Crime and Punishment: Death Penalty

Opposition to the death penalty comes in two forms. The first is the what-if-they-are-actually-innocent argument that Northwestern University in Chicago has based much of their research. The second is a philosophical and ‘principled’ stand holding that states shouldn’t have the power to take life even for horrific crimes.

The debate over capital punishment today is mostly a debate over the legality of the procedure or procedures.  Some high profile cases always pop up showing how ineffective (and occasionally biased) the system can be. How many prisoners have been wrongly convicted by a bent jury and weak defense? Famously Northwestern University reviewed a handful of cases and managed to get many guilty verdicts overturned on an appeal. Many contained forced confessions, some hinged on inconsistent eye witness testimony or had false forensic evidence. Every time a case gets overturned and a convicted man or woman released I feel a pang of sadness that such an injustice occurred. I also get a sense that something fundamental needs to change in the court system.

 First Principles doesn’t pretend to know how to fix every situation but understand the tendency to get offenders off the street and put future victims at risk.

 If your argument is we can’t execute because they might be innocent, you aren’t arguing against having a death penalty just applying it in questionable cases. I believe in capital punishment because life is sacred. That might sound odd so let me phrase it like this: Protecting the innocent trumps saving the guilty. Societies that value life have a moral obligation to uphold justice for innocents killed. An element of “Let the punishment fit the crime” exists in some form; this tit for tat motto is about proportionality. Its purpose is justice and doesn’t consider reform or deterrence. Punishment is rooted in paying back what was taken, squaring the debt to society in accordance with principles of proportionality (retributive justice). Men who refuse to pay child support often have wages garnished. Thieves spend time in prison and speeders pay fines, both punishments are proportional to the crime. We wouldn’t put someone with outstanding parking fees in jail for 20 years.

Many Christians like to quote the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill” as a biblical rebuke to capital punishment. But the text isn’t referring to judicial or governing bodies, only individuals. The word “kill” isn’t about a punishment only a crime. No one complains when a deadbeat dad is sued and the court orders he pay money owed from future wages. In other words no one says when the court takes the man’s money “Though shalt not steal” although ‘stealing’ is exactly what taking earned wages means.  Most people understand the courts exist to seek justice and taking wages fits the crime. Some courts even award punitive damages on top of the amount being requested. Talk about stealing huh? The state (expressed through the courts) exists as a mechanism for applying law, punishing the guilty and seeking justice for victims.

Capital punishment as a tool of the state is under assault from drug makers.

 Manufacturers have started refusing to sell the 3 execution drugs involved in lethal injections on principle. Just this last week Arkansas tried to move up the execution schedule since the drugs used to execute will expire at the end of the month. The pharmaceutical company responsible (Pfizer) for the selling the drugs to Arkansas managed to get a federal judge to suspend the executions on the basis they were purchased under false pretenses. The company is probably responding to public pressure more than anything. This is still worrying because of the shift in attitudes among the public on lethal injection, if there really is a shift.

  

The point here is that anti-capital punishment advocates are finding clever ways to stop executions going forward. Pressuring pharmaceutical companies to stop selling the deadly mixes and using courts to issue injunctions are some of the latest tactics. Their adherence to principle is admirable but consider the philosophical ramifications of not putting murderous criminals to death when most every part of the law hinges on the ‘eye for an eye’ principle. Life gets devalued.

The rights of the guilty overtake justice for the innocent.

Life in prison is not an acceptable alternative to death. It doesn’t matter if the life in prison comes with hard labor and difficult circumstances. The toughness or ease of the sentence is beside the point. Societies should value life and the inherent blessing it represents. Taking one means losing another.

Whatever problems exist in the courts the death penalty needs to remain a viable method of punishment for murderers. Justice is often slow and fraught with error and imperfection but if we throw out capital punishment we lose the ability to correctly apply the law as it was established for the worst offenders.