231.  Capital Punishment

In spite of a common assumption to the contrary, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" does not give justification for the imposing of the penalty of death.  Jesus explicitly repudiated the lex talionis (Matthew 5:38-39), and the Talmud denies its literal meaning and holds that it refers to financial indemnities.

When a woman was bought before Jesus having committed a crime for which the death penalty was commonly imposed, our Lord so persisted in questioning the moral authority of those who were ready to conduct the execution that they finally dismissed the charges (John 8:31 f.).

The Social Principles of The United Methodist Church condemn the "torture of persons by governments for any purpose" and assert that it violates Christian teachings.  The church, through its Social Principles, further declares, "We oppose capital punishment and urge its elimination from all criminal codes" (164A).

After a moratorium of a full decade, the use of the death penalty in the United States has resumed.  Other western nations have largely abolished it during the twentieth century.  But a rapidly rising rate of crime and an even greater increase in the fear of crime has generated support within the American society for the institution of death as the punishment for certain forms of homicide.  It is now being asserted, as it was often in the past, that capital punishment would deter criminals and would protect law-abiding citizens.

The United States Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, in permitting use of the death penalty, concealed the lack of evidence that it reduced violent crime, but permitted its use for purpose of sheer retribution.

The United Methodist Church cannot accept retribution or social vengeance as a reason for taking human life.  It violates our deepest belief in God as the Creator and the Redeemer of humankind.  In this respect, there can be no assertion that human life can be taken humanely by the state.  Indeed, in the long run, the use of the death penalty by the state will increase the acceptance of revenge in our society and will give official sanction to a climate of violence.

The United Methodist Church is deeply concerned about the present high rate of crime in the United States and about the value of a life taken in murder or homicide.  When another life is taken through capital punishment, the life of the victim is further devalued.  Moreover, the church is convinced that the use of the death penalty would result in neither a net reduction of crime in general nor a lessening of the particular kinds of crime against which it was directed.  Homicide - the crime for which the death penalty has been used almost exclusively in recent decades - increased far less than other major crimes during the period of the moratorium.  Progressively rigorous scientific studies, conducted over more than forty years, overwhelmingly failed to support the thesis that capital punishment deters homicide more effectively than does imprisonment.  The most careful comparisons of homicide rates in similar states with and without use of the death penalty, and also of homicide rates in the same state in periods with and without it, have found as many or slightly more criminal homicides in states with use of the death penalty.

The death penalty also falls unfairly and unequally upon an outcast minority.  Recent methods for selecting the few persons sentenced to die from among the larger number who are convicted of comparable offenses have not cured the arbitrariness and discrimination that have historically marked the administration of capital punishment in this country.

The United Methodist Church is convinced that the nation=s leaders should give attention to the improvement of the total criminal justice system and to the elimination of social conditions that breed crime and cause disorder, rather than foster a false confidence in the effectiveness of the death penalty.

The United Methodist Church declares its opposition to the retention and use of capital punishment in any form or carried out by any means; the church urges the abolition of capital punishment.

The international portions of The United Methodist Church are deeply grieved by the use of the death penalty in the United States.  United Methodists in central conferences and people in the autonomous Methodist churches deplore this fact and are embarrassed by this immoral practice in many states in the United States.  The international conscience is mobilizing to condemn this cruel practice and targets the United States as "an enemy of civilized people" in their protests.

The United Methodist Church recommends the following specific actions:

(1)           Congregations, districts, conferences, and ecumenical coalitions in sovereign nations and lesser political entities where the death penalty is currently practiced are called to take overt action to change the laws and social conditions which produce this violent act.

(2)           Persons and groups who take this moral issue into the public arena (such as addressing elected officials, vigils, letter-writing campaigns, paid advertising, and other responsible direct action) will be supported by the church.

(3)           The General Boards of Global Ministries and Church and Society and their affiliates throughout the denomination and ecumenical partnerships are called to develop strategies of education and political action to overcome the evil of capital punishment.

(4)           The global scope of the protest summons the people of the church to seriously oppose this abhorrent practice, and for United Methodist persons to incorporate this protest into their personal social conscience.

(5)           The United Methodist Church commends the people who have provided moral judgment, prophetic insight, pastoral care for those who suffer from this practice, and have borne the pain of hostility and indifference to this advocacy.

