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.
My Discomfort with the Anti-Death Penalty Crowd
The Trump administration is making waves among progressives for reviving the execution of those on federal death row. Yesterday’s execution of one prisoner, Brandon Bernard, went all the way to the Supreme Court before it was eventually carried out last night at around 9:30pm.
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the idea of the death penalty; I don’t think that the State (or anyone, for that matter) should have the power to decide who lives and who dies; it’s why I’m pro-life. We are not God, we are not all-knowing, and we know that the system has made mistakes and put innocent men on death row.
I’m Jewish, but strongly agreed with this statement by the Archbishop of Oklahoma City about the execution last night,
"It's a God-given dignity that the State does not bestow and the State cannot take away…we would affirm that a true pro-life position would respect life…from conception to natural death." – @ArchbishopOKC #BrandonBernard https://t.co/wO7L9cRUzh
— Elaine Quijano (@Elaine_Quijano) December 11, 2020
But that doesn’t mean, however, that Benard wasn’t guilty of a truly heinous crime. In the attempts to save him from death row, progressives lionized the criminal responsible for setting fire to a car with two murder victims inside, one of whom was arguably still alive before being burned to death. In their coverage of the execution, my friend (and Ladybrains co-host) notes,
Ten paragraphs before the @thedailybeast finally mentioned his brutal, gruesome crimes. Shocked they mentioned them at all. https://t.co/JJgPQKh5eS
— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) December 11, 2020
It’s the same across the Left; I read a great deal of coverage last night about the efforts to stay the execution and came away from everything I read wondering one thing: But what did he do? Because they don’t tell you. There’s a reason for that: They want you to believe in a victim, and they’ve decided the victim is Bernard, not the people he lit on fire.
There’s another execution scheduled tonight, and another friend tweeted those details,
“While in jail, he joked that “that [expletive] baby’s head got as big as a watermelon” after he beat the child with a plastic baseball bat.”
“the prosecution argued that Bourgeois had continually and regularly abused the child, physically and sexually”https://t.co/HBjdAdoi7B
— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) December 11, 2020
I find myself in an uncomfortable position, an ideologically homeless one. It’s not that these men don’t deserve to die, it’s that I don’t believe that the State should be granted the right to determine when that is.
And that's *my* problem with this discussion.
The left turns these monsters into saints, making icons of them, forcing their brutal murders into social tales of racism and injustice and dismissing the lives of their victims entirely for the sake of a 'society did it' narrative. https://t.co/QdSJe4IAaI
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) December 11, 2020
So where does this leave me? I’ll continue to state my opposition to the death penalty on ideological grounds, but unless there’s clear proof that someone on death row is there in error, I won’t be joining the efforts to protest individual executions.
Published in General
I understand the pro life argument against the death penalty. I appreciate the appeal that life is a gift from God, it’s presumptuous for man to take it.
But our society is secular. The only stricture, written in the Constitution, punishment can’t be cruel or unusual. The the only logical defense a secular society has is a life for a life.
Hard cases make bad law.
There are just some crimes and criminals who are tailor made for the death penalty.
The only way to do away with the death penalty is a true life sentence without the possibility of parole, to include governors giving up the power to commute, or pardon those convicted of murder. As long as governors have this power there is no such thing as a true life without parole sentence.
One should not confuse temporal punishment with eternal punishment. There are times that mankind must deal in judgement. Mercy is always the providence of God.
Only if you “life without parole” also includes no visits or contact of any kind with family or friends. No news updates of how their kids or mother is doing. When their parents die, they don’t get to go to the funeral, or even get informed of the fact.
Treat them as dead.
then maybe you’ve got something beginning to approach justice.
In my time, I have represented the US Army and the State of Alabama in criminal appeals. Some crimes are more heinous than others, and the death penalty is appropriate for them.
In the wake of the 1972 Supreme Court decision declaring the death penalty unconstitutional (Furman v Georgia), a ruling that lasted all the way to 1977 before it was reversed, the States passed laws identifying death-penalty-eligible crimes. That raises the question, what do you do with someone who kills another person for financial reward, as for the benefit of their life insurance policy? Or someone who kills more than one person in a criminal transaction? Or someone who kills more than one person in multiple criminal transactions? Or a felony murder, i.e., murder combined with a robbery or a burglary? Or someone in prison for life who kills another inmate or a guard?
Not everyone who commits those crimes deserves a death penalty, but some of them do. We need to let the system work.
I’ve never been persuaded by the argument that the death penalty is wrong because “the State” carries it out. Of course “the State” carries it out. The hallmark of civilization is the State’s monopoly on violence . The argument that the death penalty is illegitimate because the State imposes it also carries a nonsensical implication: That the death penalty would be legitimate if some person/entity other than the State imposed it. But it seems to me if some non-state actor/entity can legitimately impose the death penalty, why not the State?
