This cheerful Saturday morning, as Americans of diver's background prepare to drink themselves into a state of greater than normal inebriation in honor of St. Patrick, it would be so easy to reflect on the madness that unfolded half a world away when a white supremacist decided to make his dream of a hegemonic world a reality, but for the feeling that there is nothing left to say that has not been said before, so many times. One man, but a representative of a dangerous larger group, armed with weapons that no individual should ever need for personal reasons, walked into a gathering of his perceived enemies and became judge and executioner upon a group of unarmed and in this respect, innocent, fellow human beings whose only crime was that they were different from the agent of their death. It has played out, time and again, with the cast of actors changing, but ever the same final result.
But this past week, another event with far less publicity but possibly equal consequences occurred much closer to home, when California moved to permanently rescind the death penalty. In my opinion, this is a move long overdue and brings the sunshine back to the Sunshine State with the specter of death banished from above the convicted felons found deserving of death in the past but also releasing the families of the victims of those same felons from what was an ultimately pointless rite. Not entirely unsurprisingly, some of those same family members are not as thrilled with this development and have expressed their anguish over the loss of closure in their bereavement.
Let me say first of all, that I could never understand the pain that these folk have felt and the loss that they will live through every day for the rest of their lives through the untimely loss of a loved one, torn from this world through some violent and senseless act. I have never suffered this loss and I could no more predict how I would feel in such a case than I can tell when the world will end. But, that being said, it is the duty of every thinking man and woman to address this in tranquility for our system of justice requires that judgment be rendered upon an accused perpetrator by a jury of his peers, and there is a reason why the jury is never composed of the families of the victims. We are required to know why we would sentence a man to death, or equally, do the opposite, and we must do it removed from the emotion that surrounds a particular case that our choice may be impartial and rational. Removing the death penalty as a choice of punishment altogether frees the jury to weigh each case differently than if they would be rendering so final a doom.
My main objection to the death penalty is based upon two main pillars. Firstly, if rendered swiftly, it is a terribly final punishment and we should believe in the guilt of the accused beyond all shadow of doubt, for once we execute this form of justice, we will never be able to revisit our decision. And, in too many cases, people have been condemned and in some case, too many by a greater degree if anything, they have been even executed, only for exculpatory evidence to be revealed later that may have stayed the sword of justice or even seen those same condemned men walk free with no stain upon their character. To be sure, there are cases where guilt was indeed beyond doubt, where the accused admitted his or her guilt, even reveled in in, and those cases are different; my reasons for still opposing the death penalty remain as steadfast, but I will discuss that later. But for those who may be condemned unfairly, there is no reprieve as long as their death is the goal of our justice. Sadly, prosecutors and the justice system itself have all too often made the death of the accused rather than the discovery of the truth the main aim and have falsified or suppressed any information that might hint at the innocence of the person they have decided is guilty. In their zeal, whether politically driven or in an overabundance of righteous conviction, they usurp the power of both prosecutor and judge and close their minds to all that would cloud their case. The reasons matter little from a practical standpoint since it results in a wrongful conviction either way. While the Byzantine system of appeals may stay the execution of the accused for years on end, living with such a threat hanging over one's head is no life, and none but those who have existed under that particular sword of Damocles can truly appreciate what it does to a person. Should they be reprieved or exonerated in time, they will never be truly whole again and we, as a society, can never really right that wrong. If we convict or worse, execute, even one innocent man, that is one too many and far better would it be for a thousand guilty to live than for one innocent man to die to sate our blood lust. Worse yet, for every innocent who languishes in prison, whether on death row or not, the actual guilty party walks free and justice is not served simply because someone paid for the crime, if it is not the true criminal.
