Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Death Penalty: Let’s Be Honest
Jonah Goldberg has an excellent piece today on the dishonesty of the opponents of the death penalty. He highlights two points: (1) opponents create the situation (costs of litigation and associated administration) which they argue should be a basis for discarding the death penalty, and (2) they call it “unconstitutional” when the death penalty is actually written in the constitution (see 5th Amendment). They also point to the numbers of individuals on death row that have been determined to be innocent prior to their delayed executions. That is not an argument against the death penalty unless you really believe we cannot do a better job in investigating and adjudicating the innocence or guilt of people. Is it better to house an innocent person in jail for the rest of their life than to execute them? After all, eliminating the death penalty may actually reduce support for post-conviction innocence proceedings.
One can have a principled argument against the death penalty — but none of the ones put forward are actually that. The real question in my mind is one of relative value: Is the accused’s life of more value than the victim’s? If your answer is “no” you cannot be against the death penalty. You can be for better investigative and prosecutorial rules — eliminate practices that evoke false confessions, make the prosecutors focus on justice instead of political favor — you can be for limiting the penalty to those cases only where a life is taken, and you can be for quick and relatively painless executions, but you cannot be for the eliminating the death penalty altogether.
Remember that the alternative to a broken criminal justice system is not a more humane justice system — it is a system of private revenge and self-help. So if you break the system with unprincipled arguments you get private action. You cannot consistently value the life of the killer over that of the killed and maintain a justice system that is the sole purview of the state.
Published in General
Yeah, that there’s no point in keeping her around longer in hopes of saving her soul from damnation. She’s saved – why shouldn’t she be happy to die now?
Oddly, I agree with you—if I was saved and reformed, the death part would be the least of my concerns. I’m not all that concerned about it now, if it comes to that. I have complete confidence in God’s ability to handle that for me.
I hadn’t thought about the matter of the amoral and unforgiving state’s altering a sentence based on a religious exemption (so to speak). I suppose I’d say that death is different. Guys sentenced to five years for possession with intent to distribute probably don’t expect a stay from the Governor. So the reasons the Governor has for commuting the sentence to life can probably be pretty idiosyncratic…though the lawyers among us will have to weigh in on that point?
Well, it’s not so much about her—she was (or wasn’t, depending on how credible you thought her claim was) fine either way. But if we believe in God’s ability to effect miraculous transformations—if, for example, W can plausibly credit God for helping him with his drinking problem, or I can credit God with helping me create a meaningful life after a devastating loss (these are fairly common miracles, I grant) —why can God not perform another sow’s ear/silk purse miracle and create a new woman out of a murderess? As I recall, Pat Robertson went to bat for her, arguing that she had been doing good things in prison since her conversion, acts of charity and kindness and, dare I say it, education… a reformed murderer must pack quite the didactic punch.
I’d be inclined to be generous, myself, and assume that the God who somehow made a useful tool of me could find ways to increase the overall level of love in the world through that sinner too.
I’m not particularly invested in this argument. If I were the King I wouldn’t order the death penalty, but I shed no particular tears when it happens. However, I do want to take exception to the “eye for an eye” argument.
We don’t take an eye for an eye in our criminal justice system. Quite literally, if someone is convicted of illegally poking out his victim’s eye in a bar fight, we don’t poke out his eye in return. We don’t rape rapists as a form of punishment. We don’t torture torturers. So why is that? Well, in my case it certainly isn’t because I value the bodily integrity of the criminal as much as that of the victim. I don’t. The reason I don’t support (and pretty much nobody supports) disfigurement, rape, or torture as forms of criminal punishment is not because of concern for the criminal. It is because of concern about the effect on us as a society. It is barbaric and it therefore erodes our self-restraint.
And so Rodin, I think you are wrong when you say that you cannot be opposed to the death penalty unless you think the life of the accused is worth more than the life of the victim. I wouldn’t give a bucket of warm spit for the life of, say, Charles Manson or O.J. Simpson. But I can still be opposed to the death penalty.
