The death penalty is a crime asserts Mike Willard by the title to the foregoing article. Well, yes and maybe. But, if true, he can only mean it in Webster's second definition; that is, "an offense against morality; sin" as the death penalty surely isn't "an act committed in violation of a law prohibiting it" (at least in the United States).
And so we descend immediately into that abyss wherein philosophers and sages of the ages have conjured, contemplated, argued and frequently discoursed before leaving others to continue in pursuit of the logic and rightness of it all.
Naturally, as the one with first debate Mike has chosen the high ground. He is against sin. And I, as usual am left to defend sin. And he baits me, praising while faintly damning, with talk of dogs, children and old folks (why not Tom T. Hall's famous old dogs and children and watermelon wine for greater effect?). For the record: I don't like dogs that live in small apartments in big cities (more correctly, I object to people enslaving them); I will discuss matters with children as long as they are at least 17 and show proper respect; and having become old, I'm reconsidering my position on the subject.
Now to this crime-moral issue.
First, as a moral issue, it inevitably must be decided more by opinion. Yes, there are facts that must be considered. But, many of the "facts" generated (on both sides), on inspection, prove to be more opinion and interpretation of statistics and numbers than facts. (Plus, there are too a number of bald-faced lies, frequently repeated though demonstratively false.) Second, the issue for any given society has to be decided. Philosophers may dwell, but a society in a given time must conclude. So I have decided for myself as follows:
1. A society that is just and deserving to be called civilized must be opposed to barbarity and thus, must impose the death penalty for certain well-defined and particularly heinous acts committed against that society.
2. More people agree with the substance of the foregoing conclusion than do not.
3. A society that would impose the death penalty has great obligation to see that it is imposed fairly, non-discriminatorily and with a diminimus possibility of error.
OK. In setting forth the above I assert my opinion only. Just as Mike did in his title. (His arguments, I will respond to shortly.)
I, happily, understand that my opinion in this matter is not the one most prevalent in the high minded corridors of power in certain nations (I have in mind, in particular, those of Western Europe) that consider themselves civilized and above barbarity.
I say happily above because, at least on this issue, I believe myself not just contrary, but democratic. This goes to my belief stated above as to what the people would decide. But then again, in those corridors of power I mention, a lot of decisions are made for the people. That is, "for their good", "have to save the people from those baser instincts you know", etc. ad nauseam. And never forget: "some are more equal than others"-more moral?
(Aside: Ukraine is a civilized, moral country having abolished the death penalty. Naturally this was in a vote in which a plurality agreed. Right? Or was it to one day perhaps join the civilized, but only sometimes democratic European Union? But, of course it was the moral fortitude of the great leaders of Ukraine in their haste to avoid sinking to barbarity that help charter this renaissance of the people.)
Quickly, in rebuttal to Mike's "facts":
--"...in the U.S. has sent--to our knowledge-- 23 innocent people to the gallows (or death chamber, or electric chair, or firing squad)." False. In fact, there is no substantiation of any innocent person since 1900 in the U.S. having been executed. The "innocent" 23 refers to a study by Bedau & Radelet, Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases, 40 Stanford Law Rev. 21 (1987). After much criticism the authors retracted their conclusions: "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed we had." (41, 1 Stanford Law Rev., 11/1/88). And there are groups that claim now that over 100 "innocents" have been executed. They are similarly wrong having manipulated statistics and distorted reasons for court reversals. In fact, most of their "evidence" only leads to the conclusion that error in actual death of innocents is not happening.
Now I will accept as fact that there have been rare occasions where error has resulted in the death of innocents. Life and the operation of any society are not without risks. And if we eliminated automobiles from society we would have no deaths from automobiles. And to address risk in a "it's better that 100 (1,000? 10,000?) men go free than one innocent be executed" is to reduce argument to absurdity. (There surely must be some costs to society with even
a few guilty murderers or rapists and such bantering about the countryside.)
Costs of life without parole versus the death penalty, the deterrent factor (or lack thereof as my old law Professor Charlie Miller would assert), new science in the area of DNA and such can all be analyzed and debated. It really matters not. (Does anyone remember that not so long ago there were only two effective laboratories in the U.S. to handle DNA analysis? when the civil libertarians were against the production of DNA evidence on 4th Amendment grounds?
I wish I had more space to go into issues. I've some experience. I've defended a murderer, rapists; I've interviewed those convicted of capital offenses; and I've sat with those who've defended death penalty cases and known of their despair when the word came from the Supreme Court that the midnight motion had been denied
Just societies require some closure on violations of its most cherished precepts. There must be some vindication (no, not revenge) of societies inherent right to protect itself and the value of the lives of its members.
Life does have value. Historically civilized societies have recognized this. Where the death penalty can be enforced fairly against only certain agreed upon acts that are outside societies norms, it still should be. Only the barbarians disagree.
|