It is often said that executing a guilty murderer brings closure to the kin of the victims, a blood sacrifice to their pain and suffering. I do not pretend to understand what it would feel like to have a dearly loved family member or friend brutally torn away with neither warning nor notice, and so often with no rhyme or reason. But death is around us constantly, be it on the freeway or in airplanes, in bridge collapses or sudden slip. It may feel worse, and may even be worse, to have a face on the agency of death, but does it truly matter? When one's friends or family are gone, no matter how, and they must pick up the pieces of their lives and move on and find closure. I would suggest that tying healing to the death of the agent who caused their loss is less healthy and in fact transfers power to that person and away from them. If the only way to find peace and solace is to see the murderer die, then they have now tied their well-being to the very person most responsible for their pain and every failure to punish him in the way they desire extends their suffering. If healing and peace is possible when our loved one's die suddenly in other way, sometimes as violent, as meaningless, then even the families of such victims can recover independent of the criminal responsible and may well be better off by doing so in the long run.
Revenge is a very basic emotion in us, perhaps the one emotion uniquely human - a sad commentary on the supremely evolved creatures we think we are - and has long driven the logic of the death penalty. Nearly every civilization through history has had a version of the tenet, "an eye for an eye" and some have taken it further than others. But as we gain more enlightenment, it is worth wondering if we gain anything from wreaking the same fate upon one who has killed. Murder, the main crime that draws the death penalty, is committed for many reasons; personal gain, high passion, ideology and personal pleasure in killing cover most of the cases. Our legal system does address these differently and recognizes that different motives should be treated differently, even if the end result is no different for the victims. We recognize that a killing driven by high emotion is different than one coldly planned in advance, that one triggered by group (or gang) ties is different than one driven by implacable hatred for an entire group of people who happen to share no more than a religion, sexual orientation or skin tone. Even for the kin of the victims, the motive behind the killing matters, if only to help them understand why their loved ones died, to demystify their loss to some extent and aid the process of healing.
It is worth questioning why we would ever execute a convicted criminal. Do we do it as revenge, because they deserve to die in the same way as their victims? Only of course, we don't tailor the execution to the crime, for that would be barbaric and inhuman in the extreme. Another motive for execution is deterrent, the idea that would be criminals will be less likely to risk the consequences in fear of suffering this fate. However, even ignoring the statistics that indicate little correlation between capital crime and the death penalty, it should be obvious that the deterrent effect would be minor for any of the classes of crime listed earlier. A crime of passion, by definition, is committed by someone who has suspended rational thought and the perpetrator is not in a mental position to weigh the consequences of their actions. Crimes driven by fraternal ties or ideology are likewise committed with little thought to the consequences. It is rather unlikely that too many gang members would be knowledgeable on the status of the death penalty in their neck of the woods and in all probability do not plan very far ahead, certainly not for the consequences of their actions. Criminals driven by ideology are so convinced of their righteousness that they scorn the consequences of worldly and societal justice, if they even live to face our judgment.
Another reason advanced in favor of the ultimate punishment is the idea that we are sending the criminal to face some greater judgment in the next life. This is not advanced so often as it used to be, and this is just as well, since it fails both with those who, like me, disbelieve in an afterlife, and those who do. The problem for agnostics and atheists is obvious, but even theist believers must surely wonder if the best idea is to execute a man, giving him no chance to make amends for his mistake in this life before sending him to eternal damnation. It flies in the face of their own beliefs, especially if one further factors in absolution for anyone who repents before death, but does nothing at all for the actual victims of his or her crime.
In the end, we as a society have to question why we wouldst execute one of our fellows. Do we do it to give revenge and closure to those who have suffered, and if so, is this the most positive way to help them? Or do we do it because we think certain crimes "deserve" a harsher punishment? While many of those crimes might seem so heinous as to warrant the sternest of punishments (as a side note, if a single murder deserves execution as punishment, is a multiple murderer then punished less?), it's always worth considering that the finality of death in fact is contrary to the idea that a correctional system is intended to reform convicts to fit back into society, a goal that remains admittedly further than ever in most nations, despite the change in name from penal to correctional system, for it turns out that reforming criminals requires a little more than just a change in terminology. If we decide that there is no way for us to ever reform our convicted criminals, we face a challenge as a society to find a way to change that. Simply locking people up and throwing away the key, or in this case, literally burying the criminals is no answer and leads us down a path where life has less meaning. If we value life so much that we would impose death on those who rob others of it, we cannot and should not acquiesce to execution of any one, not even the most hardened criminal and killer. In the words of John Donne, every man's death diminishes me; it matters not if the death be that of a friend or a distant unknown convict. So long as we are all part of this world together, we must find ways to extend, not end life. Lacking any practical reason to support the death penalty, I can only hope that the rest of the world comes around sooner than later to this same point of view.