Karla Faye Tucker killed two people in their bed with a claw hammer or a pickaxe. She was in her mid-20s when she did it, I believe. Then in prison she became a Christian, and apparently it was sincere according to those around her. But Bush was doing his job as governor. And like @modecon pointed out, the crime was still a crime (and an especially heinous one too). I agree with ModEcon that we can’t allow a sudden coming to Jesus to wipe away the punishment set by the court, or we’d have an awful lot of new converts.
Remaining in prison must rather limit the good you can do, though, right?
I don’t think we as a culture have the kind of consensus on what constitutes God’s endorsement of a change in a death-row inmate (who’s not wrongfully convicted) so miraculous that, not only should the inmate’s execution be canceled, but the inmate would be a prodigious benefit to society if sprung from prison. (And if the inmate wouldn’t be a prodigious benefit to society if sprung from prison, what miracle has occurred to justify canceling execution?)
A great many of us believe people can change. I take Frankl’s word (I think it was Frankl) that such changes have been known to happen, even in the bleakest circumstances. But what kind of evidence would it take to convince us that Prisoner X is one of these people – so miraculously transformed? After all, what happens if we’re wrong and we permit ourselves to believe in a miracle when none has occurred?
Yes.
I found it so funny when death penalty opponents were advocating that executions be televised. See how ya like it if you actually have to WATCH!
The fact is, the first few times might make people throw up ( cuz very, very often it is not a peaceful procedure, killing a healthy adult ) but soon they’d be chomping their Cheerios and gesturing at the TV : “Lookit that, the guy’s head’s on fire!” Look how fast we became blasé about seeing beheadings, after the Religion of Peace enthusiastically revived that dark-age practice for prime time.
Here’s the deal with cases like that: 20-30 years later, you’re not really gassing or electrocuting the killer. You’re executing the sentence on the person the killer became.
I agree. I have no objection to the death penalty for Dylan Roof.
A fine point. And let’s keep in mind, it used to be this way. We had public hangings in this country, and not all that long ago. The way I hear it, whole families came out to watch the executions as a form of entertainment. The fact that we eventually banned this practice suggests to me that this practice did more to encourage blood lust than it did to support sober acceptance of the moral lesson supposedly being taught.
Oooh, I didn’t say she should be released. Just not killed.
But my primary reason to oppose the death penalty remains —like Larry’s—what it does to us. And I mean very specifically the human beings who have to carry it out. I should think it would be quite difficult to execute a sincere, devout and re-born Christian woman…not hard from the comfortable remove of theory, I mean, but hard when she’s a scrawny little person in a hospital johnny sitting there in front of you. This is not an acceptable thing to do to the prison personnel…unless, of course, we hire sociopaths. That’s the solution tyrannical regimes come up with, apparently.
Well, exactly. And, again, it’s not WE who have to kill the nice, menopausal lady with the Bible in her hand, it’s the prison guard. Is this a job you’d want your son or daughter to have?
There are an awful lot of very needy people in prison. I should think the limit would be, in some ways, less than on the outside. After all, you don’t have to earn a living, and you have a sort of captive audience for your agapaic attention.
I think it’s okay for the prisoner to continue to deal with the consequences of her youthful actions—don’t we all, no matter what transformations we undergo? Commutation to life in prison is the normal deal, I think, unless there’s actual proof of innocence, and that seems reasonable.
Anyway, as I mentioned, I’m actually against the death penalty more because of the effect it has on other people than on the prisoner/perpetrator. There are people who, arguably, deserve to die, but nobody deserves to get stuck with the job of killing them in cold blood.
The world won’t be worse off without him. And he would probably be better off checking out. Maybe it would be more just, on the other hand, to make him stay alive? If I had the choice between thirty or forty years of being Dylan Roof, and being dead I think I’d choose dead.
I disagree. While I do think that we should be careful of what we do as each act affects ourselves and killing another is never a good thing, I do not think that it is fair to say that we execute the person the killer became.
If possible, we would execute the convicted immediately. In effect, the accused is dead the moment the trial is over, society just doesn’t get around to it for a while in order to make sure.
