Why The Death Penalty Makes Sense
Introduction
Maybe watching a bunch of historical murder documentaries has taken its toll on me, but I would like to write this. I've wanted to write it for a long time, in fact.
I have thought a lot about the death penalty
for certain criminals and crimes. And I would like to
address why I think the death penalty is a good idea for the
most violent offenders. I have patterned it in part after
the ACLU's article The
Case Against The Death Penalty. But there are points
in the ACLU's document that I will agree with.
Capital Punishment is Not Cruel and Unusual
The ACLU claims the death penalty is a relic of early penal system problems like slavery and branding. I believe the ACLU did not go far enough backwards in history, and I am actually surprised they didn't claim that the Jewish Levitical system was the first instance of this.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, one could use the evolutionary argument and say that we came from animals, and animals in the animal kingdom regularly kill and eat each other. I would imagine this makes it at least "natural," but I digress. This is not a complete or logical argument, mind you, because that could sound like I am justifying cannibalism. I am not justifying cannibalism. But I am saying that the ACLU's argument smacks of claiming that human beings have this nice veneer of civility.
I would juxtapose the horrors of many murderers. What I mean by this is that serial killers would meet the definition of non-humans, in the sense of some committed so many barbaric murders that it would be difficult to say they meet the definition of modern civility, and much less even normal animal behavior. You see, animals kill and eat each other for food. So many serial killers killed for sport and to derive pleasure from their victims, something unnatural even in the animal kingdom.
So my point here is that murders who do things that are cruel and unusual should not be exempt from punishments cruel and unusual. I would cautiously point out that I am not saying we should derive pleasure from the death penalty. However, I believe there are at least a few who would deserve the death penalty. For instance, Richard Ramirez, serial killer in California. California will soon not have the death penalty. Would not someone like Richard Ramirez who killed 15+ victims deserve the death penalty once properly convicted?
Capital Punishment Does Not Deny Due Process of Law
The ACLU argues that the death penalty makes it impossible for new evidence or laws to come out. This is true to a point. And thus I why I would add to my own caution that any death penalty should never be applied until/unless the evidence against the accused is indisputable. Previously, this was not as possible before things like DNA and camera surveillance. I know that people have been put to death for crimes they didn't commit. And this would also be my concern about circumstantial evidence: I have never supported the concept of circumstantial evidence. The Bible (Deuteronomy 19:15) specified that people can only be put to death on the testimony of 2-3 eye witnesses. Even if we considered DNA evidence one witness and video surveillance a witness, the video surveillance footage would have to be clear enough to positively identify, and not all video surveillance on most historical murder documentaries is clear enough.
Another caveat to due process would be that the appeals of convicted killers should be irrevocable. This process helps us make sure the innocent are not killed.
However, what type of new evidence or law would come out to reverse the convictions of, for example, a serial killer like Richard Ramirez? Likely, none. For someone convicted by overwhelming evidence, someone whom the court system provides with all their due appeals, there's no reason why capital punishment necessarily removes due process.
The Death Penalty Does Not Violate Constitutional Equal Protection
The ACLU claims that the death penalty is applied randomly and discriminatorily. To a point, yes, and yet no. Yes in the sense that the various US states have slightly different laws. And historically, yes, it appears to be random and discriminatory. There has been past abuse of the death penalty, I agree, and these are things we should beware of. However, to me this is sort of a separate conversation, as there are many places within the US legal system that could use watchdogs or even checks and balances, or an inspection system. What I mean here is that discrimination in the legal system is a widespread thing, not limited to the death penalty, though it appears to be getting better.
I would like to say that there are major reforms the legal system needs. For example, it appears that having enough money to defend yourself results in the rich getting away with crimes, while the poor get more severely punished for wrongs. This would actually be a place to apply mandatory minimum sentences to ensure that people do not get away with crimes just because of their money. Another control would be for the legal system to start paying their public defenders more, as well as not overloading them with too many cases. This is a very common complaint among public defenders. For any accused person to lack adequate and equal representation means there is injustice within the justice system.
However, when the evidence is overwhelming, there's really nothing a public defender can do to prevent a criminal going to jail. So in cases where the evidence is overwhelming, I don't see how the death penalty violates constitutional equal protection. Is it applied randomly? Yes, and I think the solution here would be to implement a "three strikes" law, in that three murder or rape convictions that all had undeniable evidence should result in the death penalty.
The Death Penalty is not a Viable Form of Crime Control, but Irrelevant
The ACLU claims that the death penalty is not a viable form of crime control. I actually agree here. But at this point, I don't think it matters. If we use the 2-3 strikes rule proposal, the point is to remove someone who cannot refrain from raping or killing from society, for society's good.
The ACLU's point hinges on the death penalty not being an adequate crime deterrent. I would argue that maybe this is because of how it is enacted. Now, before I begin, I am generally against cruel and unusual punishment. However, a death penalty that is an expensive death cocktail that kills without pain is not going to be a deterrent anyways.
In order to make the death penalty a deterrent, it would need to be a horrible way to die. I would be willing to bet that, historically, death penalties like crucifixion, beheading, and hanging had more deterrent value. But because these methods are not widely used, it would be difficult to research their deterrent value.
The Death Penalty Wastes Limited Resources
The ACLU claims the death penalty wastes
limited resources. I agree in the sense of the way it is
currently administered is expensive. The solution here
then would be a fast and cheap method of death. Beheading
via guillotine would be a much cheaper way of administering it.
Opposing the Death Penalty Indicates a Lack of Sympathy for Murder Victims
The ACLU claims that opposing the death penalty doesn't indicate a lack of sympathy for murder victims. I disagree. In fact, I think opposing the death penalty, even if only for serial offenders, indicate a lack of desire to protect society. Someone how, for instance, rapes 3 women, should not ever be allowed to walk among society, for they have made it abundantly clear that they will do it again. Note that serial offenders are rare, and it is mainly serial offenders that I speak of.