.
But this past week, another event with far less publicity but possibly equal consequences occurred much closer to home, when California moved to permanently rescind the death penalty. In my opinion, this is a move long overdue and brings the sunshine back to the Sunshine State with the specter of death banished from above the convicted felons found deserving of death in the past but also releasing the families of the victims of those same felons from what was an ultimately pointless rite. Not entirely unsurprisingly, some of those same family members are not as thrilled with this development and have expressed their anguish over the loss of closure in their bereavement.
Let me say first of all, that I could never understand the pain that these folk have felt and the loss that they will live through every day for the rest of their lives through the untimely loss of a loved one, torn from this world through some violent and senseless act. I have never suffered this loss and I could no more predict how I would feel in such a case than I can tell when the world will end. But, that being said, it is the duty of every thinking man and woman to address this in tranquility for our system of justice requires that judgment be rendered upon an accused perpetrator by a jury of his peers, and there is a reason why the jury is never composed of the families of the victims. We are required to know why we would sentence a man to death, or equally, do the opposite, and we must do it removed from the emotion that surrounds a particular case that our choice may be impartial and rational. Removing the death penalty as a choice of punishment altogether frees the jury to weigh each case differently than if they would be rendering so final a doom.
My main objection to the death penalty is based upon two main pillars. Firstly, if rendered swiftly, it is a terribly final punishment and we should believe in the guilt of the accused beyond all shadow of doubt, for once we execute this form of justice, we will never be able to revisit our decision. And, in too many cases, people have been condemned and in some case, too many by a greater degree if anything, they have been even executed, only for exculpatory evidence to be revealed later that may have stayed the sword of justice or even seen those same condemned men walk free with no stain upon their character. To be sure, there are cases where guilt was indeed beyond doubt, where the accused admitted his or her guilt, even reveled in in, and those cases are different; my reasons for still opposing the death penalty remain as steadfast, but I will discuss that later. But for those who may be condemned unfairly, there is no reprieve as long as their death is the goal of our justice. Sadly, prosecutors and the justice system itself have all too often made the death of the accused rather than the discovery of the truth the main aim and have falsified or suppressed any information that might hint at the innocence of the person they have decided is guilty. In their zeal, whether politically driven or in an overabundance of righteous conviction, they usurp the power of both prosecutor and judge and close their minds to all that would cloud their case. The reasons matter little from a practical standpoint since it results in a wrongful conviction either way. While the Byzantine system of appeals may stay the execution of the accused for years on end, living with such a threat hanging over one's head is no life, and none but those who have existed under that particular sword of Damocles can truly appreciate what it does to a person. Should they be reprieved or exonerated in time, they will never be truly whole again and we, as a society, can never really right that wrong. If we convict or worse, execute, even one innocent man, that is one too many and far better would it be for a thousand guilty to live than for one innocent man to die to sate our blood lust. Worse yet, for every innocent who languishes in prison, whether on death row or not, the actual guilty party walks free and justice is not served simply because someone paid for the crime, if it is not the true criminal.
It is often said that executing a guilty murderer brings closure to the kin of the victims, a blood sacrifice to their pain and suffering. I do not pretend to understand what it would feel like to have a dearly loved family member or friend brutally torn away with neither warning nor notice, and so often with no rhyme or reason. But death is around us constantly, be it on the freeway or in airplanes, in bridge collapses or sudden slip. It may feel worse, and may even be worse, to have a face on the agency of death, but does it truly matter? When one's friends or family are gone, no matter how, and they must pick up the pieces of their lives and move on and find closure. I would suggest that tying healing to the death of the agent who caused their loss is less healthy and in fact transfers power to that person and away from them. If the only way to find peace and solace is to see the murderer die, then they have now tied their well-being to the very person most responsible for their pain and every failure to punish him in the way they desire extends their suffering. If healing and peace is possible when our loved one's die suddenly in other way, sometimes as violent, as meaningless, then even the families of such victims can recover independent of the criminal responsible and may well be better off by doing so in the long run.
