Go Straight to Jail, Do Not Pass Go!

This odd headline caught my eye, "Mom Raises Money to Watch Daughter's Killer Die", and as it happens it was exactly as it sounded. Almost twenty five years ago, a nine year old girl was abducted when she went to the store to get some candy. Her lifeless, and predictably sexually abused body was found the next day, and for the last twenty two years the bereaved family and the convicted, condemned killer have waited for the final curtain on this tragedy. This week the state of Montana will execute the man, and the girl's mother hopes to be in the front row when he departs this world.

Her bitterness at the loss of her child is understandable and desire for closure equally so, perhaps even desirable - having never faced anything remotely so terrible, I cannot judge her attitudes. On the other hand, the general views of the public who chose to express their sentiments on the issue are as removed from the tragedy as my own and form an interesting montage themselves. Perhaps the looming quadrennial election heightens ones partisan opinions and tends to cast all issues in stark black and white terms, but it was quite interesting that most, if not quite all, parties supported a swift execution of the convicted killer, with more than one suggestion that even the trial was a waste of time. The overwhelming view also appeared to hold liberals (interesting really, that Montana was considered a place crawling with bleeding heart liberals!) were to blame for the long delay in closing this chapter.

Perhaps they are right. I have long considered myself a liberal, and even if the killer here had confessed his guilt I would have been loath to condemn him to death. The death penalty is so final that I would hate to send anyone past the final door if even a shadow of doubt remained. But I oppose it even in cases where guilt is not a question, and that opinion has evolved gradually over the years. I can see the death sentence being a credible option under only two conditions: if it brings closure to the families of victims and if it deters future crimes of similar heinous nature. The question of closure is delicate in the extreme, and as one who has never been touched by the shadow of such sorrow, nor practiced in human psychology, I prefer to tread gently around it. But this I will say - there have to be more positive ways to find closure, and we as a race are in a sorry state if watching the death of those who've sinned against us is our only path to healing. I would hope rather that we could find the strength to move past this without additional death - there have been parents who've lost as much and found the strength to do so. And crucially, if this be the only way for that mother to find closure, what would happen to her should she fail to raise the money she needs?

The question of deterrence is easier to discuss. Proponents of harsh punishment usually hold it out as a way to prevent further crime. But in fact, few if any criminals weigh the risks rationally before plunging ahead. Perhaps the odd white collar criminal may consider the downside to failure, and in the rare case of revenge killings, the flipside if usually considered and accepted as a worthwhile trade (incidentally, people acting in revenge gain significant sympathy, especially when the crime avenged is the rape and/or murder of their child, and also represents a case in which we would be largely loath to execute the avenger) but in crimes involving mental disorders - sadistic murder, and rape, especially of children - the criminal usually does not contemplate the dangers of being caught at all. And even should that calculus flit across his mind, it is not likely to deter him; the demons within are too powerful and will not be denied. The second argument against the death penalty is simpler yet - many proponents suggest that incarceration is somehow a fairly pleasant alternative, that life in jail is not much worse than life without. That of course is also the secret of their opposition, in this case, to liberals, who they hold responsible for this life of leisure. I would argue that just as no wild bird would choose to live in a cage, no matter the assurance of plentiful food, neither would any man actually find that to be jailed for life is equal to freedom outside the prison walls. I have swung around to the view, too, that the prolonged the time on "death row" between conviction and final appeal, is if anything, almost as inhumane as the execution itself.

If nether closure for the victims, nor deterrence to potential criminals, justifies the death penalty, it follows that the time has come to usher that punishment the way of the rack and cat-o'-nine-tails (coincidentally, some gentlemen of strong opinion have favored such barbaric forms of execution as preferable to lethal injection). It would also behoove us to rethink the whole logic of our prison system - are we incarcerating people as deterrent, as punishment or as a means to rehabilitation. The answer is critical, since the efficacy of the system as a means of punishment or rehabilitation can be scientifically measured (as can the deterrent effect to a lesser degree) and the system adjusted accordingly. Yet as a society, we seem blissfully uninterested in exactly what we hope to achieve from our large, and ever growing, prison system. The introduction of for-profit facilities further complicates the picture, introducing a sector that clearly has none of the above-listed aims, though it serves as a part of the same system.

The question of rehabilitation is especially important when discussing the future of sexual predators - rapists, and even more especially pedophiles are driven by urges that cannot be easily corrected. While vocational training and education may help petty criminals start a new and constructive life, and separation from drugs and gang life may provide the breathing space for others to break free from the chains that dragged them to prison in first place, even intensive psychological treatment succeeds  only to a limited extent, and only to the degree that the patient is willing to undergo. Releasing a serial rapist or killer from jail after a few years does nothing to prevent a repeat performance (I recall a pedophile who told his parole board that once released he would surely find and rape another child, and more till he was caught again), and that raises the unhappy specter of a fourth dark reason for a prison system: do we permanently incarcerate these criminals to protect ourselves from them? And can the death penalty be justified under those circumstances, when we have no other way of definitively stopping a killer from finding new victims?

There are no easy answers, but it's a discussion that must be addressed desperately, not with cliches or sound bites or glib platitudes but with sober rational argument, be it conservative or progressive. With over two and a quarter million people in jail, and nearly five million on parole or still in the system, with high recidivist rates, and with a large segment of sexual predators, this is not a problem that can be swept out of sight any longer.