es a false sense of security. At worst, we increase insecurity by demeaning the value of life. And if we make this choice, we will be numbered among the minority of nations -- most of them authoritarian regimes -- that retain an active death penalty. Or we can choose life. Even imprisonment for life is a choice in favor of the sanctity of life. In addition there may be other more redemptive possibilities for some. We have other choices. We can focus exclusively on punitive sanctions. Or we can seek to build alternatives that make room for restitution and compensation, leaving opportunity for redemption and healing. We can seek to provide a justice that is restorative. We can choose to continue our exclusive focus on the fate of offenders. Or we can choose to remember victims. We can seek alternatives that take their needs into account. We can find ways to minister to victims personally and in our churches. We can show that to be anti-death penalty does not mean to be anti-victim, that in fact it can and should mean being pro-victim. We can choose to retain our preoccupation with questions of individual guilt and punishment. Or we can widen our vision to examine the causes and meaning of violence. That must include an understanding of the distortions caused by poverty and disadvantage. We must be sensitive to the mixed messages given by a society that legitimizes violence in some situations but condemns violence in other situations. We can choose to understand violence and seek to develop a just and equitable society that has less need for violence. Perhaps the real tragedy of the debate about the death penalty is that it has sidetracked us from the real issues: the causes of violence and its meaning for both victim and offender. The answers are not easy, but they are ones we must explore. Before we can find these answers, however, we need to reach within ourselves. We must realize that each of us has suffered, that we are all in some se...
