Toward a Better Society

In advocating for abolition of the death penalty the argument I have the most difficulty countering is “he probably committed some heinous crime” if not this one. He deserves whatever he gets. It’s hard because there is an element of truth to it. Most people on death row are really bad actors. Most of them committed the crimes they were charged with. Even if they didn’t prosecutors had no difficulty in painting them as fiends and a public menace. But some of the convicted almost certainly did not do the deed. The truly guilty have gone unpunished. Some death row inmates may not have committed any serious crime. That ought to bother us all. I find it disturbing that it does not. If we are to be a civilized society we must do all we can to ensure that we convict criminals only for crimes they are actually guilty of. We can't be hanging people on principal just for being despicable characters. In our current system it is entirely too common that we do just that. Aside from that I don’t oppose capital punishment on grounds of morality or injustice. On the contrary I believe the public has every moral and civic right to decide what the appropriate punishment should be for various crimes, including the death penalty. The Good Thief who died at Calvary with Christ was right. He was guilty of his crimes and his punishment was just. But I am concerned less about the thief than about the society that put him on that cross. I wonder how far we’ve really come. It’s fair to argue that we can’t compare modern American jurisprudence with Roman brutality. We don’t send slaves to the salt mines any more. Nor do we use religious minorities as human torches. But our progress is fragile. It wasn’t that long ago Japanese troops were raping their way across China and Germans were exterminating Jews at Auschwitz. Both those nations have looked into the abyss and promised never again. Both have also abolished the death penalty. They are better for it and we will be better for it when we follow suit. The problem is that its only real purpose is revenge, one of our baser instincts. We no longer need it for its only legitimate purpose, the maintenance of public order. We are perfectly capable of incarcerating criminals and keeping them safely away from the public for as long as we see fit. It has been often demonstrated that forty or more years in a maximum security prison is significantly less expensive than carrying out an execution. There is no convincing evidence that fear of the death penalty is a serious deterrent. There is much evidence that it is not. Punishment is neither swift nor certain. Charges are rare, convictions more so, and appeals interminable. Prosecutorial use of the penalty in plea bargaining is a deplorable exercise in coercion. It is understandable that families of victims often want “closure” through the death of the perpetrator but understandable or not it is still vengeance. Most psychologists say any such closure is elusive. Most of us consider ourselves principled people if not idealists. We hold the protections of our constitution up to the world as representative of our values. Many other nations have adopted them as their own. We pride ourselves on having emerged from the dungeons of medieval inquisition into trial by jury and right of appeal, both of which represent important but imperfect advancements. Juries make too many mistakes. So do appeals courts and, lengthy as they are, appeals are usually quite limited in scope. It may well be true that in most cases of state sanctioned execution justice has been served. It is my contention that in no case has society at large benefited. It is bad public policy and the practice should be stopped.