ADOPTED 1980

REVISED AND READOPTED 2000

See Social Principles, 164A.

232.  Continue the Restorative Justice Ministries

As The United Methodist Church moves into the 2001-2004 quadrennium, we reaffirm the 1996 General Conference mandate which led to a program of restorative justice ministries and recommend that the church continue to support and strengthen this new ministry.  We recommend the following:

(6)           that the Restorative Justice Ministries Global Coordinating Committee continue to give guidance and oversight to the operation of the Restorative Justice Ministries Office with each board/agency providing the funds for directors and staff to participate in meetings;

(7)           that the General Conference provide the financial resources to support a Restorative Justice Ministries Office of The United Methodist Church in the amount of $200,000/year;

(8)           that the General Board of Global Ministries provide resources to annual and central conferences to enable them to develop restorative justice ministries with victims, offenders, prisoners, their families, and communities;

(9)           that the General Board of Global Ministries provide funding to enable the assignment of missionaries, including youth and young adults, to serve in restorative justice ministries with victims, offenders, prisoners, and communities;

(10)       that the General Board of Global Ministries provide funding to support gatherings of United Methodists working in the fields of criminal justice, community corrections, and restorative justice.  The events will be focused on the relationship between faith and work and will be planned and carried out by the Restorative Justice Ministries Office;

(11)       that the General Board of Global Ministries provide funding to enable the Restorative Justice Ministries Office to organize four global consultations on restorative justice to be held in central conferences, bringing together United Methodist leaders from across the globe who are using restorative justice ministry strategies and techniques to transform and resolve social, political, religious, economic, racial, and ethnic conflicts and end violence within their churches and communities;

(12)       that the Restorative Justice Ministries Office work with annual and central conferences and their ecumenical, interfaith, and community partners to develop victim offender reconciliation programs and neighborhood conflict resolution programs based on restorative justice ministries models to serve the church and community;

(13)       that the Restorative Justice Ministries Office, in consultation with annual and central conferences, continue to organize training events in restorative justice ministries;

(14)       that the Restorative Justice Ministries Office continue to work to evaluate and identify model programs of restorative justice ministries and develop the network for these ministries;

(15)       that the Restorative Justice Ministries Office work with the boards and agencies to develop written resources to assist the church in their work in these ministries;

(16)       that the Restorative Justice Ministries Office work with the Women=s Division, as requested, in their 2002 Schools of Christian Mission Study on Restorative Justice;

(17)       that the General Board of Discipleship work with the Restorative Justice Ministries Office  to develop print and training resources for local churches, including Sunday School resources, to use as they embrace restorative justice ministries.  This directive includes: the development of resources and training for reconciling parents and youth offenders; the development of small group resources that support victim and offender reconciliation; and the provision of material for small groups that wish to explore restorative justice issues within the local church;

(18)       that the General Board of Discipleship work with the Restorative Justice Ministries Office to explore the development of a training and certification process for laity and local church pastors carrying out restorative justice ministries;

(19)       that the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry continue to provide certification for chaplains and explore the development of certification for others interested in professional ministry with restorative justice ministries;

(20)       that the Restorative Justice Ministries Office work with United Methodist seminaries, through the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry and the General Board of Global Ministries, to promote curriculum and practicum offerings in United Methodist seminaries in areas of violence, crime, and criminal justice from a restorative justice perspective;

(21)       the United Methodist Men work to develop ministries with prisoners, offenders, and victims through DISCIPLE Bible Study and other programs of The United Methodist Church;

(22)       that the Restorative Justice Ministries Office develop a group of United Methodist trained mediators who can respond to conflicts in the community and who can assist in training other United Methodists to serve as mediators in their communities; and

(23)       that the Restorative Justice Ministries Office develop a quarterly newsletter to provide information and updates on new developments in restorative justice ministries around the world to serve The United Methodist Church.

When we are faithful in discipleship, we are transformed and we become agents of healing and systemic change.  Restorative Justice Ministries of The United Methodist Church has provided our church with a tremendous opportunity to become those agents of healing and change.  Restorative justice enables us to become more deeply engaged in ministries with victims, offenders, and grassroots communities.  Restorative justice renews ours Wesleyan spirit as we seek to carry out the gospel of remembering, truth telling, repenting, and forgiving so that we might become a community of faith and faithfulness, healed and transformed.

