Last night my wife and I went out for dinner and some beers with two couples who are friends of ours, Amie and Duffy, and Brooke and Matt. We had a grand time, and enjoyed the Greek food, the beers, and our somewhat high strung waiter, George. After dinner we ambled over to a small little hole-in-the-wall bar, located smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood. the bar itself was a house. It was the kind of place that only serves the basic domestic beers, and only takes cash. (Thanks for the beers Matt). It was under these optimum conditions that the debate began.
I forget how it got started, but somehow we got into a discussion of the death penalty. Matt and Duffy support the death penalty. I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. I think it’s wrong for a government to kill another human being. I think, in fact, that the deliberate killing of another human is always wrong. This was my initial point, but somehow I made the classic blunder when it comes to a death penalty discussion: I allowed myself to debate the the merits and implementation of the death penalty, rather than the morality of it. The minute one begins debating these finer points, you lose. Essentially you are saying that while the death penalty is wrong, if you’re going to have it, this is how it should be used.
There is no question that the death penalty is implemented poorly for a wide variety of reasons. Innocent people get killed. The time between sentencing and actually carrying out the sentence is ridiculously long. The methods of execution are questionable in terms of cruelty. Sentences should be carried out publicly. The list goes on and on.
The list of the benefits of the death penalty is shorter. The obvious benefit, one which I was trying not to admit last night, is that if you’re dead, you’re not going to commit another crime. That’s really about it, since its value a deterrent of crime for living people is also questionable.
The thing is, whether it’s implemented perfectly or not, it’s still wrong to kill another person. Believe me, I understand the desire for revenge. Never does a week go by that I don’t hear about some crime or heinous act that I think, “Man, that guy needs to be locked up for the rest of his life.” I certainly know that my own desire to kill someone who harmed me or my family would be strong, perhaps uncontrollable. But that’s the point. As humans we must struggle overcome our desires for revenge and retribution. We must be more civilized than the criminals who we are punishing. This is a basic first step in creating a better world in which to live.
This is not to say that, unfortunately, killing another person isn’t sometimes necessary. If someone was going to harm me or my family, and all other options had been eliminated, I wouldn’t hesitate to kill them. I understand that war puts soldiers in this position daily. I realize criminals put police officers in this position daily as well. I know that our only option with many terrorists is to kill them. Necessity, however, doesn’t make something right. It just makes it necessary. And there is a big difference between shooting someone who has broken into your house and who is going to hurt you, and killing a convict ten or fifteen years after the fact.
It is true also that no matter how long sociologists study the problems and causes of crime in our society, there are people out there who are bad. There are individuals who are criminals through and through and the only way to deal with these people is to remove them from society forever. So do it. Put them in prison and never let them out. This is actually worse, in my opinion, than death. As far as the cost goes, yes, it will cost money to keep them alive, but far less than the current expense to execute just one death row inmate. And even if it did cost more to keep a criminal alive in prison than to execute them, that’s fine too. At least we could say we are a civilized, merciful society, regardless of whether or not the convict is. Plus there are all kinds of reforms we could impose on our prisons to make them more cost effective. I am much more comfortable with the idea of a person living in a man-made hell on earth then I am with the government killing that person in my name.
It has been a long time since I’ve had a vigorous discussion of an important topic with worthy opponents. It was refreshing and frustrating at the same time. I liked the argument, but I didn’t make my point as clearly as I would have liked. There are many changes to the implementation of the death penalty that I would make if I had to be in charge, as well as the prison system. (Perhaps these ideas will be in another post soon). But this does not mean the death penalty is right. I still think it is morally wrong, and every state in the union should abolish it now.