Tough call
Of all the "controversial issues" that our body politic wrestles with, capital punishment is the one that i have the most difficulty settling on a "position." Every time i come 'round to thinking that the state simply cannot be allowed to possess the right to take the life of its citizens, someone goes out and commits a crime so heinous that i can't imagine that person being allowed to continue breathing.
Our execution rituals reflect this ambivalence, i think. Three executioners, only one with the live bullet, none knowing if it's their shot or their switch that sends the lethal dose through the IV. Presumably so they can each sleep at night with a clear conscience.
Because it is, literally, a life or death issue, it's not amenable to a rational solution. Our visceral reactions to certain crimes have to be allowed to have some part in the discussion. To argue, for example, that's it's much more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life is not convincing, simply because it wouldn't be all that difficult to change that financial equation in the other direction. Similarly, statistical evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment can't be the deciding factor. Texas, which by any available metric executes more people than any other state, is constantly adding to its death row population, but other studies have shown a drop in the rate of capital crimes after reintroduction of the death penalty.
Ultimately, it's a moral choice. And the key question to answer when making that choice is this: Are justice and vengeance synonymous?
What Merkt is really saying, it seems to me, is that without "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life," what you have is not justice. It's an appealing notion. But justice, i think, is not vengeance, and does not demand equivalency. That kind of equivalency makes killers of us all, and i'm not willing to sanction that it's the function of the state to make that choice on my behalf. And so, it appears, are the legislators of the State of New Jersey. Expect more demagoguery like that quoted above from death penalty supporters. We'll see next year if it's politically effective.
At least that's the way i feel today. Ask me again after certain political leaders have been found guilty by war crime tribunals of crimes against humanity.
=========================
* Let's assume this is true and avoid for the moment the argument that mistakes can be, and are often, made in determining guilt or innocence. My point is that even under a system in which guilt or innocence can be determined perfectly, the death penalty would still be wrong.
Our execution rituals reflect this ambivalence, i think. Three executioners, only one with the live bullet, none knowing if it's their shot or their switch that sends the lethal dose through the IV. Presumably so they can each sleep at night with a clear conscience.
Because it is, literally, a life or death issue, it's not amenable to a rational solution. Our visceral reactions to certain crimes have to be allowed to have some part in the discussion. To argue, for example, that's it's much more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life is not convincing, simply because it wouldn't be all that difficult to change that financial equation in the other direction. Similarly, statistical evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment can't be the deciding factor. Texas, which by any available metric executes more people than any other state, is constantly adding to its death row population, but other studies have shown a drop in the rate of capital crimes after reintroduction of the death penalty.
Ultimately, it's a moral choice. And the key question to answer when making that choice is this: Are justice and vengeance synonymous?
"There is no doubt whatsoever that those criminals now sitting on death row are guilty*," said Assemblyman Richard Merkt, a Republican. "Yet their lives are being spared in the name of justice. Tell me then, where is the justice for Megan Kanka and her family?"
What Merkt is really saying, it seems to me, is that without "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life," what you have is not justice. It's an appealing notion. But justice, i think, is not vengeance, and does not demand equivalency. That kind of equivalency makes killers of us all, and i'm not willing to sanction that it's the function of the state to make that choice on my behalf. And so, it appears, are the legislators of the State of New Jersey. Expect more demagoguery like that quoted above from death penalty supporters. We'll see next year if it's politically effective.
At least that's the way i feel today. Ask me again after certain political leaders have been found guilty by war crime tribunals of crimes against humanity.
=========================
* Let's assume this is true and avoid for the moment the argument that mistakes can be, and are often, made in determining guilt or innocence. My point is that even under a system in which guilt or innocence can be determined perfectly, the death penalty would still be wrong.
Labels: justice
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
7 Comments:
It's not a difficult issue for me. It's very simple, so far as I am concerned:
If you are a civilized society, you do not kill by choice.
And the money and time it takes to imprison people for the rest of their lives as the alternative is the price you pay for remaining civilized.
By
Anonymous, at 11:19 AM
I agree—the state should not make a cold-blooded murderer out of me.
By
Anonymous, at 11:51 AM
Another important question to consider is how society intends to use the death penalty as punishment vs. deterrence.
In other things: Anonymous makes a nice comment on "the price you pay for remaining civilized." Doing the right thing often comes at a cost. I was well into my 30s when I first started experiencing this in any meaningful way. I can't say that I've enjoyed it.
By
Marsosudiro, at 4:01 PM
That the US is the pretty much the only country in the 'developed' world that stil has the death penalty speaks volumes.
The state has no right whatsoever to decide in matters of life or death.
You can't ignore the fact that the decision over innocence vs guilt is imperfect, precisely because humans are often guided by revenge when they are aggrieved, and aggravation is a moral stance. To do so makes the debate devoid of content.
By
Anonymous, at 5:45 PM
I work at the Office of Indigent Defense Services, and we just completed a study that found that of all first degree murder cases we saw from June 30, 2001, through Nov 15, 2007, 81% were disposed of as 2nd degree murder or less. Almost 12% had all charges dropped. But they still needed a lawyer for these cases (2 if it's a capital case). Cases that proceed capitally (meaning they're seeking the death penalty) cost 4-5 times more than similar non-capital cases. And this is just from the defense side, not including jail costs or prosecution costs. Taxpayers are paying for all this, which we're hoping will persuade many to do away with the death penalty in NC. Appealing to people's better sides probably won't work, but maybe appealing to their pocketbooks will.
By
Emily, at 12:53 PM
It is not a tough position to be anti-death penalty.
The death penalty issue is not about THEM, it is about US.
That is, it doesn't matter how heinous the crime, a civilized society's standards and morals shouldn't change with the particular circumstances of a crime.
We shouldn't kill human beings in cold blood because of OUR standards--not because of what they have done, no matter how bad.
By
Anonymous, at 6:13 PM
Our moral questioning of the death penalty also has to include a close look at race, poverty and literacy. Like why are most of the guys on death row in NC poor, black and half-literate?
By
Anonymous, at 1:33 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home