KILL! pt 2

KILL! pt 2
by Dave Munger

Part one: I trace the evolution of my thoughts on capital punishment (from pro to anti-anti death), and support for executing people other than the ones currently subject to the death penalty. Next, I pointed out that George W is not personally responsible for every decision that Texas voters make. Then followed a section ridiculing the absurdity of arguments alleging that capital punishment is racist, pointing out that this is an argument for more killing rather than less. I also attempted to hit on Eileen Ciesla, but I worded it poorly and the editor changed it to "a good natured jab".

Of the common argument offered against capital punishment, most of them are despicably elitist. The death penalty is opposed most vocally by those who wish to prove themselves superior to the majority of Americans. A traditional sense of justice is equated with Lee-Press-On-Nails and smart shoes. Superiority arguments also tend to use a distorted version of Judeo-Christian morality, in which human life is held to be "sacred", or of infinite value. Jews and Christians however, have always held that life is of great, but finite value. Life is to be taken only for the sake of something held to be of greater value, such as a larger number of lives. Think of Abraham, prepared to sacrifice Isaac.

Minus nonsense such as: "Killing them lowers us to their level", "Killing them won't bring their victims back", and "Killing them is simple vengeance" (A: More elitism; Concern for what "level" one occupies is not among the honorable reasons not to kill. B: It's not supposed to. C: It is a lawful penalty for certain crimes. Vengeance is personal, carried out by the wronged party.), all that remains is the argument that mistakes are made and innocent people get killed.

Now that's more like it. At the very least, the possibility of innocence is a mighty fine reason for not executing the individual in question. And assuming that everyone convicted actually has been proven guilty would be tantamount to saying that jurors are unusually intelligent, and lawyers honest.

This only supports capital punishment, however, if it can be proven that the death penalty does not accomplish anything of greater value than the number of lives lost by mistake. Assuming that the value of human life is finite (which is necessary for practical purposes anyway-all political decisions down to voting are essentially a matter of who you choose to have killed), it should be possible that it is worthwhile as a whole. The deterrent effect has never really been disproved. When a nation or a state's murder rates fall low enough, they eliminate capital punishment. When the murder rates are high, capital punishment falls out of disfavor. Progressives then point out the statistical fact that regions without the death penalty have low murder rates.

Counting the satisfaction that families of victims may feel on the other hand (as proponents usually do), strengthens the argument that executions are mere acts of vengeance.

There are two possible advantages that sway me towards approval of capital punishment. One is the political advantage it gives to the right wing. I can't think of anyone so innocent I would hesitate to kill them to keep Democrats out of office, as they are responsible for the deaths of a very large number of innocents.

The other is the extremely unambiguous message of disapproval it sends. If we were able to send such messages when they are really needed, capital punishment would accomplish enough to justify the occasional wrongful execution. However, currently and for the foreseeable future, the death penalty is only used against people found guilty of those crimes considered maximally heinous by absolutely everyone. By killing Ted Bundy, the message that we sent (disapproval) was really rather redundant. Charles Manson lives, and still it is clear that society strongly disapproves of his crimes. On the other hand, incredibly despicable crimes are committed, for which there is no real hope for capital punishment, because of public sympathy for the criminal. Embarrassed preppy kids smash a baby's head to keep his existence secret, and are invariably charged with SECOND degree murder. Literal crucifixion of such tragically romantic 'star-crossed lovers' would send a message that needs to be sent, one not of reassurance, but of menace: "IF YOU DO THIS, WE WILL TORTURE YOU TO DEATH."

Wherever public sympathy arises for those who confess to serious crimes (not limited to murder), a grizzly example needs to be made. Executing Mary K. Laternou, for example, would be more justifiable than executing any murderer, because it would accomplish more by sending a strong message of societal disapproval. That would be particularly necessary in this case, since the criminal is so vocally proud of her crime; there is public sympathy, and the perpetrator is using the 'star-crossed lover' angle to turn the nation of France against us. Such a message is already sent by imprisonment, but not as clearly as by public immolation or flaying. The more public support there is for the death penalty, the less necessary it is.