This idea that “the death penalty can be justified, but don’t think the State should do it” strikes me as a kind of self-inflicted conundrum. The death penalty is either something we humans can justifiably impose on each other, or it is not.
The reason we have the death penalty is because some people just deserve it.
I grew up five doors down from this guy. It took way too long for the families of his victims to get justice.
Bethany,
Your position on capital punishment sounds very, very close to mine. I’m very uncomfortable with it as well.
On the other hand, if someone killed someone in my family, I would kill that person. I like to think that I would feel guilty about it. But I’m not at all sure that I would.
I know that’s not the same thing as state-sponsored killing. But I think it’s a relevant comparison.
Also, most Christian versions of The Ten Commandments say, “Thou shalt not kill.” But it is my understanding that most Jewish versions say, “Thou shalt not murder.” Basically acknowledging that sometimes we must kill. And it is not always wrong. Killing someone to protect an innocent is not a sin, but rather is virtuous.
So where does capital punishment fit in all this? I’m not sure. It’s messy.
But I think capital punishment is good policy, overall. I don’t like it. But I think it makes sense.
As best we can do, in this messy world.
I certainly understand your reservations, however. I share most of them.
I’d need more than that; maybe death for infractions.
Life imprisonment without parole just restricts the possible victim pool to those who are locked in with the lifer.
Another thought; I don’t like the death penalty either, but I don’t like the nonsense attempts to stop it once it has been ruled. By this I mean claims that the method of death is somehow immoral. If it were up to me, I’d just give these guys a choice of
one ortwo or three methods and call it good.There is also escape, though it is blessedly rare.
^this too.
The ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime is called for, but it is uncomfortable for most people. There is always the question, “What if the person is really innocent?” This is why the death penalty must be painless, no matter how heinous the crime or how much the killer’s victims suffered.
That being said, the death penalty is also not about deterrence or revenge – it’s about justice.
Okay, enough with the heavy subject. Ann Coulter once quipped, “If the death penalty is not a deterrent, then why is Michael Moore still alive and I’m not on death row?”
Jews stoned people to death as a matter of law. I’m not Jewish culturally or religiously so I am genuinely asking; is Judaism officially anti-death penalty?
It’s one of the oddities of this issue. Intellectually, I understand and agree with arguments against the death penalty, but in my heart, I have always had a great deal of sympathy for the pro death penalty side. Which is why I would have opposed the death penalty for Ted Bundy, but I would never have turned up to protest his execution, out of respect for the victims and their families. I find that kind of spectacle distasteful and heartless.
Killing a killer isn’t morally wrong. The death penalty is from the Bible.
What I don’t trust is the justice system. Years ago I was on a jury in a (non-capital) case where there was little to no evidence that a crime even took place but the accused was a real jerk. First vote in the jury room was 10-2 to convict. We’re it not for me and another stubborn juror, this guy would have gotten a 10 year sentence for having a bad personality.
More recently I met a man at my church who was convicted of murder and spent about 15 years in prison before he could prove his innocence. So, I do not oppose the truly guilty getting what they deserve, but our system is not perfect and the idea that innocent people could get executed is horrifying.
There is a small part of me that entertains the idea that jerkhood might justify the extra jail time; the repentant often get less time.
I would have no problem with putting people to death; no problem, even, with public executions, and selling peanuts and popcorn at the hangings or whatever (thinking of what I read at the link at comment #9) except this: as long as we’re putting anyone to death, there’s a danger that we’ll put to death an innocent person.
We just can’t seem to keep it in our heads that we’re not infallible. I’d rather we paid for monsters to spend the rest of their lives in prison than risk executing one innocent man (person).
The other thing about executing people that worries me—-This, of course, is tied to how easily deceived we are—- is that it could become just too handy a way of certain powerful people getting rid of guilty and innocent people they don’t want talking.
In my opinion the state in return for seeking justice, and meeting out justice for an individual that has been victimized is rooted in ancient English common law. It avoids endless blood feuds for a real, or perceived injury as the victim of a crime.
Laws do not prevent crimes. Laws provide for a consistent prosecution of those that commit crimes, and to provide justice for the victims of crimes.
If there is doubt, sure. In Ricky’s case, there was no doubt.
If the case is clear, then justice is called for.
But there will always be cases that can be made to look clear.
Not sure that solves the problem; isn’t there still a danger that an innocent person spends the rest of their lives in prison?
Personally, I think locking somebody up for life, with no hope of release, is far more cruel than just killing them.
For that and other reasons, prison should be humane.
That depends somewhat on prison conditions, doesn’t it ?
Yep.
Fine. Send them to me. I will do it.
The state does not kill them. The jury of peers hears the case, and makes the decision.
Our judicial system has been bastardized in these lengthy stays. That is cruel, but unfortunately, usual.
Those powerful people would never wait for something like that to play out.
*cough*cough*Epstein didn’t kill himself*cough*cough*
;)