Death Penalty (1)

In response to some of the comments to my previous post, I will address the issue of Capital Punishment and the reasons for my absolute opposition to it. To be fair, however, I will put forth both sides and offer my comments on each. Those who advocate for the death penalty do make a compelling case and they most certainly deserve an honest and comprehensive discussion of those views. We will talk about the ‘pros’ first.

(My rebuttal will be in parentheses and colored blue.)

Justice/Vengeance: Many people feel that killing convicted murderers will satisfy their need for justice and/or vengeance. They feel that certain crimes are so heinous that executing the criminal is the only reasonable response.

(I think it is indeed reasonable to feel a strong sense of outrage when an innocent member of society is murdered. In some cases, these brutal and horrific crimes rattle the most stoic of characters into fear and utter shock. Images of torture and insatiable cruelty become commonplace in our minds and we want, rightly so, to banish each and every form of it from our midst. There is probably something wrong with a person who feels absolutely no empathy for the victim or their loved ones.

Proponents falsely assume that those who disagree with the death penalty have no such empathy for victims. I know about this sort of outrage first hand, and although it wasn’t over a crime against persons, it was perhaps the most severe sense of it I have ever experienced. At that moment, I actually wished death upon another human being. The notion that we are bereft of feeling is wholly false. Our contention is not with feeling outrage, rather how that outrage is expressed and what practical advantage will be gained by venting even reasonable, understandable outrage with more violence, even when that killing is sanctioned and performed under the auspices of a systematic government process. I feel no sympathy for the murderer whatsoever.

The question becomes whether or not we allow our collective indignation to lead us into reactions that we normally would not consider? In my personal life I am very careful not to make decisions or take action when under any strong emotional influence, even where I feel justified. Gut reactions and powerful emotions tend to cloud one’s better judgment. I believe we should utilize sober analysis when confronting communal and social issues.

Now we move onto those practical concerns.)

Deterrence: Many people feel that the death penalty will deter criminals from killing. This does not seem to be confirmed by an analysis of the available data. However, it feels intuitively correct for many people.

(If the death penalty was proven to be a deterrent to murder, I would be at least 50% in favor of its implementation, if for no other reason than as a matter of practical efficiency. China and the US apply capital punishment, and nevertheless, there still seem to be no lack of fresh volunteers stepping forth to test the power of a state imposed death sentence. If the threats of imprisonment, fines, or death cannot stop certain criminal acts, then why do we insist that they do?

The flaw is a psychological error that non-criminals make when projecting their own sense of right, wrong, pain, pleasure, or cost-benefit analysis onto the criminal or homicidal mindset. As much as we would like them to, the criminal does not operate from the same set of principles that we do, and things that influence or determine our actions (outside of pleasure, pain, hunger, or cold) have literally no relevance hardcore criminals.

I am one who is generally law abiding. I avoid playing my stereo too loud or driving without a seat belt simply because I don’t wish to be hassled by law enforcement, don’t wish to pay any kind of fine, and I do understand the importance of social order and my part in it. For those who naturally empathize with others or treat their fellows with common decency and respect, even a small fine deters those fine citizens from law-breaking. For the person so out of touch with reason or empathy, so far gone as to murder another, the reasonable expectation of deterrence we assume will result is of no matter at all. It doesn’t even register.

To say that the threat of death works as a deterrent is accurate. The problem is that it doesn’t operate on the people we intend it to effect. )

Value of human life: "It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life." (Edward Koch).

(This is a very interesting and well put sentiment, yet it remains nothing more than a platitude. It sums up well the emotional and moral attachment we place upon life and well-being, but it doesn’t do anything more than attempt to add another psychological element to the deterrent argument. It is just another collective projection of outrage, that doesn’t rationally evaluate the necessity to society of taking a life in premeditated fashion.

How do we establish this value of human life? If the mere result of biological function, that which defines us as living, is enough, then it matters little whether the holder of that life is a saint or sinner. It remains a life nonetheless. If the value we place upon life becomes a matter of moral measurement, however, then such a standard would allow for some lives to be worth less than others, and in the case of capital punishment, this seems to be the overriding sentiment of its supporter; the murderer loses his life’s value through not valuing the value of the victim’s life.

What we are implying, in effect, is that our murderer is not worthy of living by virtue of his immoral action, and that his biological function is no longer any concern to us. The danger is that we only apply it in one direction. If the standard of life’s value or worth is based upon some moral or ethical criteria, then one would also have to check the moral background of the victim to determine if they would even be considered worthy of our sentiments. If a man we deem unworthy of living kills another, equally undeserving of life, why should we care?)

Cost: Once a convicted murder is executed and buried, there are no further maintenance costs to the state.

(I would like to think that when it comes to people’s lives that we don’t think just about how much it will cost. There are costs to society that go beyond dollars spent on incarceration and appeals. There is a system in place to protect the civil liberties of everyone, not just those on death row, and those rights might not seem important to us in our offices and living rooms, but should you find yourself accused of a crime you did not commit (there are 1000s of people wrongly accused with crimes they did not commit), you would be very happy that the system is not one that rushes things along just to save money.

Expediting a speedy trial is matter of practicality in terms of evidentiary process and availability of witnesses. The right to a speedy trial is also there to protect defendants from long periods of incarceration prior to conviction and sentencing. It’s not about saving money. A speedy trial can be revisited upon appeal. A speedy execution cannot.)

Safety: Once a convicted murderer is executed, there is no chance that he will break out of jail and kill or injure someone.

(This is a real concern, but the issue isn’t a death penalty problem. It’s an issue within a corrections industry that is severely understaffed, often overburdened, and usually under-funded. The issue is moot anyhow. The overwhelming majority of escapees are from minimum security facilities where they are serving time for lesser crimes or, as in some cases, a prisoner in county lock-up escaping prior to transfer to a maximum security prison.

Again, if safety after imprisonment was our main concern, we would have to execute rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, and anyone else who ends up in prison, a notably dangerous place that none of the aforementioned inmates wish to linger in, and still others actively seek to escape. We could also make the case that many criminals escalate in their level of violence, especially as a result of surviving the harsh prison environment. Upon escape, even a man convicted of pot-smoking could become so desperate not to go back to prison, that he would kill to avoid recapture. Do we want to push the safety argument so far that we begin executing pot smokers?)

Looking forward to your comments.

Kol Tuv