Jason Poling: Facing a dilemma, sword in hand
The Rev. Jason Poling is the pastor of New Hope Community Church in Pikesville.
For all the agonizing people do over theoretical ethical quandaries, few of us are likely often to find ourselves in genuine ethical dilemmas. Sure, we find ourselves in dilemmas, but our choice is usually between doing the right (but difficult, painful and/or costly) thing and taking a seemingly easier way out. Many of the dilemmas we encounter are self-inflicted: a husband looks at pornography and then must decide between confessing it to his wife (thus making her feel violated) or not (thus hiding something from her). We’re in a bad spot, but we put ourselves there, and we have ourselves to blame for having to lie in the bed we made.
The truly wrenching dilemmas, though, are the ones that are brought upon us by others. You see the neighbor kid smoking dope: Do you tell her parents? A coworker speaks abusively to you in a meeting: Do you object? A preacher delivers a sermon you know was cribbed from somebody else’s: Do you blow the whistle? In every case there are uncomfortable practical implications to either choice, and you’re aware that whatever path you choose will have negative consequences for you personally, but you have to choose. Even if you want very much to do the right thing, even if you work hard to keep your own interests from coloring your decision, it’s not easy. Beyond the harm inflicted by the bad behavior itself is the moral burden placed on those in a position to respond to it.
And sometimes you don’t have much time to make a choice. The adrenaline is flowing, the atmosphere is charged, the play is to you and you’ve got to make the call. This seems to have been the case for John Pontolillo, the Johns Hopkins student who encountered Donald Rice in his yard in the wee hours of Tuesday morning.
That Mr. Rice was guilty at the very least of trespassing is beyond question; that he was preparing to commit more serious crimes is beyond doubt. “Even burglars,” the Sun editorialized today, “don’t deserve to be killed with a razor-sharp sword.” No, of course not; burglary is not a crime that merits the death penalty in civilized societies. (And in the uncivilized ones I’d still prefer a sharp sword to a dull one, but that’s neither here nor there.)
On the other hand, if Mr. Rice was injured as a result of physically attacking Mr. Portolillo, then the question is not whether burglary merits death but whether a person who attacks another may legitimately expect to escape unharmed. Millennia of ethical reflection among people of various faiths have produced the almost universal consensus that people have the right to defend themselves and their property from others who would prey upon them. (Those of a pacifist bent who believe they themselves must turn the other cheek and suffer wrong rather than defend themselves are still cautious about imposing this ethical standard on others.)
So if Mr. Rice was killed as a result of Mr. Pontolillo acting in self-defense, this is a tragedy rather than a moral wrong. The difference is vitally important, for it is the difference between moral culpability, and thus the fact of guilt, and the simple (however difficult) phenomenon of tragedy unsought and unwanted. It is the difference between remorse and regret, the first of which is only appropriate when one has behaved wrongly. (That a wrongdoer may experience only regret rather than remorse is the result of a scarred conscience.)
The death of Mr. Rice is indeed a tragedy and nothing to celebrate; every human life is precious and whether a life comes to an end through natural causes or by violence death still reminds us that things are not as they ought to be. Mr. Rice, may God have mercy on his soul, bears moral responsibility for the loss of his own life because he put it in danger in the course of a criminal enterprise. Mr. Pontolillo, whom Mr. Rice put in a terrible situation, does not.
I grieve the difficulties Mr. Pontolillo will face as he lives with the knowledge that he took another life, however justified his actions may have been. But these difficulties are only compounded by those who suggest that he bears moral responsibility, that he should feel guilty, for using whatever he had at hand to defend himself from attack. We all sin, St. Paul says, and fall short of the glory of God; the gravity of the errors for which we are truly responsible makes it all the more obscene that anyone would hold us to account for those of others, as the Sun’s editorial suggests.
Rev. Jason Poling
Categories: Culture, Ethics, Evangelicalsm, Guest Posts, Jason Poling, People, Politics
Comments
Very well said. The Sun editorial staff should be ashamed of themselves. (as usual)
Rice knew he was putting his life at risk each and every time he broke into someone else's home. I am not saying he derserved to be killed, but he must have known that was a realistic possiblity.
I pray that Mr. Pontolillo will be able to deal with the fact that he took a life. I would have problems with that, but I like to think I would defend my family and home in the same manner.
Posted by: comment | September 17, 2009 1:49 PM
Excellent commentary. It is quite reprehensible that anyone should feel it's appropriate to lay blame on someone who probably made a split second decision to save his own life.
Posted by: Emma | September 17, 2009 1:52 PM
I should hope that the young man suffers no charges. Everyone has the right to protect themselfs. Mr. Rice(and to a larger extent his family,) who was released from a correctional facility should not have a preconceived notion that he or any other criminal can commit havok with the only fear is being reported. Since Jail holds no adverse effect on his thoughts to a loss of liberty( which to me is a living death) Then the thought of his death by default, should not be judged. Those who seek to cause injury, be it to property or life should not have a right to an expectation of justice when they themselfs choose a course to harm the rights of others. Rice should have respected the rights of his victim. Not the victim being forced to insure the rights of his attacker. That is akin to having the rape victim ask the Felon " Before you rape me, Should I worry about what charges you will face? or do I have the right to protect myself from you and stab you" Sorry he died but his walking into the wrong victim is not the victims fault
Posted by: joe Walsh | September 17, 2009 4:32 PM
Mr Rice had been convicted of 29 charges, including burglary. He didn't get rehabilitated and he served an average far less than 2 years per charge. The DoC system should have held him longer or helped him more and rather than turning him loose on society, they should have kept him on home detention or in a half way house. The State failed Mr Rice and the State failed us all. If they hadn't, Mr Rice would be alive today.
Posted by: Jack | September 17, 2009 5:23 PM
Bravo and well said! He should not feel the slightest bit guilty, as he did not create the situation.
I'm sorry that the guy is dead, but I'd be far sorrier to find out he'd killed someone else instead.
-Bartleby
Posted by: Bartleby | September 17, 2009 11:00 PM
I find it astonishing that people still try to pass the culpability - to have it shared by other than the perpetrator. Even "Jack" seems to think it is the fault of the DofC, saying that, "The State failed us all."
Not so - the culpability lies with Mr. Rice. He was the one making choices for himself no matter how poorly they had been made. It appears that he made poor choices 29 times before (at least the number about which we know).
Truly his death is a shame. But no one is to blame but him.
Posted by: Bill | September 18, 2009 9:25 AM