A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
A few responses to Ricochet members' comments on my recent post about the California ballot initiative seeking to abolish the death penalty:
Pig Man: “It’s not just about money. Many people and groups (including the Catholic Church) think capital punishment is immoral. Obviously you don't, but some do.”
The California proposition to ban capital punishment is based on its cost, not its alleged immorality. I deal with the morality question in my Prager University talk on capital punishment. And for the record, a number of Catholic theologians such as the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus do support capital punishment for murder. See further the note by Joseph Stanko on the RCC and capital punishment.
Valiuth: “It seems ludicrous to me to claim it so greatly enhances forensics as to eliminate doubts about the guilt of the convicted.”
Ludicrous is a strong word for a rational position. Moreover, nothing eliminates doubts. Some things eliminate reasonable doubt. And DNA is one of them.
Valiuth: “Is there a reason to think the death penalty would have more deterrence than life imprisonment?”
The question, forgive me, is mind-blowing. Unless one believes that all murderers are out of their minds, of course capital punishment has more deterrence than life imprisonment. Just as life imprisonment has more deterrence than 40 years in prison.
See the fine observations by Stuart Creque and Hank Dagny on this subject.
Vice-Potentate: “For the religious among us the controversy over the death penalty actually comes down to whether we believe there is a requirement in scripture for forgiveness or just a suggestion.”
There is no requirement in Scripture to forgive everyone every sin they committed against everyone else. The New Testament asks that we forgive those who sin against us, not against everyone else. Forgiving those who hurt other people is actually immoral: has Vice-Potentate forgiven Stalin, Mao and Hitler? If so, we possess different moral and religious codes. Moreover, even God does not forgive everyone – one has to atone first.
Valiuth: “I just don't really see why people would be so gung ho about the liberal use of the death penalty. “
Among other reasons:
Because every murderer who is allowed to live out his natural life has literally gotten away with murder. And that is as cosmic an injustice as exists in our world.
Because it lessens the horror of murder to allow all murderers to live.
Because every day a murderer is allowed to live mocks the memory of the murdered.
The Norwegian mass murderer of young people will serve a few months in prison for every one of those he killed. That cheapens their lives.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: “If I were to commit a heinous crime, I would rather die for it than spend life in prison.”
How do you know? And even if it would be so, you would be among the very few murderers in America to prefer death to imprisonment.They all do everything in their power to stay alive. Life in prison is a lot worse than life outside of prison, but a lot better than death. And with life there is always hope.
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Nov '12
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
Dennis, as a regular listener I have been a fan of yours for some time. But your contributions here make me admire you even more. I applaud your willingness to engage our site and follow up on your contributions. That does not seem to be the norm with contributors on the main feed.
Dec '11
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
There is no requirement in Scripture to forgive everyone every sin they committed against everyone else.
Christians are commanded to forgive. The imperative to forgive does not mean we lower our standards of acceptable conduct, nor does it mean that we don't punish men for their crimes.
Forgiveness is about what is happening inside our own hearts.
Mar '12
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Sep '10
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
My feelings on this issue are neatly summed up by a quote from Biloxi Blues, in a climatic scene where Eugene (Matthew Broderick as Neil Simon) chastises Arnold (Cory Parker), his eternally outcast fellow Jewish recruit, about always taking matters to the wall:
Arnold: You're a witness. You're always standing around watching what's happening, scribbling in your book what other people do. You have to get in the middle of it. You have to take sides. Make a contribution to the fight. Any fight. The one you believe in.
In my mind, to not execute a brutal murderer—if guilt is clear—is to judge the murderer's life as more valuable than the person murdered. Who is the collective to make such a judgment?
A lot of Christians who are against the death penalty on moral grounds cite as a reason Thou Shalt Not Kill. They do not recognize that the accompanying commandment against bearing false witness had everything to do with the fact that, under Torah, two witnesses had to agree on someone's guilt on a capital crime; in other words, that kill does not mean murder, either now or four thousand years ago.
Sep '11
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
The argument that Life in prison is a stronger punishment than the death penalty always struck me as bizarre. The opposition to the death penalty proves that people view it as being the harsher punishment. Otherwise, they'd be protesting against life in prison as being overly cruel.
The argument of forgiveness made by many christians seems half baked to me. You surely can't be arguing for the absolving of all consequences for a person's criminal actions. So there are clearly limits to your forgiveness. So as reasonable people, we disagree as to where those limits should be placed.
I see no strong biblical evidence to suggest God's unequivocal opposition to the death penalty. On the contrary, if you believe the entire text to be the word of God, then you must find harmony between the New and Old testaments. The God who explicitly handed down penalty's of death for various crimes in the Old testament, cannot be contradicting himself in the New testament when he forgives a crime that would have been penalized by death.
Oppose the death penalty if you will. But don't claim God's will as you make the argument.
Edited on November 6, 2012 at 8:36pmAug '10
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
Dennis Prager:
The Norwegian mass murderer of young people will serve a few months in prison for every one of those he killed.
With respect, I think that's a terrible example.
Norwegian law doesn't even allow for life imprisonment as an option. Norway imposes a 25 year maximum for any crime.
One doesn't have to agree with capital punishment to believe that Norway's attitude towards criminal sentencing is ludicrous.
Jan '11
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
Dennis Prager:
Because every murderer who is allowed to live out his natural life has literally gotten away with murder. And that is as cosmic an injustice as exists in our world.
Dennis,
I broadly agree with you on capital punishment, but I've also never understood how you square statements like that with your regular comments that you don't favor the death penalty for all murders.
