Anthony Braden Bryan, Petitioner v. Michael Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida

Brief of the American Baptist Churches; American Friends Service Committee; the American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America; the Christian Church (disciples); the Concerned Black Clergy; Judy Mills Reimer as the Executive Director of the Church of the Brethren General Board; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the National Council of Churches; Clifton Kirkpatrick as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); the Reformed Church in America; the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; the Unitarian Universalist Association; the United Church of Christ; and General Board of Ministries of the United Methodist Church; as Amici Curiae in support of the petitioner.

pp.11-14

A. Religious Groups and Faith-Based Organizations Are Traditionally Relied Upon by Framers of Public Policy and Thus, Well Suited to Provide Indicators of Contemporary Standards of Decency

The religious community traditionally has played a pervasive and dominant role in the formation of the American social conscience. Churches and synagogues have insistently and persuasively called not only upon their own people but also upon all citizens to form a more just and humane society. Not content merely to reflect the mores and prejudices of the imperfect human community, religious leaders – both clergy and lay – have represented, articulated and reflected the impulse of the human spirit towards justice, compassion and correct conduct. The religious community routinely enlivens and enlightens public debate on matters presenting basic issues in American society. Indeed, since the earliest times, religion has been "woven into the underlying texture of American politics." A.J. Reichley, Religion in American Public Life 169 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1985).

Religion’s stewardship of moral values has led to new definitions of what is right and wrong in public policy, flowing from insights voiced by emerging religious movements. Religiously inspired movements have been instrumental in many social reforms in the United States. "[C]hurch and religious groups in the United States have long exerted powerful political pressures on state and national legislatures, on subjects as diverse as slavery, war, gambling, drinking, prostitution, marriage, and education." McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 641 n. 25 (1978) (Brennan, J. concurring) (quoting L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, IST ed., 866-67). In short, the religious community frequently speaks to policy-makers about evolving standards of decency, and public policy changes.

The central issue presented by the instant cases is also a matter of great social and religious importance – whether there is a great societal consensus that is morally, and thus constitutionally, offensive to execute a person by electrocution. As this Court has insisted, that inquiry must be determined by reference to the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 365 U.S. at 101. The identifying standard

should not be, or appear to be, merely the subjective views of individual justices; judgment should be informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent. To this end, attention must be given to public attitudes concerning a particular sentence. . . .

Coker v Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592 (1977). Amici – religious judicatories, organizations, and agencies of major Protestant and Jewish denominations in the United States – are, as in other areas of public policy, in a unique and important position to reflect public attitudes concerning execution by electrocution.

In the twentieth century, the policy statements of religious bodies in the United States have come to represent the product of a significant and highly developed process that brings together biblical, theological, social science expertise with representative deliberation. The policy statements generally are the result of a long and careful process of study in which experts from the theological, ethical and various technical fields, meeting over a period of years with program specialists in the denominations, research a given problem-area, prepare analyses, and draft proposed policies for the religious body. The result of this process is a well-considered and definitive statement combining the contributions of experts and the scrutiny and discussion of a widely-representative deliberative process. As such, it represents a deliberate and informed consensus.

Through such deliberative processes, a large majority of religious bodies or organizations in the United States have expressed their opposition to the imposition of capital punishment in the United States. Amici are particularly well-suited to inform the Court of the evolving standards of decency in society with regard to the use of electrocution as a means of execution. Amici have acted upon their moral authority and their moral responsibility to take the lead in opposing the death penalty. Our moral opposition comes from many different religious perspectives but coalesces into several core principles: 1) that capital punishment is contrary to the respect for life and the dignity of humanity; 2) that capital punishment is destructive and represents retribution, vengeance and retaliation; and 3) that capital punishment is a violent response to violence which demeans and brutalizes society.