Some scattered thoughts on the "death penalty" that I hope helps move it beyond the usual platitudes. Thanks for Bill Barr and Galley Slaves for getting me thinking.
The impossibility of reconciliation with the executed. I still feel a loss because I can never reconcile with McVeigh. I’d like to think that thirty years from now he’d admit he was wrong and try to make amends with victims’ familys on a one by one basis. Would that make up for what he did? Of course not, but it would help heal many families. Even murderers have a (moral, though legally unenforcable) responsibility to reconcile with those they have hurt, which always includes more than the murdered. The dead cannot reconcile. Executing murderers deprives families of the murdered of the possibility of reconciliation with the murderer, a cost we should figure in if we are truly about victims’ rights.
The responsibility of spectacle. Our current, almost secretive, painfully humane methods make executions unpublic. There is something to be said of the honesty of a public hanging, no matter what you think of the hanging itself. The public execution in the town square, with its rituals and pageantry, is truly public: everyone knows what the state has done that day. And anyone who looks around at the faces in the crowd will know what people thought about it.
The right to take life. Some of my fellow liberals hold the position that no ever one has the right to take life, a position that seems different from the pragmatic nonviolence of the Civil Rights Movement. And then are liberals like myself who do believe (a la Bonhoeffer‘s attempted assasination of Hitler, and WW2 generally) that it is sometimes morally appropriate to take life. Truly public executions are at least honest insofar as they make clear who is killing who and why. They’re also honest insofar as they make painfully clear that only the state/society—not the individual—has the authority to take life. Liberals from different perspectives on who has the right to take life don’t seem to be in conversation with each other about this.
Isn’t "penalty" a sports term? Not only that, "penalty" makes the whole discussion about whether someone deserves execution or not. But there’s so much more at stake than that (as I hope the above points show). If liberals want America to have a discussion that rises above the moral development level of "I didn’t do it–he did" then they should quit saying "death penalty." It’s an execution. And, yes, he deserves it, because a "life for a life"—while not the most mature moral position—is still morally sound as it goes. Let’s try and broaden the discussion a little.
The right to life. I just don’t get the common line that murderers don’t "deserve" (there’s the word again) to enjoy a meal, watch tv, etc. Who does "deserve" to read a book, smoke a cigarette, have sex, etc? Honestly, what are the moral criteria for "deserving" these things, and on what are these criteria founded? Genesis 1:27">Here’s one thought on that, one that I think holds no matter how cruel or unusual you’ve been. There are some pretty good thinkers who’ve made the case that "life imprisonment" (there’s another funny term) is more inhumane than public execution. (If this is the case, perhaps some will want to be appointed public gloaters to enjoy, on our behalf, the hours of unceasing unenjoyment that the imprisoned suffer.) Are we really so sure that "life imprisonment" is more "humane" than execution?
I phrase this differently, but the approach is the same… I call it the impossibility of restitution by the executed. Restitution is a valid form of justice. If justice is to be done, restitution should be made, where possible. Execution ends the possibility for restitution and is therefore unjust.
Good point.. .Although I fear executions might be watched with prurient interest by many, your points are sound. I think that at the very least, the governor of the state, when clemency is denied by him, should be asked to witness the execution. He makes the final decision, he should know what his own hand hath wrought.
As you say, “of course he deserves it” (presuming he wasn’t falsely convicted!)… But since when is the state supposed to be in charge of making sure everyone gets what they deserve? That’s just silly. The state should not administer undeserved punishment, but the mere fact that it is deserved does not make it the state’s job to ensure that it is gotten. The state’s job is to provide for the security and general welfare of the people… not to see that they all “get what they deserve”.
The major difference here is that life imprisonment isn’t inhumane by design. We imprison for life in order to protect the innocent. Protecting the innocent is a valid design of justice. Execution is expression of the view that the individual “deserves” this particular type of cruelty. Of course it’s cruel – cruelty is the only motivation behind it.
As you can see, my views on the death penalty are closely tied to a desire that our justice system serve justice, rather than any other principle.
An eye for an eye is sound moral reasoning, if it is taken as a limitation: no more than an eye for an eye – rather than a command: One should take an eye for an eye. If there is no just or moral cause served by the taking, there is no morality in it… It is revenge, retalitation, retribution… whatever you want to call it. Here’s one thought on that.
Whoops… the above link should have gone to #19 rather than #20 …
Though I could only be described as a conservative, I am against the death penalty. I don’t believe anyone has the right to take another’s life — be it in an executive chamber or as part of a police action on foreign soil.
this is right on. i just wanted to add, that as a family member of a person who was murdered (and whose killer is currently on death row), my first and lasting reaction is that i would really like to kill the motherf@cker. with my bare hands. and maybe a spoon. and you know what that’s about? vengeance.
vengeance is not and never will be justice.
your point about spectacle adds to this angle, i think. since at least if there was a public beheading in the square, someone else might think twice about committing a crime. as it is, the “death penalty” does not act as a deterrent in any way. at least if it were a deterrent to future crime, advocates for it would have some sort of policy imperative to stand on.
i also feel strongly that when my cousin’s killer is executed (he’s in TX, so clemency is highly unlikely), the number of victims will be doubled. my cousin’s son will never be able to talk to her again, and his family, too, will become more victims of the tragedy.
[…] I have ambigous feelings about the death penalty. But anyone who kills someone over religious satire deserves to die, painfully and in public. And anyone who incites others to do so deserves to die. Twice. […]