Several bloggers have been mulling over their feelings about the death penalty given recent events. Specifically, some of those who oppose the death penalty are fighting their natural inclination to hope that sniper Lee Malvo gets the death penalty. As a qualified supporter of the death penalty, I found this fascinating.
Since Zombyboy was open enough to express his thoughts on this issue, I’ll look at his reasoning. According to his comments, he opposes the death penalty because of two reasons.
most of the reasons I'm opposed to the death penalty are pragmatic in nature--I don't think that a perfect system can ever be put in place that would ensure that no innocent person was ever executed, for example.
But I do believe that society and individuals have no business killing when another, equally effective method of solving the problem can be attained. Sticking a person in a high security jail with no chance for parole serves that purpose in my book...
In other words, Zombyboy has two main objections. Objection 1: Innocent people may be put to death. Objection 2: There are equally effective methods currently available. Let’s look at these in turn.
Objection 1 is a solid objection. Historically, there have been quite a number of cases where innocent people have been convicted. As a percentage, these numbers are probably quite small, but even one is too many.
For my part, I support the death penalty if there is almost zero doubt about the murderer’s guilt. I did not say beyond a reasonable doubt, I would need a higher level of confidence to support the death penalty. This means that the murderer had to be caught on video, confesses, or was seen committing the crime by multiple witnesses.
Objection 2 is a strawman objection that clouds the real problem. Who could argue with an “equally effective method of solving the problem”? Not I. However, such a solution does not exist.
Convicted murderers often receive less than a life sentence and then may be released early for “good behavior.” Those who receive a life sentence may be paroled. And those receiving a life sentence without parole may escape. The probability of this occurring are indeed slim, but may be on par with the odds of an innocent man being wrongfully executed by the state. Reasonable people could disagree on this last statement, but my argument does not hinge upon it. My main point is that many convicted murderers are released upon society and some of these people murder again. Even one such murder is too many.
There is also a libertarian argument against objection 2. Assuming society had the willpower and ability to lock away convicted killers for life with zero possibility of escape – clearly an impossible situation, but let’s use it for the sake of argument – is society better off spending its resources this way vs. simply executing murderers and freeing up resources that could be better used for other purposes (such as funding a cure for cancer)? I know some anti-death penalty folks are already preparing the statistics that show that it costs more to execute a murderer than it does to imprison him for life – I’ll save you the time. 1) To the extent that this is true, it is because of the high legal cost of overcoming every obstacle placed in the way of implementing the death penalty. If society wanted to enforce the death penalty on all murderers who were definitely guilty, it could do so in a cost effective way. 2) The statistics that show it is cheaper to imprison someone never, ever, include the cost to society for those murderers who someday murder again. 3) If I were in charge, I would insist that all murderers that were physically healthy be executed in a way that allowed their organs to be donated to society. Not only is this poetic justice, it also would allow many law-abiding people to become productive (or more productive) again.
I’ll close at this point and give Zombyboy (and others) time to think about my post and respond if he (or anyone else) so desires.
Very nicely stated and considered. I'll have to answer with my thoughts tomorrow as I find myself just a little too tired right now to do the topic justice.
Thanks for opening up an interesting line of conversation, though, and for giving me some ideas to chew on.
At first, I wrote a comment vaguely agreeing. Then, I thought of a few exceptions. Then, I decided I really didn't agree at all. My first reaction was that "very bad people who are dangerous deserve to be killed". Lets be honest: our prison system is horrible. Would you rather die extremely slowly over a period of years being raped and beaten daily, or just die quickly? If punishment is the goal, then I would think that life-in-prison is a good solution.
What if the goal is rehabilitation? Obviously, death would interfere with that. Is anyone truly beyond rehabilitating? According to society, "yes". According to religion, "no". As a Christian, I find it repugnant to deny a criminal the opportunity to rehabilitate his soul by building a relationship with God.