ADOPTED 2000

See Social Principles, 164F.

233.        Equal Justice

It must be remembered that the advice "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1 NRSV) is preceded by ALive in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited.  Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all" (Romans 12:16-17 NRSV).  The admonition is directed to the authorities who govern as well as those who may be subject.

The Social Principles of The United Methodist Church state (164B and F): AThe church should continually exert a strong ethical influence upon the state, supporting policies and programs deemed to be just and opposing policies and programs that are unjust .... In the love of Christ, who came to save those who are lost and vulnerable, we urge the creation of a genuinely new system for the care and restoration of victims, offenders, criminal justice officials, and the community as a whole."

The Police

In a democratic society, the police fill a position of extraordinary trust and power.  Usually the decision of whether a citizen is to be taken into custody rests solely with the police.  For these reasons, law enforcement officers must be persons who possess good judgment, sound discretion, proper temperament, and are physically and mentally alert.

Unusual care must be exercised in the selection of those persons to serve as police officers.  We recommend psychological testing prior to employment of police officers and periodically thereafter.  During the period of training and continually thereafter, police must be instilled with the knowledge that the rights of many will never be secured if the government, through it police powers, is permitted to prefer some of its citizens over others.  The practice of citizen preference in the enforcement of our criminal laws must not be tolerated.  Our laws must be fairly enforced and impartially administered.  No one is immune from the requirements of the law because of power, position, or economic station in life.  Further, the power of the police must never be used to harass and provoke the young, the poor, the unpopular, and the members of racial and cultural minorities.

Where there is heavy pressure upon police officers by police departments to regularly make a large number of arrests as a demonstration of their initiative and professional performance, we urge that such practice be discontinued.

In a democratic society, however, a large majority of police work encompasses peacekeeping and social services rather than crime control functions.  Police routinely use more than 85 percent of their duty time in giving assistance to citizens and making referrals to other governmental agencies.  It is important for police to be recognized and promoted for their effectiveness in such roles as diverting youths from disorderly activities, peacefully intervening in domestic quarrels, anticipating disturbances through the channeling of grievances, and the building of good community relationships.

The United Methodist Church recommends that police departments publicly establish standards of police conduct and policies for promotion.  To this end, congregations should encourage the police to conduct public hearings among all classes of citizens, giving adequate weight to peacekeeping, life-protecting, and other service roles, as well as the bringing of criminal offenders to justice.  The standards must include strict limits on the police use of guns.

We further recommend that police officers live within the jurisdiction in which they are employed.

We make these recommendations not only in concern about the frequent abuses of people by the police, but also because we are concerned for more effective control of crime.  We observe that only about one half the victims of serious crime, and a far smaller proportion of witnesses, report to the police.  If offenders are to be apprehended and convicted, police and law-abiding citizens must work closely together.  Such cooperation can occur only when the police are fair and humane and when they are publicly known to be sensitive and considerate.

The United Methodist Church urges that communities establish adequate salary scales for police officers and develop high standards for recruiting both men and women, and members of all ethnic groups.  Recruitment must be followed by adequate training in social relations and dispute settlement as well as in law and the skills of crime detection investigation and the apprehension of offenders.  As police officers continue to meet those improved qualifications, we will recognize law enforcement as a profession with status and respect.

Criminal Laws and the Courts

Restorative justice practices should be utilized within the community as a first response to  any criminal behavior.  Justice can only prevail when there is healing of the victim, repentance of the offender, and when forgiveness and reconciliation are shared throughout the community.  Victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and various other restorative justice techniques are urged to be considered as an alternative to the criminal courts.

Overwhelmingly, criminal convictions are by guilty pleas, a large proportion of those by plea bargaining.  Where the law recognizes and permits plea-bargaining, and in those instances where the ends of justice dictate that a renegotiated plea be considered, we recommend it should be permitted and approved only after full disclosure in open court of the terms and conditions of such plea-bargaining agreement.  Equal justice requires that all trials and the sentencing of those convicted under our criminal laws must be conducted in the public courtroom.

However, that work should be correspondingly eased by changes in the law, such as the moving of most traffic offenses out of criminal court to administrative procedures, and by relieving the court of great numbers of civil cases through the adoption of genuine no-fault motor-vehicle insurance laws.  The courts must also organize their work efficiently, employing modern management procedures.  Many improvements could be made by the use of administrative volunteers, including retirees who can furnish professional services to the court at minimal costs.

