The death penalty has been a controversial topic throughout
the western world for decades, with current Minister for Justice in the UK, Michael Gove
in favour of re-introducing the practice in Great Britain according to his 1998
article in The Times[1],
as well as numerous surveys that indicate that a majority of American’s support
capital punishment[2]
despite their acknowledgment that innocent people may die as a result. This
article will aim to address and comment on both the philosophical and pragmatic
justifications and criticisms of capital punishment and assess the role of the
sentence within 21st century justice.
Reciprocal punishment:
the most popular defense for capital punishment is “an eye for an eye”, but as Gandhi claimed “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. It is an indication of a warped culture in which the government has made itself an agent of
revenge; no responsible government should be involved in the murder of its own
citizens. The death penalty arises from humankind's barbaric past and to make
the claim that ‘murder is the answer to murder’ debases the society through
savagery and blatant hypocrisy. Furthermore if a life pays for a life, then
rape pays for rape, arson pays for arson – this measure of punishment once
again proves that by murdering a murderer, we who adjudicate and enable that
punishment are no better than those we are condemning of the deepest
depravity.
“What would you do?”: The trump card for capital punishment
advocates, “what would you do if it were your mother, brothers and sons?” When
placed at the centre of such a proposition it is all too easy to lose one’s
mind to an ugly and uncivilised position. However this is not how justice
should be carried out, the victims do not choose the punishment and justice is
dispensed by an impartial peer group. Look back only to the lynchings that
terrorised African Americans for centuries to see how prejudices and biases can
prompt the most depraved acts of mass insanity.[3]
“They deserve it.”: Similar
to the “eye for an eye” argument, this justification arises out of a feeling
that justice would be served if a killer were killed, in this case, such an
execution should be performed in the town square – where all can see ‘justice’
in action. If one must avert their eyes at a sight that is too gruesome and
gratuitous for all members of society to participate in, then justice is not
taking place. Islamic State supporters do not turn their heads at the
beheadings of infidels or the falling of homosexuals[4]
and we condemn them as “barbarians”, while the US conducts its executions in
dark corners and windowless rooms then calls it “Justice”.
In April 2014 Clayton Lockett: convicted of murder in 2000,
was given a lethal injection - the untested concoction resulted in Lockett
suffering a forty three minute long execution until he eventually died of a
heart attack. The White House later released a statement claiming that this
execution “fell short of humane standards”[5].
Clayton Locket however was not an isolated incident, between 1890 and 2010 there
have been 273 botched executions in the United States[6],
this statistic alone shows the deeply fissured morality of capital punishment
as nearly 300 people have been tortured to death by the mismanagement of the
practice. There are certainly those that would make the argument that we should
not concern ourselves with the suffering endured by vicious killers like Clayton
Lockett - including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who made the following
statement: “The people who’re concerned about how much he must have suffered,
they ought to think about how much she [Lockett’s victim] suffered, and I don’t
think that should change anything.”[7]
By having this execution go so terribly wrong the State of Oklahoma has created
unnecessary sympathy for Lockett, a man that raped, shot and buried a 19 year
old woman alive. No-one disputes that Lockett was a wicked person who performed
a wicked act, however no crime can in good conscience be punishable by execution through torture,
if Lockett had received a life imprisonment, there would be no ambivalence and
Clayton Lockett would go down in history as the brutal killer that he was,
rather than the man that was butchered by the State. The eight amendment to the
United States Constitution specifically prohibits “cruel and unusual
punishment” and thus every botched execution is a counter-narrative to the
values and principles of American democracy.
Deterrence: Deterrence
in and of itself is a deeply illogical mode of handing down punishments, in Great
Britain for example, the death penalty could be appointed for crimes as minor
as shoplifting or stealing livestock[8].
This imparted the message that people were not being sentenced for stealing but
rather, that things may not be stolen. Kant would certainly argue that using a
human being to teach society a lesson is universally immoral as it takes a
person as no more than a means to an end. The added layer of absurdity is
capital punishments universal application for minor offences, which is fundamentally ironic as rather than deterring a criminal caught stealing, it prompts
murder as a necessity due to the criminal having already forfeited their life. Furthermore in many cases a prosecution arguing for the
death penalty does not lead to a just outcome as those on trial will be more
focused on negating the ultimate punishment and accept a plea deal for a crime
they may not have committed, they see escaping with their lives as enough of a victory
that they capitulate their freedom - Once again showing the death penalty is an
infection upon justice.