What if the goal is building a secure society? I refuse to believe that I can child-proof my house but that guards can't "convict-proof" the prison. Realistically, high-security prisons work in their function to separate prisoners from the rest of the population.
What if the goal is lowering the financial burden on the general population? There are certainly ways to run prisons more efficiently, including putting prisoners to work to earn their room/board and canceling cable-tv.
What if the goal is providing some degree of comfort to the victim (or their families)? No matter how much you kill the convict, the victim has still been victimized. There is no way to change that.
What if the goal is to protect the innocent? The death penalty could very well be used against an innocent person. Having multiple witnesses, confessions, or even video doesn't make guilt an absolute certainty in this technologically advanced age.
I arrive at the conclusion that there is NO situation where the death-penalty is the best solution, and several situations where the death-penalty is the worst solution.
As I'm sitting here in class looking at this web site on why i believe the death penalty is a good thing/ it is fair. Because, for one if someone has the audacity to kill or harm someone in an inhumane way should be tried for the death penalty. if the evidence proves without a doubt that the person is guilty they should get a taste of their own medicine. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. No innocent person should be killed in anyway. I believe that the death penalty is a way for the innocent victims to speak from their grave and haunt them literally for their lves. It's only fair, and just for the innocent people and the people who it has affected. This is only my opinion and i should be able to speak my mind. Thankyou, for your site... it is interesting...keep up the good work...Kudos.
WHERE DID MY POST GO!?!?!
Liz,
Did you post it in the last 48 hours? My site was being transferred from one set of software to another and a few comments got lost in the transition.
Assuming this was the case, I am sorry your comment was one of the ones lost. I value the perspective each person leaves here. I will see if it is possible to recover it later today.
Update: I was able to salvage some comments from the Nucleus database. I didn't not see one from Liz, but she may have posted under a different name. If not, I do not know where her post is. I will be reposting all the comments I found exactly as they were posted other than the nonsense posts from the various "inmates". I hope posters realize that I can see your IP address when you post. That does not give me any personal information (such as email or name), nor do I desire such information. However, knowing the IP address does tell me when the same person is posting under various names...
i believe that the thought, idea, and use of the death penalty is a good one. Sometimes I think about it, and I have different thoughts from time to time, but they all end up where I started. I believe it is right, and fair. I don't look at is as good, but the better idea. We spend millions of dollars to keep the people who took away innocent lives to live, and have things that millions of americans don't have. They have basketball courts, cafeteria's, shelter,and tv's... I don't think that the people who deside to ruin peoples lives should be able to have these accomodations. It's prison. Not a homeless shelter. I know also that it's not right for them to take peoples lives, so why should the government...i don't know..i have different thoughts off and on..i'll be back...
Why do people insist on using the "eye for an eye" arguement? Besides being translated from a language with only 600 words, taken out of context, and taken from a part of the bible that also demands we be put to death for playing football, it ignores the retraction that God himself made when Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "turn the other cheek". Paul took it one step further by telling the Romans to "reserve judgement for God and God alone" Learn your sacred texts before you exploit parts of them.
Will,
I do not think anyone (myself or the other commenters) was attempting to "exploit" the sacred texts. I have been meaning to expand my thoughts on what the Scriptures say about capital punishment and I will spend some time on this sometime in March. I certainly believe capital punishment is consistent with New Testament scripture as well as Old Testament scripture. You obviously disagree and I look forward to your comments once I write my post.
However, I certainly do not think Jesus retracted anything. He raised the bar for individual behavior, but that is much different than a retraction.
BTW, do you have a reference for the football claim? That one is new to me.
I think those objections are wrong!! The death penalty should be brought back imeediatly! Have u ever heard the expresiion an eye for an eye? The quack with the objections should get out more ofen....how stupid..
I wholeheartedly concur. The key argument is the one about innocent people being put to death. Of course, there is no 100 percent perfect way for a conviction, but there is nothing in life that's 100 percent sure. I agree that a higher standard would be better, also consistent sentencing (whites and blacks and latinos and asians all get the same penalty given the evidence).