Also, about what the execution does to people who have to do the executions, I suspect that we could do it in such a way as to not corrupt ourselves. Our current methods seem quite ridiculous to me. I do not know much, but what I have heard seem overly dramatic and cruel. It seems to me that instead of the messy methods we use now, it wouldn’t be too hard to have a simple system of putting a person to sleep such that they never wake up. In such a clinical method, would it really corrupt the personnel who must act. Perhaps this is a bad analogy, but it would seem similar to taking someone off medical support when it’s time for them to pass. I know it is not the same, but I imagine we could find a way to make it so everyone keeps their respect for life without succumbing to the pain of having to take it away. Unlike the case for torture, it doesn’t have to be cruel. It is after all, not a matter of retribution, but rather protection of others and justice to a lesser extant.
Well, I could be wrong, it is just that I haven’t seen any good evidence that it can’t be done in a sane way.
I assume you’re not familiar with the Babylon Bee. It’s a farcical news site run by Christians. The joke assumes familiarity with scripture’s accounts of the wicked acts of worshippers of Molech.
There’s a striking similarity between our society’s use of abortion and sacrifices to Molech. Sacrifices to pagan deities like molech were given hoping their god would grant them prosperity. Prosperity is also a motive for abortion. It is used to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood, often for financial reasons.
Do you really claim to see into W’s soul to understand why he governed the way he did? Attributing such motives is uncalled for.
God does not tell us the state should not punish Christians who have committed crimes, quite the opposite. The state is given the power of the sword:
Romans 13:4
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
New life in Christ is eternal. The murderer who repents has a place in eternity with the rest of Christ’s people. God does not offer avoidance of the government’s punishment for criminal behavior. The salvation he offers is so much greater. Christ offers that salvation by taking the punishment himself. We can follow his example in our own lives and the in the church by offering forgiveness. Providing that forgiveness may come at a cost. The state is different. When it offers forgiveness it is actually forcing the people, or the victim, to bear the cost of that forgiveness. We can allow for that with clemency, but it should be the exception, not the norm. If mercy is always given then the government is not doing the duty assigned to it by God.
That was a joke? Geesh! Never heard of the Babylon Bee, will check them out. I agree that abortion is sacrifices to molech, so is Islam’s strapping bombs on their children to have them blow up a bunch of people.
Not at all. Prison is full of people who need to hear the gospel and they have plenty of time to talk.
It is so funny, do you help make up that stuff?
http://babylonbee.com/news/gop-dealing-with-trumpster-fire/
No, I’m not involved in that. I just appreciate the humor.
Hopefully.
From my perspective, killing someone as sure of their salvation as anyone can be in this life, and who only has prison to look forward to for the rest of it, would be a mercy killing.
I observe moral taboos against mercy killing because I’m supposed to, not because I find the idea of mercy killing personally off-putting. I may be a rather odd duck in this regard.
But, this makes it sound like forced labor. There are people who don’t hesitate to deliver “justice” as needed. You may even know some of them in your line of work. Dennis Prager has often said he could “flip the switch” for a heinous murderer and then go have a nice (mutton and tomato) sandwich. Just because you would find it distressing and morally compromising doesn’t mean everyone does.
Just add a little cynicism here, I will mention cost again. Whether or not they have been saved, steeling from every tax payer in order to give them a life worth living when someone is in for life with no possibility of parole seems ridiculous. Either they have a chance at being reintroduced into society (which is not what we are generally talking about) or they don’t. If they don’t, then why do we burden ourselves. If you think killing a criminal is hard, how about just being a guard having to watch the despair of thousands of people waste their lives away in prison.
Also, I wonder what @midge view on other aspects similar to mercy killings is especially in relation to health issues. Perhaps you have a link or a post? It is something I am very interested in as I might agree with you.
Oh rubbish.
We all see death. You will die and I will die. I watched my first wife die, even as I was helpless to aid her.
I for one would like to see more nasty criminals whose faces are now alive, “in short order not”.
She became a Christian while in jail awaiting her trial. All around her believed that her conversion was real (for the record, based on my research in this matter, I believe she was too.)
Nevertheless, the Governor of Texas only has the power to refuse clemency, not the power to grant it. In order to grant clemency, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles must make a recommendation to that effect. the Governor can either agree or disagree.
Interestingly, the captain of the Guard who oversaw Karla Faye’s execution had a breakdown two days after the execution. He had overseen about 120 executions, but after Karla Faye, he resigned his job, forfeited his pension and completely changed his mind regarding the death penalty.