We all have a death penalty hanging over our heads. We were sentenced to die the day we were born. The killer was sentenced to die, and so was the saint, and the doctor, and the professor, the thief, the businessperson, the priest, the adulterer, the lawyer, even the judge. No defense in this world can prevent that sentence, and we all will die.
So what is this absurd argument of imposing a death penalty? As if you are bringing about something that wouldn't have otherwise happened? As if the murderer would have lived forever? Is that the case? For if it is, then the death penalty is a punishment indeed. But if it is not, then what have you done that wasn't already destined to happen?
A penalty is imposed to teach the perpetrator, and others contemplating it, that there are consequences for a wrongful act. The cost of the penalty has to outweigh the benefits of the crime: that's how you deter people from committing a crime. For example, the benefit of driving drunk and speeding on the highway must be outweighed by the penalty imposed: a hefty ticket and perhaps time in jail. The benefit of stealing a piece of clothing from a store must be outweighed by the punishment for it: imprisonment, fines, stigma. Also, the penalty should be reserved only for those who have committed the crime and must be avoidable, merely by not committing the crime.
Not so with death. Death is not avoidable and the death penalty does not outweigh the crime. Nor does the murderer learn anything from his punishment. So who does such a penalty benefit? The victims? No, they are already dead. Society? No, because life imprisonment can achieve the same public safety. The murderer, then? Yes, because by hastening the inevitable you didn't let him suffer his imprisonment: to know that he will never get out, to have no hope of redemption and finally to long for Death to arrive. To the free man who would rather have freedom or have death, denying both is the greater punishment.
The death penalty is no penalty. It's vengeance. And I shall have no part in it. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill. Not in my name, not in God's name, not in society's name.
So what is this absurd argument of imposing a death penalty? As if you are bringing about something that wouldn't have otherwise happened? As if the murderer would have lived forever? Is that the case? For if it is, then the death penalty is a punishment indeed. But if it is not, then what have you done that wasn't already destined to happen?
A penalty is imposed to teach the perpetrator, and others contemplating it, that there are consequences for a wrongful act. The cost of the penalty has to outweigh the benefits of the crime: that's how you deter people from committing a crime. For example, the benefit of driving drunk and speeding on the highway must be outweighed by the penalty imposed: a hefty ticket and perhaps time in jail. The benefit of stealing a piece of clothing from a store must be outweighed by the punishment for it: imprisonment, fines, stigma. Also, the penalty should be reserved only for those who have committed the crime and must be avoidable, merely by not committing the crime.
Not so with death. Death is not avoidable and the death penalty does not outweigh the crime. Nor does the murderer learn anything from his punishment. So who does such a penalty benefit? The victims? No, they are already dead. Society? No, because life imprisonment can achieve the same public safety. The murderer, then? Yes, because by hastening the inevitable you didn't let him suffer his imprisonment: to know that he will never get out, to have no hope of redemption and finally to long for Death to arrive. To the free man who would rather have freedom or have death, denying both is the greater punishment.
The death penalty is no penalty. It's vengeance. And I shall have no part in it. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill. Not in my name, not in God's name, not in society's name.
Posts