Other changes needed to obtain equal justice in the courts include:

(1)           the repeal of some criminal laws against certain personal conditions or individual misconduct.  Examples are criminal prohibitions of vagrancy, personal gambling, public drunkenness, drug use, and prostitution.  Together, these changes alone account for more than half of all arrests in some jurisdictions.  They result in little social good, but great evil in class discrimination, alienation, and waste of resources needed for other purposes.  Some related laws such as those against drunken driving and those limiting and controlling the operation of gambling establishments need to be tightened;

(2)       the adoption of systematic new panel codes prescribing penalties proportionate to the predictable damage done by the various kinds of crime, without regard to the race or class of the offender.  For example, in the United States, there are discriminatory high penalties for the use of crack cocaine (most often used by blacks) as opposed to powder cocaine (most often used by whites);

(3)           the training of judges of juvenile and criminal courts in the use of non-incarcerating community sanctions wherever the offense does not involve persistent violence;

(4)           the adoption of systematic new penal codes prescribing a range of penalties without regard to the race or class of the offender, but utilizing non-incarceration community sanctions wherever consistent with community protection;

(5)           the provision of court-fixed sentences, rather than mandatory ones, in order to draw upon the skill and the training of qualified judges;

(6)           a statement by the sentencing judge of the reason or reasons why he or she is selecting from the range permitted by the law the particular sentence being pronounced;

(7)           the development of appropriate jury selection procedures that would ensure the most inclusive representation, including representatives of the socioeconomic class and ethnic group of the defendants and of the crime victims, as well as balance between male and female jurors;

(8)           the adoption by all courts of: (a) speedy trial provisions, which the Constitution guarantees; and (b) that degree of personal recognizance and supervision which each defendant=s situation warrants, regardless of race and class identity, in place of the present, inherently discriminatory bail-bond, pretrial release process that exists in some courts;

(9)           when fines are assessed, they should be scaled to the magnitude of the crime and the ability of the offender to pay.  In suitable cases, fines should be made payable in installments; and

(10)       governmentally regulated programs of compensation for reimbursement of financial loss incurred by innocent victims of crime should be encouraged, with preference being given for programs in which specific offenders provide restitution to their specific victims as an alternative to incarceration; and

(11)       changes in state self-defense laws to allow for cases in which persistently battered persons, especially women and children, are driven to violence against their batterers, when they believe with good reason, that another attack is forthcoming.

We recommend that local churches consider setting up court monitoring panels to observe court operations and proceedings.  Such panels may well adopt a role of friends of the court or of advocacy on behalf of accused persons and/or on behalf of crime victims.  They may adopt other appropriate procedures in the interest of restorative justice, including close scrutiny of plea-bargaining and/or evidence of unequal imposition of sentences.

ADOPTED 1980

AMENDED AND READOPTED 2000

See Social Principals, 164F.

234.  Grand Jury Abuse

Jesus= words, ADo not judge, so that you may not be judged" (Matthew 7:1 NRSV), surely imply that all judgments are made in the light of God=s truth.  The Social Principles of The United Methodist Church state boldly that "governments, no less than individuals, are subject to the judgment of God" (164E).  Such a social principle causes us, appropriately, to view with concern the government=s use of the grand jury to control dissent and to harass those who act under the constraint of conscience.

The grand jury is envisioned in American law as a protector of citizens from unwarranted prosecutions.  It is for this reason that its proceedings are secret and it has the power to subpoena witnesses.

Evidence indicates that in recent years, the extraordinary powers of the grand jury often have been used not for the protection of citizens, but in subjecting them to harassment and intimidation.  Historically, political dissidents, antiwar activists, and leaders of minority groups and religious organizations have been particularly vulnerable to these abuses.

A government prosecutor can control the grand jury, thus distorting the grand jury=s power to monitor and moderate the actions of the prosecution.  The prosecutor can use the subpoena powers of the grand jury to conduct investigations that are the responsibility of law enforcement agencies.  As an example, the United States Congress has never given the Federal Bureau of Investigation subpoena powers, yet agents routinely threaten uncooperative persons with subpoenas from a grand jury.  In fact, subpoenas are often served at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The use of the powers of the grand jury to harass and pursue political dissidents is a departure form its proper constitutional function, and it is a threat to public order, lawful government, and true domestic security.

