Death, Deterrents and Dignity

As a logical being, meaning as a Constitutional conservative, I'm a bit incredulous toward anyone purporting to disavow the deterrent nature of the Death Penalty - fairly, quickly and predictably applied. Addressing the "quick" and "predictable" aspects of this equation require a comprehensive review & reform of the American legal system. Addressing the question of "fairness" in the Death Penalty, however, is another mater.

There are two root reasons for implementing and supporting the death as a "fair" penalty for murder:

1. Deterrence
2. Dignity

Deterrence:

Most opponents to the Death Penalty with whom I've spoken (ok, argued) claim that the Death Penalty can't act as an effective deterrence because would be murders either commit their crimes in the heat of a passionate moment or through the type of conniving common only among those who don't think they'll get caught. In either case, they argue, the Death Penalty can't pose an onerous, logical impediment - no matter how quickly and predictably applied. Those who aren't thinking or don't think they'll get caught equally won't be deterred by a dispassionate legal framework.

The error of this reasoning, in my mind, is pretty self-apparent. First, the Death Penalty is not a punishment meted out simply for murder. The Death Penalty is a separate jury consideration AFTER someone has been found guilty of murder. It is the ultimate punishment only for crimes uniquely deserving. Thus, run of the mill, crime of passion murders don't normally merit this verdict. Second, there is nothing unfair about giving punishment to someone too so arrogant to both assume they should take human life AND that their cleverness is beyond comprehension.

Third, these two arguments lead to the absurd claim that there can be NO deterrence from punishment for someone who either isn't thinking or who thinks they won't fall under judgment. As I said, this is simply absurd. We punish offenders because to not punish would be unfair to the victims. If there must be unfairness, I would rather it be against a convicted offender, not an innocent victim.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

We also punish offenders because common sense informs us that the specter of punishment does deter some crime. The obviousness of this can be seen in the following example:

Understanding that isolated crimes of passion rarely face Death Penalty treatment, the example to consider is the diabolically thoughtful murder. Such a murder is someone full of angst enough to be consumed by hate. This person could take their own life or they can lash out to take that of someone else. Why don't they just kill themselves to surely end it all? Obviously, they either value their own life, their own death is a matter of fear or they perversely thrill on the adrenalin rush. In these cases, the Death Penalty is a fair deterrent and equal punishment.

Dignity:

The above perspective is entirely conditioned upon this much deeper principle: Through death, a murderer commits the ultimate offense against human dignity and by extension, against the dignity of human society as a whole. If we value human life as being of ultimate value, then to snuff out that life is an ultimate offense. Ultimate offenses demand ultimate punishment. Ending the offender's life is that punishment. In our system, this punishment is leveraged through a double finding of guilt and is administered with layered measures to seek painlessness and dignity for the guilty. We do this because just as the victim's life is of dignity, so to is that of the offender. That's why our system doesn't bow to the fringe elements fomenting for pain and torture to be executed upon the guiltily as payment for their ultimate offense.

The beauty and dignity of every human is the seeming trump card in this debate.

Yes, the "seeming" trump card.

For, just as I'm a Constitutional Conservative, I am also someone who wants to pursue the path of Christ. In this, I am unnerved by the stream of investigations, reports and lobbying efforts which are uncovering and freeing numerous folks who were formerly convicted of murder, found deserving of the Death Penalty and later determined to be innocent. If the Death Penalty is "fair" because of the way it honors and balances the dignity of humanity, what do we say when it unjustly, and unfairly takes innocent life?

I don't know.

Is there a way to honor the dignity of the victim, protect the dignity of society through deterrence and still honor the dignity of the accused inn light of a court system which largely gets it right, but sometimes does mistakenly condemn the innocent along indignant lines of class, race or even looks?

More thoughts to come. . .

On Principle,

CBass