Revenge is a very basic emotion in us, perhaps the one emotion uniquely human - a sad commentary on the supremely evolved creatures we think we are - and has long driven the logic of the death penalty. Nearly every civilization through history has had a version of the tenet, "an eye for an eye" and some have taken it further than others. But as we gain more enlightenment, it is worth wondering if we gain anything from wreaking the same fate upon one who has killed. Murder, the main crime that draws the death penalty, is committed for many reasons; personal gain, high passion, ideology and personal pleasure in killing cover most of the cases. Our legal system does address these differently and recognizes that different motives should be treated differently, even if the end result is no different for the victims. We recognize that a killing driven by high emotion is different than one coldly planned in advance, that one triggered by group (or gang) ties is different than one driven by implacable hatred for an entire group of people who happen to share no more than a religion, sexual orientation or skin tone. Even for the kin of the victims, the motive behind the killing matters, if only to help them understand why their loved ones died, to demystify their loss to some extent and aid the process of healing.
It is worth questioning why we would ever execute a convicted criminal. Do we do it as revenge, because they deserve to die in the same way as their victims? Only of course, we don't tailor the execution to the crime, for that would be barbaric and inhuman in the extreme. Another motive for execution is deterrent, the idea that would be criminals will be less likely to risk the consequences in fear of suffering this fate. However, even ignoring the statistics that indicate little correlation between capital crime and the death penalty, it should be obvious that the deterrent effect would be minor for any of the classes of crime listed earlier. A crime of passion, by definition, is committed by someone who has suspended rational thought and the perpetrator is not in a mental position to weigh the consequences of their actions. Crimes driven by fraternal ties or ideology are likewise committed with little thought to the consequences. It is rather unlikely that too many gang members would be knowledgeable on the status of the death penalty in their neck of the woods and in all probability do not plan very far ahead, certainly not for the consequences of their actions. Criminals driven by ideology are so convinced of their righteousness that they scorn the consequences of worldly and societal justice, if they even live to face our judgment.
Another reason advanced in favor of the ultimate punishment is the idea that we are sending the criminal to face some greater judgment in the next life. This is not advanced so often as it used to be, and this is just as well, since it fails both with those who, like me, disbelieve in an afterlife, and those who do. The problem for agnostics and atheists is obvious, but even theist believers must surely wonder if the best idea is to execute a man, giving him no chance to make amends for his mistake in this life before sending him to eternal damnation. It flies in the face of their own beliefs, especially if one further factors in absolution for anyone who repents before death, but does nothing at all for the actual victims of his or her crime.
In the end, we as a society have to question why we wouldst execute one of our fellows. Do we do it to give revenge and closure to those who have suffered, and if so, is this the most positive way to help them? Or do we do it because we think certain crimes "deserve" a harsher punishment? While many of those crimes might seem so heinous as to warrant the sternest of punishments (as a side note, if a single murder deserves execution as punishment, is a multiple murderer then punished less?), it's always worth considering that the finality of death in fact is contrary to the idea that a correctional system is intended to reform convicts to fit back into society, a goal that remains admittedly further than ever in most nations, despite the change in name from penal to correctional system, for it turns out that reforming criminals requires a little more than just a change in terminology. If we decide that there is no way for us to ever reform our convicted criminals, we face a challenge as a society to find a way to change that. Simply locking people up and throwing away the key, or in this case, literally burying the criminals is no answer and leads us down a path where life has less meaning. If we value life so much that we would impose death on those who rob others of it, we cannot and should not acquiesce to execution of any one, not even the most hardened criminal and killer. In the words of John Donne, every man's death diminishes me; it matters not if the death be that of a friend or a distant unknown convict. So long as we are all part of this world together, we must find ways to extend, not end life. Lacking any practical reason to support the death penalty, I can only hope that the rest of the world comes around sooner than later to this same point of view.
.