A Society that Respects Life Can Justify Killing Human Beings
The ACLU claims that a society that respects life cannot justify the death penalty. I disagree. Indeed, I believe it is a cruel justice system which would allow someone who has been irrefutably shown to be guilty of 3 violent crimes to be released from prison in the first place. A society that is collectively unable to look evil in the eye, call it what it is, and punish it, becomes a cruel and abusive environment.
Again, I believe the death penalty should be the very last resort, and only for the most violent of offenders. A society that over-uses the death penalty becomes a cruel and oppressive society. But a society that is unable to punish extremes of evil becomes equally cruel and oppressive. I believe there is a balance to be sought.
Punishment can only be a Deterrent if it is Consistently and Properly Employed
The ACLU believes punishments can only be a deterrent if consistently and properly employed. I agree. But the ironic thing is the ACLU rushes to the conclusion that this means the death penalty is a bad idea. An equally logical conclusion is that we should simply reform the way it is employed so that it is more consistent and proper.
People Who Commit Violent Crimes Often Do Not Premeditate their Crimes
The ACLU believes that people who commit violent crimes don't usually plan them out. So long as we go with statistics other than just prisoner/inmate self-report, sure, I agree with the ACLU. But this still does not prove that they are undeserving of the death penalty. If I assault someone without planning it ahead of time, is it not still assault? Does it become less of a heinous crime just because I didn't plan it?
Again, I don't think that all criminals who commit one violent crime automatically deserve the death penalty. I believe the death penalty should be reserved for the most violent among us. However, I find whether the crime was premeditated or not to be of no legal consequence. It may differentiate different forms of murder, but does not the person who didn't plan to kill 3+ people still commit a rather heinous crime?
Permanent Imprisonment is Not Severe Enough to Deter Criminals
The ACLU ironically then writes that if severe punishment is a sufficient deterrent, then life in prison is severe enough. I have a hard time believing this, given how luxurious some US prisons are. Yes, you heard that right. How do I know? I met plenty of people during jail chaplaincy who intentionally committed crimes in order to be in jail because they were homeless, or because jail protects them from something or someone.
Another layer to this would be that those who are serial offenders often have no remorse. They often have antisocial personality disorder or other grave mental illnesses or personality disorders that prevent them from benefiting from deterrence. If anything, I believe that the right to remain alive should be decided by society in the case of the most severe of offenders. Not because the will of the masses is a source of truth, mind you.
The current recidivism rate in the US is roughly 75%. This means only 25% of criminals are rehabilitated. This is by the FBI's own statistics. This means that our penal system is failing to rehabilitate.
Capital Punishment is Irreversible
The ACLU points out that capital punishment is irreversible. I agree. But while the ACLU tends to use this to prove that the death penalty is bad, I would instead point out that an equally logical conclusion would be to ensure adequate safeguards are in place so that no one who is innocent is executed.
Capital Punishment is Not (Very) Barbaric
The ACLU claims that death penalty methods such as hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, and even lethal injection are barbaric. Maybe this is the case. However, I would point out that it is the crimes that the serial offender engages in that would more than justify this. For example, again, Richard Rodriguez. He brutally killed, raped, and beat many people. How do the crimes of someone like Richard Rodriguez not justify the death penalty?
I think in this case an analytical, mathematical mentality would be beneficial. Someone who engaged in barbaric crimes should not be exempt from so-called barbaric punishments. If anything, it would make analytical sense: for instance, the person who brutally tortured and killed someone should not be exempt from some sort of "barbaric" punishment like hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, etc. Granted, I say this carefully, but I believe probably the best punishment would likely be beheading. But I do not say this out of some sort of lust to see a beheading. I say this to acknowledge it is likely the fastest method that is not excessively expensive to administer (such as lethal injection).
Capital Punishment is Not Unjustified Retribution
Here the ACLU's document is strange, as it seems to claim retribution is not a moral construct, it then claims that if retribution is morally legitimate, that life in prison is enough retribution. At this point, due to the US prison systems, I would argue that it's not enough retribution. Here's why.
It is a known fact that prisons, especially in the USA, are rather luxurious. It has been claimed, though I am only mentioning it as a rumor because I have no concrete evidence, that prisoners who know how to use the system and behave well can have a life almost like being in the military dorm system: a place to live, a job, access to food, gym equipment, reading materials, etc. Now I do not argue that we should remove these luxuries. I am arguing that such a life for the most heinous of offenders is unwarranted. Again, someone like Richard Rodriguez, who killed 14+ people, does not deserve such luxuries. They deserve to die for their crimes.
Murder Victims Families Oppose the Death Penalty
The ACLU claims that some murder victim families oppose the death penalty. That may be, and it doesn't bother me. However, I do not think the whims of the families of murder victims justify keeping serial offenders alive.
Capital Punishment Costs More Than Incarceration
The ACLU argues that capital punishment
costs more than incarceration. I would agree, and this is
why I think cheaper methods of execution should be found and
implemented, so long as they are also not cruel and
unusual. Such as possibly the guillotine or firing squad.
Capital Punishment is Less Popular Than the Alternatives
The ACLU argues that capital punishment is less popular than the alternatives. I don't really care much whether the public disagrees or agrees, however. The will of the masses can become rule by mob, so popular opinion is not by itself a valid moral compass.
The Will of the Rest of the World
The ACLU argues that the rest of the world views the death penalty is inhumane and anachronistic. Again, I don't think the will of the rest of the world is a valid refutation of whether the death penalty is moral or immoral.
Summary
There are some valid complaints about the death penalty. However, it is my opinion that these are not sufficient to say that the death penalty needs to be abolished.