Yesterday's post on the blog "It Is a Numeric Life" (click the link in my Recommended Links list) provided an interesting statistic on the number of lives theoretically saved because of the death penalty. The post notes that "Some recent studies have shown that as many as 18 lives would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer."
I offered a comment to that post that I'd like to expand on here. First of all, I am in favor of the death penalty, partly because I believe that it provides a deterrent to serious crime and partly because I believe there are some crimes so terrible that death is the only appropriate punishment.
I believe there are two crimes so heinous they should be punished by death: multiple or serial murder, and the murder or sexual abuse of children. One who kills more than once can't be said to be affected by the heat of passion...this person kills because he or she likes it. And those who would kill or terribly abuse defenseless children pose a grave threat to the most helpless members of society.
Obviously, the knowledge that one will pay with his (or her) life will not deter a person who kills in a moment of savage passion. A person who, in a fit of rage or jealousy, kills another person isn't thinking about the consequences, and so isn't likely to be put off by the death penalty. But a person who kills with malice and planning just might.
Insanity is often offered as a defense in murder cases, using the argument that the person was, at least temporarily, out of his or her mind when the murder was committed. Well, that's obvious, isn't it...normal, thinking people don't commit murder. Likewise, mental impairment is frequently used as a defense - that the killer didn't understand what he or she was doing, or didn't realize the implications of the act. Both arguments are, in my opinion, red herrings which simply distract attention from the fact that one person took the life of another.
The death penalty, being the ultimate and irrevocable punishment, should be reserved only for the most terrible crimes, and administered only after guilt has been proved not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but "beyond all doubt." It should not be administered in the heat of passion, but only after the most thorough of investigations has concluded that no lesser punishment is appropriate to the crime.
Many people believe that the death penalty falls under the category of "cruel and unusual punishments" forbidden by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, but this is also a red herring - the death penalty was known and applied during the Revolutionary War era. This amendment was clearly intended to forbid the use of torture and of excessively cruel methods of execution (burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, and other punishments popular in earlier times).
Many also argue that life imprisonment is the appropriate maximum punishment. In some cases, that may be true. However, for the most heinous crimes, I believe death is appropriate. I see no reason why we should pay to house and feed terrible criminals for the rest of their lives (or until they manage to get released on parole, whichever is longer).
The death penalty is one of the most emotionally charged of all issues, and rightly so. Depriving a person of his or her life is a punishment that can't be undone, and so needs to be done only under the most rigidly controlled circumstances and for the most definitively proven reasons. There must be no rush to judgement with the death penalty.
As the wizard Gandalf so eloquently put it in The Lord of the Rings, "Deserves death? I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Your thoughts?
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
No comments:
Post a Comment