Witnesses called before a grand jury may be given little or no warning of their subpoenas, may be forced to travel to court at distances from their homes, may not know whether they are targets of prosecution, may have little understanding of their rights, and cannot have legal counsel in the chambers.

Comprehensive grand jury reform legislation is needed to restore the constitutional guarantees of protection for citizens.  The United States Constitution=s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and false accusation must be reestablished and reinforced.

The United Methodist Church, therefore, supports legislation designed to enhance the rights  to due process of law, freedom of association, effective legal counsel, the presumption of innocence, and the privilege against self-incrimination of persons subpoenaed to testify before grand juries.

ADOPTED 1980

AMENDED AND READOPTED 2000

See Social Principles, 164E and F.

235.  Gun Violence

Violence and, more particularly, violence to children and youth is a primary concern for United Methodists.  We recognize and deplore violence which kills and injures children and youth.  In the name of Christ, who came so that persons might know abundant life, we call upon the church to affirm its faith through vigorous efforts to curb and eliminate gun violence.

Gun violence is killing America=s children.  Based on statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, there are an estimated 223 million firearms in the United States.  Approximately one out of every four households owns a handgun.  The risk of handgun violence to children and youth is more prevalent in the United States today than in any previous generation.  Our communities and schools are so exposed to large numbers of privately owned guns that no mere attempts at providing slightly better security can match the awful threat of guns finding their way through our well-intentioned safety systems.

A significant total reduction in the numbers of guns in our communities is our goal in ministry.  We serve and our society=s children go to school amidst passionately violent segments of current youth culture.  No appeals to individual autonomy are sufficient to justify our church=s ignorance of this threat.  The need to prevent the incidence of firearm-related injury and death is an issue of increasing concern and a priority U.S. public health issue.  The United Methodist Church is among those religious communions calling for social policies and personal lifestyles that bring an end to senseless gun violence.

Gun violence in America=s schools has emerged as a growing and disturbing trend.  The United Methodist Church supports ministries that address the issue of violence and crime prevention for children/youth in urban areas through the Communities of Shalom.  Violence is no longer confined to the streets of urban areas but has occurred at an increasing rate in suburban communities.  Over the past several years, high-profile cases of school shootings involving suburban youth killing and injuring teachers and peers alike have once again brought the issue of guns and youth to the forefront of national attention.

These acts of senseless violence should not be an acceptable occurrence in any community:  suburban, urban, or rural.  The church must continue to address these issues of violence and develop programs to enrich the lives of all children/youth.

In light of the increase of gun violence affecting the lives of children and youth, we call upon The United Methodist Church to: 

(1)           convene workshops of clergy and other mental health care professionals from communities (urban, rural, and suburban) in which gun violence has had a significant impact in order to discuss ways by which The United Methodist Church should respond to this growing tragedy, and to determine what role the church should take in facilitating dialogue to address the issue of gun violence in our schools and among our children;

(2)           educate the United Methodist community (parents, children, and youth) on gun safety, violence prevention, adult responsibility around gun violence prevention, and the public health impact of gun violence;

(3)           identify community-based, state, and national organizations working on the issue of gun violence and seek their assistance to design education and prevention workshops around the issue of gun violence and its effect on children and youth;

(4)           develop accuracy groups within local congregations to advocate for the eventual reduction of the availability of guns in society with a particular emphasis upon handguns, handgun ammunition, assault weapons, automatic weapons, automatic weapon conversion kits, and guns that cannot be detected by traditionally used metal detection devices.  These groups can be linked to community-based, state, and national organizations working on gun and violence issues;

(5)           support federal legislation to regulate the importation, manufacturing, sale, and possession of guns and ammunition by the general public.  Such legislation should include provisions for the registration and licensing of gun purchasers and owners, appropriate background investigation and waiting periods prior to gun purchase, and regulation of subsequent sale;

(6)           call upon all governments of the world in which there is a United Methodist presence to establish national bans on ownership by the general public of handguns, assault weapons, automatic weapon conversion kits; and weapons that cannot be detected by traditionally used metal-detection devices;

(7)           call upon the print, broadcasting, and electronic media, as well as the entertainment industry, to refrain from promoting gun usage to children;

(8)           discourage the graphic depiction and glorification of violence by the entertainment industry, which greatly influences our society, and recommend that these issues be addressed through education and consciousness raising;

(9)           call upon the federal and state governments to provide significant assistance to victims of gun violence and their families; and

(10)       recommend that annual conferences make visible public witness to the sin of gun violence and to the hope of community healing.

