Google the news with the phrase “death penalty” and you will get almost 15,000 hits. The penalty of death, it would seem, is a topic of conversation. Much of this conversation revolves around the repeal of the death penalty. Since the death penalty is the most violent, final, and theatrical punishment our system of justice can offer, the death penalty, naturally, is one place where bleeding hearts focus their energies to “reform the system.”
Bleeding hearts castigate the death penalty as immoral, and the Christians amongst them point to verses in the Bible such as this:
Eye for Eye
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (from Matthew 5:38-42)
Taken out of context, some portions of the Bible have been construed such that some believe it supports pacifism. However, since the same God directed the Israelites to conduct warfare, that hardly seems likely. In fact, when such verses are considered in context, it becomes apparent that what God is against is hatred and vengeance, not self-defense.
Nonetheless, the arguments of bleeding hearts are not entirely without merit. Our system of justice speaks in terms of judgment and punishment. We empower our juries to determine “guilt,” and we empower our judges to judge and pronounce appropriate punishments. Yet none of us can see into another’s heart and soul. Beyond a reasonable doubt, we can only determine whether or not someone has committed a crime. None of us have the right to judge another.
Realizing that we cannot judge each other, the death penalty’s defenders argue that the death penalty is a deterrent, but that is not true either. In our era what the death penalty provides is imperfect retribution. As a practical matter, the bleeding hearts have already defeated the death penalty. With 26 executions, one state, Texas, accounted for 62 percent of this year’s executions (see here).
So what should Republicans do? One thing Republicans cannot do is run on the death penalty. When Jerry Kilgore ran against our current governor, Tim Kaine, Kilgore made an issue of the death penalty. To his chagrin, Kilgore found out that this issue did not help him. While most voters support the death penalty, with the exception of the bleeding hearts, most have more important concerns. In fact, many voters tend become uncomfortable with a candidate who has a fixation on killing people.
Nonetheless, Republicans can turn the repeal of the death penalty against Democrats. Republicans can use this issue to point out how the proponents of big government have undermined our system of justice.
The administration of justice is the principle reason we have government, but our government has taken upon itself innumerable tasks that have nothing to do with the administration of justice. This simple fact in an of itself constitutes a grave problem. While Democrats like to portray themselves as superb “managers” who can fix all our problems, there is an obvious flaw with this electioneering ploy. Mere human beings (even Democrats are merely human) can only handle so much. So it is that the more tasks we give our elected leaders (and government itself), the less perfectly our government functions.
Because there is no simple way to provide justice, there is no way around this problem. Murder, robbery, fraud, law suits, and so forth leave people no place to turn except government. Careful investigation is required because each case is unique and demands individual attention. Because the outcome of each case is guaranteed to profoundly alter people’s lives, our need for justice requires the dedication of our most respected citizens.
Unfortunately, it would appear we have actually executed innocent people (see here). Nevertheless, politicians who complain the death penalty is not being administered fairly often demand that government take on more tasks. How can these demands make any sense? Is the repeal of the death penalty alone enough to fix our system of justice? Is locking up innocent people instead of executing them a fix?
Even if the death penalty repealed, isn’t a fix is still needed? Why not make that fix less government? Leave the extravagant promises to Democrats. Republicans can promise to do the things government is suppose to do well. Republicans can point to the death penalty and concede that this penalty has been imperfectly and erratically applied. Then they can ask a question. How is making our government bigger and bigger going to make our system of justice work better?
Other Views
Texas Blogs
Prairie Pundit defends the death penalty here and here.
Texas Moratorium Network promotes anti-death penalty candidates (here) and argues against the death penalty here.
Virginia Blogs
Democratic Central provides the history of the United Kingdom’s repeal of the death penalty (here) and reviews waning support for the death penalty (here).
Cobalt06 (here) and Craig’s Musings (here) call upon Virginians to follow New Jersey’s example.
Below the Beltway concedes the fairness of New Jersey’s repeal (here).
QandO considers the death penalty as a deterent (here).
From on High argues that the death penalty is a deterrent (here).
Observation
If the amount of blogging on the subject is any indication, bleeding hearts are more motivated by this issue.
Well, although I would not consider myself a bleeding heart, I am definitely against the death penalty. Statistics alone demonstrate that the death penalty fails to act as a deterrent. Or, as you point out, that states have put innocent people to death which I consider a far worse problem then having a large number of people in prison for life. The death penalty appeals to our worse instincts for vengeance far more than our intellectual desire for justice and fairness.
Craig — Thank you for your comment.
Ethics can be very personal. Whether your heart bleeds is for you to decide. The problem is motivation, and what motivates people to promote (or fight) the death penalty varies.
Vengeance I think most would agree is immoral. Based upon the need for self defense, the deterrence argument, however, has a certain indisputable validity. Once a killer is dead, it is rather difficult for that killer to kill again.
As to whether the death of a killer deters other possible killers, I do not know. I do not think our society makes any serious effort to use the execution one killer to deter other killers. We conduct executions in private (to avoid any appeal to our worse instincts for vengeance).
In any event, how does one measure motivation? What motivates killers? What constitutes valid statistical data? On such subjects, I tend to find statistics based conclusions dubious and unconvincing.
Although I think one can make a rational argument for the death penalty, I think the practical problems of implementing this penalty argue against it — in our era. Because of strong and emotional opposition, the death penalty has become too costly and troublesome. To be enforceable, a law requires broad public support. The death penalty does not have such support; our society is troubled by killing livestock for food. We execute so few murderers that the death penalty has little practical effect on crime. Thus I argue that Republicans should drop their support for the death penalty.
What does have broad public support is locking up murderers and tossing the key. Such support makes life imprisonment an effective deterrent. So I think it best for our elected Republicans officials to stop worrying about executions and to concentrate on keeping violent criminals in jail. Republicans should leave the theatrics of the death penalty to Democrats and focus on their duty to protect the public.
Societies must exercise their judgments through the power of the state. As a collective, we determine that another’s right to exist must be denied. It is only through compassion, love, and Christian principles that we snuff an existence. Murders know they too will be killed. Social order demands this lesson be taught. No one has a right to exist unless the state acknowledges it.
“No one has a right to exist unless the state acknowledges it.”
Do I detect a bit of sarcasm?
As a society we do exercise judgments through the power of the state. We have the God given right to work together to defend ourselves and to protect each other.
I do not know if you detect sarcasm or not, only you can make that determination. Should that God-Given right extend to protect each other from faulty witness memory, over-zealous prosecutors, institutional racism, and the failure to provide exculpatory evidence to a condemned man’s attorney?
johnnypeepers – If you read my post, you may have noticed where I point out that our need for a system of justice is the primary reason we have a government. To protect everyone’s rights, our system of justice requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I also acknowledge that justice is not something we can easily achieve. Whenever men are involved there will be imperfections and difficult problems such as faulty witness memory, over-zealous prosecutors, institutional racism, and the failure to provide exculpatory evidence. Such problems by themselves are more than enough to occupy the talents of our elected officials. That is one reason why I think we need to limit the role of government to its essential functions.
Only God achieves perfection; the best we can achieve is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.