Testimony on HJR W — Constitutional Amendment to Reinstate Death Penalty in Michigan
9 March 2004
House Joint Resolution W
House Regulatory Reform Committee
Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee I am Paul Long, the Vice President of Public Policy at the Michigan Catholic Conference. The Michigan Catholic Conference is the public policy voice for the Catholic Church in our state. We thank you for the opportunity to offer our brief reflections on House Joint Resolution W.
Traditionally, the Michigan Catholic Conference has opposed efforts to restore the death penalty in Michigan. From our advocacy during the 1961 constitutional convention, to our opposition to various ballot initiatives, to our testimony before several legislative committees our position has always been clear: On the issue of capital punishment, as with assisted suicide or abortion, the Church stands against the use of lethal means to solve social problems.
We acknowledge the need to protect society from violent crime. We do not challenge society’s right to punish the serious and violent offender. But, to serve as an effective deterrent to crime, any punishment must be swift, sure and even handed. Capital punishment fails in all these categories.
By its very nature, a harmonious social order recognizes the role of law and its relation to rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Law comforts and it controls. It protects and it punishes. It edifies and it enriches. It limits and it liberates.
It should not kill. For a government with the power to kill, is a government with too much power. As the report of the 1844 Select Committee on the Abolishment of Capital Punishment of the House and Senate stated:
“Imposition of the penalty is a ‘usurped power of government;’ since no man has the right to take his own life, he cannot delegate the power to take his life to the government.”
The restoration of the death penalty, absent in our state since 1846, is a simplistic solution to complex problems. As was the case with assisted suicide, proponents of the death penalty outline the most gruesome and heinous acts and suggest that if we abandon our 158-year public policy and adopt legalized killing we will put an end to such acts.
Public policy, however, should not be developed in response to a specific anecdote, no matter how gruesome and heinous. Public policy should be developed with the common good as the central theme under girded in the belief in the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of the human person.
It may be said that this resolution is limited in its scope and approach. But the fact of the matter is that Michigan’s prohibition, the longest in the English-speaking world, would come to an end.
We urge this committee to oppose House Joint Resolution W, and all other proposals which would allow the death penalty in Michigan.
Thank you.