Recidivism:
Proponents of the death penalty will often site that execution is the best way
to ensure that someone never repeats their heinous crime. While this is
undeniably true, it is only proof that extreme solutions produce extreme
outcomes; the Iraq war would have been won quicker by using a nuclear weapon on
Saddam’s palace - that is also undeniable. A responsible society should act
pro-rata in matters of paramount significance such as warfare and due process. Moreover
what extra thing is achieved by executing a criminal that isn’t already
achieved through life in prison, other than indulging our vitriol with a
superfluous act of violence? The goal of a righteous justice system is to
rehabilitate its criminal population, the death penalty in this way is always a
moral and philosophical failure as it is an intrinsic admission of failure: ‘I
could not save you, and thus I must end you.’
Cost effectiveness:
According to research conducted by Gallup in 1991 there was virtually no-one
arguing that the death penalty saved taxpayer money, this rate has risen by 15% in 2014, and is the only reason listed on the study that consistently rose
in support[9].
The great irony of this is that capital punishment is definitively more costly
to the state than life imprisonment. The Associated Press investigation found “It's
10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive.” According to a
California Justice[10].
There are many factors that lead to this spike in costs, mostly it is due to
the inflated price of attorneys and the numerous stages of appeals that the
state goes through before reaching a final verdict. In any case, frugality is
not a legitimate reason to end someone’s life, a human being is an
irreplaceable work of art, their life is rare, beautiful and miraculous – no
amount of money can compensate for it.
Innocence: The
justice system as it currently stands is unquestionably flawed, jurors have
biases and feel outside influences, prosecutors hide evidence and judges often
dispense unnecessary sentences, so how can we justify handing down the ultimate
punishment when the way justice is conducted is so corrupt? A study was
conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that examined the
exoneration rate of prisoners on death row and attempted to calculate the
margin of error; the study found that a conservative estimate of 4% of those
whom had been given the death penalty were innocent[11].
The results showed that of the 7,482 people put on death row between 1973 and
2004, 117 were exonerated while on death row with the study claiming the actual
number to be up to 340. In lieu of all other arguments put forward throughout
the discussion on capital punishment, perhaps there is some metaphysical reason that necessitates capital punishment, but can anyone really
justify living under a system that has a clear conscience after
murdering an innocent person? Can society have become so morally bankrupt that
we accept the deaths of innocent people as merely errors in an otherwise
righteous prosecution?
The Crucified God:
Jesus Christ, likely the most famous recipient of the death penalty, a man whom
was tortured and murdered for committing sedition, a crime that is still
punishable by death in many nations across the world. Christ’s death at the
hands of the Roman occupiers is the foundation of a religion that centres on
peace and love. To support the death penalty is to stand with the oppressors,
those whom condemned Jesus to suffer and die at Golgotha. “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.” (Matthew 5:38-9) Jesus is directly challenging the Laws of
the Old Testament, furthermore, Jesus puts this into practice – an adulterous
woman is to pay the ultimate price for her transgression and Jesus asks “Let
anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.” (John 8:7) Here
Jesus again refutes the excessive legalism of 1st century Judaism
and re-establishes the value of human life.
The death penalty pollutes the justice system with the ugliest and inhumane form of punishment that corrodes the moral foundation of any society that practices it, notwithstanding flawed due process and the systematic corruption from prosecution as well as racial biases that disproportionately affect minority groups and other jury prejudices.
However Christians have an inherent duty as followers of Christ to fight against the death penalty wherever it exists.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” - J.R.R Tolkien (Lord of the Rings)
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11595776/Michael-Gove-new-Justice-Secretary-wanted-to-bring-back-hanging.html
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/17/most-americans-support-the-death-penalty-they-also-agree-that-an-innocent-person-might-get-put-to-death/
[5] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/oklahoma-clayton-lockett-botched-execution-explanation
[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28555978
[7] http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/james-inhofe-oklahoma-clayton-lockett-execution
[8] http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/timeline.html
[9] http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/13/7214117/capital-punishment-polls
[10] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/#.VeS4DPZVhBe
[11] http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethlopatto/2014/04/29/how-many-innocent-people-are-sentenced-to-death/