Nov '10
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
Capital punishment is one of those issues that, if you discuss it in purely academic terms, it seems fairly controversial. But if you talk in specifics, it's not. "Here's a guy that raped and murdered 3 little girls. Should he be put to death?" It's a no brainer. Or, on the other side: "Here's a guy that raped an murdered 3 little girls, and he got life in prison and was later found to be not guilty." Also a no brainer. So...hmm. I don't think it's as cut and dried as either side likes to say. Yes I know I'm saying two different things here, but it's a difficult question.
Nov '12
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
No, that's not what Christians argue. They argue that life imprisonment is a very serious consequence for committing a crime. It also allows for the maximum opportunity for a criminal to turn toward God and show remorse for their crime. Redemption is something that Christians are to believe in, work for, and support for everyone, as Christ demonstrated with the thief crucified next to Him.
Jan '11
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
Dennis Prager:
Ludicrous is a strong word for a rational position. Moreover, nothingeliminatesdoubts. Some things eliminate reasonable doubt. And DNA is one of them.
In defense of Valiuth, my Texas-based Assistant DA friend just confirmed my suspicion that the majority of murder trials do not involve DNA evidence. For instance, if a man murders his wife, what does finding his DNA on her prove?*
DNA is useful evidence -- especially if there's rape involved -- but it's not quite the game-changer it's often presented as.
* On showing him this post, he asked me to mention that in many capital murder cases -- in TX, at least -- the question isn't so much guilt as whether or not the crime qualifies for the death penalty. In these cases, there's so much evidence against the defendant, there's no need for DNA testing, but that's often because capital cases need something beyond just murder; there needs to be rape, or burglary, etc.
Edited on November 7, 2012 at 12:29amMar '11
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
Just because their is forgiveness does not mean all consequences here on earth are wiped away. To often the Christian concept of forgiveness is assumed to be all consequences of an evil action also should go by-by for the forgiven. Consequences of evil being forgotten is only related to the afterlife.
The idea that capital punish is only a revenge mechanism from the Christian standpoint is wrong. We can forgive the murder but still believe the murder is required to suffer the earthly consequences of his law breaking/sin.
This is why I have always been against Christians wanting death penalty over-ruled for Christian converts. This position is pretty hypocrite for many people who advocate it.This concept is a perversion of justice. I fully believe they will go to heaven, still does not mean they should somehow not suffer the consequence of being a murder via dying.
From a Christian and sound law standpoint the law should never take into consideration someones heart, only the action. We should punish actions even if there is real repentance because it is God who judges the heart. Judge and Jury should only judge the action not the motivation behind it.
Edited on November 6, 2012 at 9:15pmSep '11
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
For further emphasis, I don't believe the murders themselves seem all that afraid of prison.
Sep '10
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
When computing the financial cost, do they take into account the money saved when someone takes a plea to avoid the death penalty?
Jul '12
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
The death penalty DOES have a deterrent effect, but only when it is consistently enforced.
Criminals are not deterred by empty threats.
Here's a great site (unfortunately defunct) from an incognito Economics professor analyzing data surrounding the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070902062509/http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/prior-posts-on-capital-punishment.html
Aug '10
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
The question then becomes, would they be more afraid of the death penalty?
In the case you link to, if the actual result of a death sentence is years (perhaps a lifetime) of incarceration anyways, thanks to the long appeal process, etc, then there is little to distinguish one punishment from the other. Either way, the criminal in that case would get to see Monday Night Football in the jailhouse.
(Apropos of nothing, but Freakonomics.com has lots of information about the death penalty, the gist being that because it's an empty threat it offers no greater deterrence than life imprisonment.)
Edited on November 6, 2012 at 9:39pmDec '10
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
If I am ever am wrongly convicted of capital murder, I pray that I am sentenced to death. Not because I want to die, but because the Innocence Project and other groups who seek to exonerate those who are wrongly convicted will pay far more attention to my case far more quickly if I'm on Death Row than if I am in the general population doing life without parole.
Mar '11
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
I've never been able to shake the argument that society is simply better off with certain people dead -- starting with contract killers, serial killers, and pedophiles. Dead men tell no tales, and commit no crimes.
One thing that gives me pause about the death penalty is the effect is has on those who must carry it out. I don't know if this has been formally studied, but anecdotally, such people seem to suffer poverty, social exclusion, mental illness, and alcoholism.
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
Dennis Prager:
Dennis,
What then of the Lord's Prayer? "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. " It doesn't say against "me."
I'm more interested though about this: Why in both your posts and your video you fail to confront a particular concept: REVENGE.
I won't speculate on why you don't address it. I run the risk of being unfair to you if I speculate wrong.
But I'd like to hear from you about the concept.
Apr '12
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
We have a social contract that for certain murders the punishment is death. If one doesn't want the death penalty, one shouldn't commit the murder. If you do commit it, there doesn't seem to be any moral question about the penalty, which was previously agreed upon.
What about the potentially innocent man convicted of murder? The proper way to deal with this possibility is to wait a reasonable time (say, 5 years) for the defendant to raise all relevant issues relating to guilt (with govt. providing adequate resources for the purpose), and if at that time there is no reasonable doubt impose the punishment.
If the penalty for murder were a $10 fine, there would be an inefficiently large number of murders. As the expected punishment increases the number of murders committed should go down. Society incurs costs in order to reduce murder, both in punishment costs and in police costs. Currently, we have something like 14,000 murders per year and maybe 45 executions. Although the possibility of an innocent person being executed is a cost, it might be worth it to bring the number of murders down by 1,000 or so.
Re: A Response to Comments on the California Death Penalty Initiative
In California, the death penalty is an empty threat. In Texas and Florida perhaps a little less empty. Thank God evil men like Ted Bundy do stupid things and travel from Washington State to Florida.