a full pound of flesh to be laid on the scales of justice.

How barbaric our barristers. How hollow our hallowed values. And how lethal our legality. And what irony: Christians claiming the grace of God for their salvation, yet offering only justice to their fellowman? What do we contribute to the world if we, in cold calculation, plan and execute someone for an act done in impromptu rage and irrationality?

In the first place, what does the expression of my values about human life have to do with being religious? Having a laudable value system is not tantamount to being religious. Actually, such an equation usually indicates an extreme philosophical arrogance: a subtle implication that authentic values come only from some type of religious experience, which in effect judges all other routes to value as counterfeit and illegitimate. To the contrary, I often find those who claim no particular religious persuasion to be more moral, in the highest sense of the term, than their religious counterparts (e.g. the late Bertrand Russell).

But you also missed an important point which I tried to make: I never suggested that what was done to Karla Faye Tucker was an injustice. (However, if she, indeed, was on drugs and operated with a distorted awareness of the nature of her actions, it just might be an injustice to impose a sentence which, theoretically at least, is meant for "intentional", first-degree murderers.) Again, my point was that the very foundation of Christian theology is based on the Christian's acceptance of a purported truth: that man is essentially evil, depraved (Augustine) and deserving of Hell fire. The corollary truth is that God goes beyond justice and does not hold man ultimately accountable, but forgives him; i.e., does not give man what he deserves, but offers grace through love and takes a stance of redemption toward man.

Reverend Falwell, you see, actually has gotten it backward. Falwell wants to kill the murderer unless he has been "saved." The basis of Christian theology is that God wanted to show mercy in spite of one's "lost" condition. How ironic that many today are wearing a bracelet which displays "WWJD": "What would Jesus Do?" Yet they don't seem to apply this didactic motto in the case of capital punishment!

Another implication of your response was that I am totally against capital punishment. It would be more accurate to claim that capital punishment is problematic for me. I believe that a culture has the right to set up the rules by which it lives and dies, so long as it is at the "consent of the governed." Then if a man murders, he has "done it to himself." This is certainly not unjust in the legal or in the political sense. I am simply saying that our morality may need to exceed the canons of justice. To reach the height of human dignity, we may need to incorporate a level of morality which surpasses the cold application of justice. We may need to take humanity to a higher level whereby we exhibit some mercy and redemptive behavior toward our fellowman.

I usually end all conversation on the death penalty with the following observation: To kill another person (excepting, possibly, torture) is the ultimate punishment. When you show me that we have ultimate justice, then I just might discuss with you the morality of an ultimate penalty. I firmly believe that if Karla Faye Tucker had had the "dream team" of O J's lawyers behind her, she would most likely be alive today. In our culture, it is almost a truism to say that only the poor, the ignorant and the insane are killed by the state in what we call "legal and just executions."

Personally, I believe there is a higher level of justice than retribution. It is restitution. A man who dies for a crime pays back nothing to the victim and his family except retribution. If a man steals and destroys my car, I would prefer that he buy me a new car than to sit in jail as my punishment of him. Why don't we have these capital cases doing something productive, earning an income from which they can give to the victims some form of restitution.

Bill Stroud, of Oxford, Mississippi,, has an extensive background in three areas: theology, philosophy and psychology (B.D, Th.D., Ph.D). Although semi-retired, he is active as a speaker, free-lance writer and a workshop presenter for educational and service agencies. He presently is an adjunct professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Ole Miss University.