On the Morality of Capital Punishment
I’ve been carrying on a conversation with a semi-regular commenter named Jenny. She has a blog of her own with some highly creative photography as well.
Her current latest entry takes on Stan ‘Tookie’ Williams’ execution, expressing some of the revulsion surrounding capital punishment in general. (Update 10:33 pm PST: Well, it was the "current latest entry" at the time. She had another entry before I published this.)
With that in mind, I have a couple questions:
- Can capital punishment ever be just?
- If so, does a "death-row redemption" preclude the justice of a death sentence?
This oughta be interesting.
Well. I should say first that we’re going to have some fundamental differences here that we may not be able to overcome. The main difference is that you are coming at this from a religious perspective. While I am familiar with the religious perspective, I do not share those beliefs and my points will not be based on anything written in the bible. I am an atheist. I consider myself to be a moral and ethical person and I don’t believe my moral and ethical qualities to be God-given.
And, I’m up past my bedtime.
1. Can capital punishment ever be just?
I think in order for capital punishment to be just it would have to be infallible. Currently, it is not. Innocent people have been executed. I don’t believe that we can balance that with how many guilty people have been executed and how many potential victims may have been saved.
In order for capital punishment to be just, to start with, all things would have to be equal. All things are not equal, particularly if most people on death row cannot afford attorneys.
I don’t believe that capital punishment can be situational, that is, can we look at each case and decide, for this person, is capital punishment just?
That’s all for tonight. I’m about to start (start?!) rambling and that won’t do anyone any good.
Don’t be too quick to warn about the “fundamental differences.” Based on the conversations I’ve had, and online discussions I’ve seen, there’s not a lot of correlation between faith and support for capital punishment. I’ve spoken with devout Christians who believe it is totally wrong, and I’ve talked with agnostics and atheists whose sense of justice had to allow death as a punishment for some crimes. And vice-versa.
Point by point:
I won’t argue that innocent people have died wrongly. However, in the Williams case, courts reviewed it for 24 years, and never found a reason to set aside the conviction. Considering that includes the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that says a lot. So, what do you believe are the requirements for infallibility?
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “equal.” Are you talking about “represented by equally dedicated counsel?”
For “situational,” isn’t any criminal punishment situational? After all, we don’t execute speeders, nor do we give extortionists a $315 fine and four points on the driving record.
“So, what do you believe are the requirements for infallibility?”
My requirements for infallibility are that no innocent person is executed. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals still makes mistakes. I think that if we can’t guarantee that an innocent person will not fall through the cracks, capital punishment should be abolished.
As far as “equal” goes, are you assuming that “represented by equally dedicated counsel” actually happens in every single case? What I mean by “equal” is unattainable. Every defendant should be represented by equally dedicated counsel, but I don’t believe that happens. A high-priced attorney has a more compelling reason to be dedicated than an attorney working pro-bono.
What I meant by “situational” is that I don’t believe that we can fairly decide each case when something as dire as capital punishment is concerned. What are the guidelines? It’s too arbitrary.
This really went to pot last night. Sadly, it was just as I was composing my reply. I hope this re-work is as erudite as I thought I was. ;-)
When you talk about “infallibility,” it basically means “God-like.” But why stop at the death penalty? Why not declare the same for imprisonment? That seems pretty close to “If we can’t do it right all the time, we might as well not try.” Maybe you don’t find that a bad way to go for capital punishment; I can’t bring myself to say that.
I brought up the 9th Circuit because they are the most overturned Court of Appeals in the nation. Yet, for Williams, they could find no compelling reason to overturn the sentence. And even after that, the Supreme Court found no reason to set aside the conviction/sentence, or to remand it back to the 9th Circuit for clarification.
“Represented by equally dedicated counsel” is problematic, but again I think it isn’t a concern in the Williams case. He had some pretty big bucks and some big names from New York City (Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP) pulling for him.
As for “situational,” isn’t the purpose of the court case to look at the evidence and make a judgment? That’s entirely situational. The danger here is when the courts are faced with mandatory minimum sentencing, which puts judicial power in the legislature. However, AFAIK no civilian jurisdiction has a mandatory death sentence.
Bah, I don’t think this reply matches what I had last night.
Hey, guys. Just wanted to drop a word or two in on your debate, because the “to try or not to try” issue has been haunting all of my political arguments lately.