ADOPTED 2000

See Social Principals, 164F.

236.  Human Rights

God created human beings,

in the image of God they were created;

male and female were created.

(Genesis 1:26-27, adapted)

We affirm that all persons are of equal worth in the sight of God, because all are created in the image of God.  Biblical tradition demands that we live in interdependent relationship with God and our neighbor.  We must respond to human need at every community level.

As covenant people of God, we are called to responsibility rather than privilege.

God=s vision for humanity as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ demands the total fulfillment of human rights in an interdependent global community.  It is a vision of life where needs of the community have priority over individual fears and where redemption and reconciliation are available at all.  Human rights are holistic in nature and therefore indivisible in their economic, social, cultural, civil, and political aspects.  The omission of any of these aspects denies our God-given human dignity.

As Christians, we receive and carry a mandate to seek justice and liberation.  Isaiah calls us to:

loose the bonds of injustice,

to undo the thongs of the yoke,

to let the oppressed go free,

and to break every yoke

(Isaiah 58:6).

The United Methodist Church continues its commitment to human rights as grounded in God=s covenant by critically assessing and safe-guarding the following principles as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) All persons are of equal worth and dignity.

(2) All persons have the right to self-determination, cultural identity, and minority distinction.

(3)All persons have the right to self-determination, cultural identity, and minority distinction.

(4)All persons have the right to religious expression and practice.  The United Nations has      spoken strongly against racism as a human rights violation in the United Nations                 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:

Discrimination between human beings on the ground of race, color or ethnic origin is an offense to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and as a fact capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples.

In addition, the United Nations has also defined sexism as a violation of human rights in the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women:

Discrimination against women, denying or limiting as it does their equality of rights with men, is fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offense against human dignity.

Furthermore, Amnesty International has proposed to "end abuses based on sexual orientation" and to Adefend the rights of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals to live lives free from stigmatization and violence."

We call upon citizens within the church and society to analyze critically trends and developments that adversely effect human rights.  These include:

(1)           the increase of capital-intensive technology that destroys opportunities for productive and meaningful employment;

(2)           the intentional use of data banks to undermine rather than enhance abundant living;

(3)           the growing phenomenon of an "underclass" of persons domestically and internationally excluded from full participation in society due to educational, cultural, economic, and political conditions;

(4)           the possible economic and political scape-goating of such an underclass for technological and social displacement;

(5)           increasing extrajudicial executions; torture; and disappearances of dissenters, their families, and communities;

(6)           the growth of militarism and the imposition of military-like control over civilians;

(7)           the increase of terrorism and the growth of white supremacist and racial hate groups, neo-Nazi groups, paramilitary units, and extreme ultra-nationalistic groups;

(8)           in many countries, the decreasing civilian control of domestic and international policing and intelligence units as well as increasing surveillance of their own citizenry, imposed under the guise of a potential threat to national security; and

(9)           the conflict between meeting the basic needs of developing countries and the disproportionate sharing of global resources.

We are increasingly aware that militarism and greed can overwhelm and undermine movements to secure human rights.  The church is called to be an advocate for the human rights of all persons in the political, social, and economic quest for justice and peace.

As people of faith and hope, we commend those trends that contribute positively to the human rights movement.  Among them:

$               the growing acceptance of universal standards for human rights;

$               the establishment of organizations such as Amnesty International, which documents, verifies, and publicizes political imprisonment, torture, killings, and crimes against humanity;

$               the increasing consensus against war as a viable solution to international conflicts;

$               movement toward the inclusion of Abasic human needs" criteria in international aid packages and financial aid programming;

$               the growing importance of human rights offices in governments around the world; and

$               the growing emphasis on technology appropriate to the cultural setting.

We uphold the requirements advocated by the National Council of Churches to preserve and protect human rights:

(1) Human rights require world peace.

(2) Human rights require a secure and sustainable environment.

(3) Human rights require sustainable human development.

(4) Human rights require the preservation of communities.

