Tuesday, Feb. 17, 1998--

Amnesty group's contract

Like the world around us, Amnesty International has changed dramatically

since the days when William F. Buckley Jr. served on its board in the

1970s. In his Feb. 3 Chronicle Editorial page column, Buckley suggested

that he, like many others, came to Amnesty to focus almost exclusively on

human rights violations resulting from the Cold War.

Amnesty was known as an organization dedicated to protecting men and

women arrested for expressing their political or religious beliefs. But,

human rights violations did not end with the fall of communism and

Amnesty International did not rest on its laurels after winning the Nobel

Peace Prize in 1977.

Rather, it has remained dedicated to its mandate: to help the world

achieve the ideals incorporated in the universal declaration of human

rights which establishes guidelines for the treatment of all people by

virtue of their humanity -- not by virtue of what they are imprisoned

for.

Since Amnesty International came out against the death penalty in 1978,

a majority of U.S. allies have recognized the danger inherent in

legalizing government-sponsored executions. Aside from the moral

repugnance of purposefully killing prisoners, there is the understanding

the death penalty can never be fairly administered, nor is it fail-safe.

We don't know how many innocent people have been executed in the United

States, but we do know of innocent people who spent years on death row,

escaping execution only because dedicated lawyers and journalists took on

their cases and finally proved their innocence.

We also know the majority of people in prison and on death row are poor,

some are mentally deficient and most lack adequate legal assistance.

Further, racial minorities are disproportionately represented.

Amnesty International deeply regrets the loss of life and consequences of

violent crime and has enormous compassion for victims' families and

friends. In fact, it demands perpetrators of crimes be brought to

justice. However, we believe the death penalty undermines efforts to

promote a just and nonviolent world.

Buckley argues we should retain the death penalty because we have a

"contract" to protect people and to guard the posthumous dignity of the

victims of crime. But the death penalty offers no guarantees of

protection since, in fact, statistics show most countries without the

death penalty experience far fewer murders than does the United States.

Statistics also show within the United States, murder rates are not

significantly different in states with and without the death penalty.

And how does it protect a victim's dignity to commit in his or her name

the most barbaric and undignified of acts? Just as we do not

steal from a thief or rape a rapist, we should not execute a killer.

Buckley is wrong in his belief that Amnesty International should not have

entered the death penalty debate. In fact, Amnesty took up the issue of

abolition of the death penalty when it seemed that the South African

government was going to sentence Nelson Mandela to death.

This is not to say every death row prisoner is a potential president of a

nation. But each one is a human being and, as such, deserves government

protection from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment -- including the

grossest of human-rights violations: the death penalty. For Buckley's

information, there is our "contract,"

William Schulz,

executive director, Amnesty International USA

(source: Houston Chronicle)

--------------------------

Rick Halperin

AI-Texas