One of my least favorite, often repeated quotes is from that little bugger Yoda, “There is no try; there is only do.” And, I just don’t agree. People try to execute their goals perfectly and almost always fail. Nonetheless, I think it’s better to put a system in place and continuously try to improve it than to know that there’s a problem and refuse to address it.
So with that in mind… Our political and justice systems will never be perfect. But I still need to comment on this portion of the debate:
When you talk about “infallibility,” it basically means “God-like.” But why stop at the death penalty? Why not declare the same for imprisonment? That seems pretty close to “If we can’t do it right all the time, we might as well not try.” Maybe you don’t find that a bad way to go for capital punishment; I can’t bring myself to say that.
The death penalty is just different. It’s one of the only areas where I definitely say, if you can’t be perfect, don’t do it. And yes, being imprisoned for life for a crime you didn’t commit is arguably worse than the death penalty, but I would argue that it’s not. Because no one knows what happens in the afterlife, and so we don’t have enough information to accurately assess the consequences of killing someone. We just don’t know what we’re doing.
I hate to present a problem without a solution, but there it is. Karen say, “death penalty bad.”
PS Jen, this is Linda’s Karen from NY. Why haven’t you come to visit yet?
Argh, I’m short on time here, so I’ll just cut to the chase.
Karen, are you saying that, even when horrible treacheries have been committed against innumerable innocents (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Milosevic, and now Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe), in full view of the whole world, even then the death penalty shouldn’t be an option?
I’m short on time, too, but I just want to say this and I’ll write more later:
Killing is wrong. So, how is it okay that we’re teaching that by more killing?
Is there not a greater good? Is it not worse to let an innocent die a preventable death, than to kill the would-be murderer?
Killing is not all bad. Sometimes, it is necessary.
I don’t understand your question. I think the way you have it worded (to me, anyway) is that we would be killing a murderer before they committed the murder?
Yes. Think “police sniper in a kidnap/hostage situation.”
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
1. Killing is wrong
2. State sanctioned murder for “justice” is stupid and wrong.
3. Capital punishment does NOT deter crime.
4. Society needs to aspire to a higher set of values than murderers.
5. “Eye for an Eye” old testament rhetoric is frankly, 2000 year old bullshit. It’s time to evolve.
Lastly, my friends and family have been touched by horrible violent crime. Not one of us would “feel justice was served” by killing the person or persons responsible. It’s not justice, it’s revenge – and it’s wrong. It’s a futile endeavor to try to figure out in what situations killing would be necessary. Society would be better served by discussing other ways to for criminals to pay for crimes.
“Think “police sniper in a kidnap/hostage situation.”"
Oh, well, that’s not capital punishment.
That’s an improvised situation and, obviously, if someone absolutely had to die, it would be the hostage taker.
With capital punishment, we have time to reflect and be human.
I’m not opposed to killing on general principle; I think if you can stop an immediate threat of violence then it may be necessary. The sniper example or even WWII as a means to stop the Nazis come to mind.
However, I don’t think that executing people stops an immediate threat because 1) if the person is in jail they’re not a threat, and 2) states like Texas and Florida still have high crime rates even though they zap people like a bug lamp kills flies, so apparently the death penalty doesn’t have much of an effect on recidivism.
On the other hand, I do think that transit workers who go on strike should be executed. (Brooklyn is not the most convenient place to live this morning.) Just kidding! I’m off to my carpool.
Jenny, I presented the situation as a refutation to your blanket statement that “killing is wrong.” Sometimes, generalization works; it doesn’t here.
Karen, both of your assertions are easily disproven. The only way a prison inmate is not a threat, is if he is placed into solitary confinement and never, ever let out of his cell for the rest of his life. As soon as that cell door is opened, he is a danger to guards and other inmates. Tookie Williams himself attacked guards and inmates at least 11 times between 1981 and 1993.
As for the recidivism rate, I guarantee you that no felon who has completed a capital sentence has returned to his life of crime.
Linda, when you say, “Society needs to aspire to a higher set of values than murderers,” you need to remember: Many who would do you violence, up to and including murder, would be happy to let you impose such constrictions on yourself and your government.
And “Eye for an eye” rhetoric is over 4,000 years old, and imposes a limit on punishment. Without that limit, you get capital punishment imposed on thieves, as in 18th century London. During Sweeney Todd‘s time, murder became more common (“If I’m going to die anyway…”). Then again, 18th century London had little to no concern for reform, beyond calling it the “Penitentiary.”
FYI: I won’t have a lot of contact on the weblog over the next week. If you post a comment, it may be hours or days before I get to it for review and publication.