(5) Human rights require the preservation of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

We call upon all governments to accept their obligation to uphold human rights by refraining from repression, torture, and violence against any person.  We further call upon all governments to ratify and implement international conventions, covenants, and protocols addressing human rights in the context of justice and peace.

We call the church to be a place of refuge for those who experience the violation of their human rights.  It is the duty of Christians Ato help create a worldwide community in which governments and people treat each other compassionately as members of one human family."

ADOPTED 1996

AMENDED AND READOPTED 2000

See Social Principals, 164A.

237.  Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention

Let the little children come to me and not stop them, for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.  (Mark 10:14 NRSV).

Our Lord particularly identified with children and illustrated the loving care which they need to grow and mature.

The Social Principles of The United Methodist Church calls for special attention to the rights of children and youth.  From these perspectives we are concerned that in many states, children are arrested and incarcerated for truancy, incorrigibility, stubborn altercations with parents, and other conduct which would not be criminal if performed by an adult.  Such state offenses should not be considered as grounds for involving a juvenile in processes of criminal or delinquency procedures.  Rather, a child in trouble should be helped by caring communities, such as churches, mentoring programs, and boys/girls clubs.

There is considerable evidence that the methods of dealing with children play a major part in developing criminal tendencies.  Most adults who repeat violent crimes began their conflict with law and order as children ten to fourteen years old.  If treatment by the state or local agencies leads the child to think of him or herself as a tough young criminal, he or she is likely to act out that role.

The United Methodist Church urges that all status offenses be eliminated from the juvenile codes and from the processes for determining juvenile delinquency.  We urge further that all offenses by children and youth be handled with extreme reluctance to incarcerate the offender.  We especially oppose solitary confinement of children and youths in official detention.  Institutions where juveniles classified as delinquent often are segregated from the general population often becomes schools of crime.  As an alternative, we encourage greater use of supportive and restorative services for parents and children in their home settings; foster child care; neighborhood group homes, Parents Anonymous, and other alternatives.

There are communities within the states in which children are routinely locked up in jails because of a lack of temporary shelter, care or an unwillingness to use home detention.  We urge the prohibition of placing dependent and neglected children in jails or facilities for juvenile delinquents.

For many children, the quality of life continually declines due to poverty, gangs, school violence, emotional sexual and physical abuse, and other social ills that have yet to be recognized.  The United Methodist Church must take a stand against juvenile delinquency and work to prevent it.

The church can witness to children in a restorative and prophetic way.  The church must continue to address the social issues that children and adolescents face and become a safe haven where the children can come.  By addressing the issues that children face, we help bring God=s children back to their Creator.

Therefore, be it resolved, that General Conference of The United Methodist Church takes a stand against juvenile delinquency and works to strengthen prevention programs.

Be it further resolved, that The United Methodist Church, through the appropriate churches, annual conferences, agencies, or coalitions work to prevent juvenile delinquency and treat offenders by:

$               updating the Urban and Rural Life Youth Mentoring Guide;

$               continuing the develop and distribute peer mentoring guides to local churches;

$               continuing to develop and distribute up-to-date information on juvenile delinquency and strategies on how local churches can help prevent juvenile delinquency;

$               encouraging local churches to create ministry partnerships with local juvenile justice officials and juvenile justice agencies;

$               forming alliances with other international, national, state, and local civic and religious groups that work on juvenile justice issues; and

$               encouraging conference council on youth ministries or other similar boards to create ministry teams and/or programs for their peers.

ADOPTED 2000

See Social Principles, 164F.

238.  In Opposition to Capital Punishment

The United Methodist Church declares its opposition to the retention and use of capital punishment and urges its abolition.  In spite of a common assumption to the contrary, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," does not give justification for the imposing of the penalty of death.  Jesus explicitly repudiated retaliation (Matthew 5:38-39), and the Talmud denies its literal meaning and holds that it refers to financial indemnities.

Christ came among us and suffered death.  Christ also rose to new life for the sake of all.  His suffering, death, and resurrection brought a new dimension to human life, the possibility of reconciliation with God through repentance.  This gift is offered to all without exception, and human life was given new dignity and sacredness through it.  The death penalty, however, denies Christ=s power to transform and restore all human beings.  In the New Testament, when a woman having committed a crime was brought before Jesus, He persisted in questioning her accusers, so that they walked away (John 8:1-11).

The Social Principles of The United Methodist Church condemn "...torture of persons by governments for any purpose," (164A) and assert that it violates Christian teachings.  The church, through its Social Principles, further declares, "we oppose capital punishment and urge its elimination from all criminal codes." (164A)

During the 1970s and 1980s a rapidly rising rate of violent crime and an even greater increase in the fear of crime generated support in some countries and within the American society, for the institution of death as the punishment for certain forms of homicide.  It continues to be wrongly asserted, that capital punishment uniquely deters criminals and protects law-abiding citizens from violent crime.

Studies conducted over more than sixty years have overwhelmingly failed to support the thesis that capital punishment deters homicide more effectively than does imprisonment.  Careful comparisons of homicide rates in similar states with and without use of the death penalty have revealed that homicide rates remained the same or slightly greater regardless of the use of the death penalty in those states.  Governments that have enacted the death penalty continue to have higher civilian murder rates than those that do not.  The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per every 100,000 people, whereas the five countries with the highest homicide rate that do not impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders every 100,000 people.  The United Methodist Church is deeply concerned with the rate of crime throughout the world, and the value of a life taken by murder or homicide.  When another life is taken through capital punishment, the life of the victim is further devalued.  Moreover, the church is convinced that the use of the death penalty would result in neither a net reduction of crime nor a lessening of the particular kinds of crime against which it was directed.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the use of the death penalty in the United States reached almost unprecedented proportions.  The rate of homicide, the crime for which the death penalty has been used almost exclusively, increased very little during the 1980s and declined during the 1990s.  As United Methodist Christians, part of our mission is to give attention to the improvement of the total criminal justice system and to the elimination of social conditions which breed crime and cause disorder, rather than foster a false confidence in the effectiveness of the death penalty.

Sixty-seven percent of law enforcement officials do not think capital punishment decreases the rate of homicide.  A poll of police chiefs found that they ranked the death penalty least effective in reducing violent crime.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court rule that executing an innocent person was not Acruel and unusual" if all the proper and legal procedures were followed.  The court thus does not have to reopen a case if new evidence, exonerating the defendant, comes to light after a legally established deadline for new information.  Between 1972 and 1999 more than seventy people have been released from death row as a result of being wrongly convicted.  On average, for every seven people executed, one person under a death sentence is found innocent.

The United States is the world leader in sentencing children to death.  Since 1990 only Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and the U.S. are known to have executed persons for crimes they committed as children.  Of these, the U.S. has executed more juvenile offenders than any other nation.  This practice has been condemned in nearly every major human rights treaty.  Canada, Italy, and South Africa are among the many countries that abolished the death penalty in the 20^th Century.

The death penalty falls unfairly and unequally upon marginalized persons including the poor, the uneducated, ethnic and religious minorities, and persons with mental and emotional illnesses.  In the United States, persons who receive the death penalty are usually convicted of killing middle or upper class white persons, are almost always poor and unable to afford a lawyer, and often suffer from brain damage associated with previous head injuries, often in childhood.  In the U.S. methods for selecting the few persons sentenced to die from among the large number who are sentenced for comparable offenses are entirely arbitrary.  What warrants the death penalty and what sentencing options are available vary among the few countries that impose capital punishment and even among the states in the United States.

The United States Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), in permitting use of the death penalty, conceded the lack of evidence that it reduced violent crime, but permitted its use for purpose of sheer retribution.

The United Methodist Church cannot accept retribution or social vengeance as a reason for taking human life.  It violates our deepest belief in God as the Creator and the Redeemer of humankind.  In this respect, there can be no assertion that human life can be taken humanely by the state.  Indeed, in the long run, the use of the death penalty by the state will increase the acceptance of revenge in our society and will give official sanction to a climate of violence.

Therefore, we call upon United Methodists individually, at the district and conference level and through general boards and agencies to:

$               work in collaboration with other ecumenical and abolitionist groups for the abolition of the death penalty in those states which currently have capital punishment statutes, and against efforts to reinstate such statues in those which do not;

$               speak out against the death penalty to state governors, state and federal representatives;

$               develop education materials on capital punishment; and

$               oppose all executions through prayer and vigils.

ADOPTED 2000

See Social Principles, 164A.

239.  Prisons and Criminal Justice<