A Matter of Life and Death

By Diogenes

One of the most difficult things a person can do is to defend a controversial or unpopular position on an emotional topic. However, sometimes in the interest of mankind, this arduous task is both necessary and unavoidable. It is, therefore, having a heart heavy with conflict, that I shall attempt to address the highly charged and hotly debated topic of capital punishment, and why I feel it to be a necessity in our society.

I truly detest the death penalty. This may strike one as a highly contradictory statement coming from one who defends the validity of capital punishment, and perhaps it is. But, is it really that uncommon to find oneself in a position of having to acquiesce to something we regard as a necessary evil? I think most of us would have to say no, but that still does not remove the resentment within us. It is with sadness and resentment that I must remain firm on my stance of support for the death penalty. In the heart of this essay, I will labor to clarify my reasoning and justify my position.

Let us begin with some grim statistics relative to the crime of murder:

1. Homicide arrests of juveniles have risen 170% nationwide in the past decade (Saul A05).
2. The number of death row inmates who committed their crimes as minors has risen 39% since 1983 (Saul A05).
3. The average sentence for murder in the United States is 20 years imprisonment (Sowell and DiIulio 106).
4. The average time a killer spends in prison prior to release is 8.5 years (Sowell and DiIulio 106).
5. Over 40% of the persons on death row were on probation, parole, or pre-trial release when they committed murder (Sowell and DiIulio 107).
6. During the 1972-1976 moratorium on capital punishment crime in the United States soared. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty, crime has dropped with the increase of executions (Irwin A3B).
7. According to a 1994 Gallup poll, 75% of Americans support the death penalty (Irwin A3B).

Statistics 1 and 2 above present a chilling conclusion: young people are not getting the message of

the severity of the crime of murder. Given the precedent set by statistics 3 and 4, this revelation should come as no surprise. Item number 5 would lead one to think that the rehabilitative process and/or the judicial system itself is in serious need of repair. Item number 6 suggests that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime, a belief that item number 7 implies 75% of Americans feel to be true. A study by Professor Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Chicago lends credence to the principle of deterrence by indicating that up to eight murders are prevented by each execution (Sowell and DiIulio 104). The common sense wisdom of capital punishment as a deterrent is best captured in a quote by Sir James Fitz-james Stephen, who states: "Some men, probably, abstain from murder because they fear … they would be hanged. Hundreds of thousands abstain from it because they regard it with horror. One great reason they regard it with horror is that murderers are hanged" (Van den Haag 222).

It is as a deterrent that I base my personal support of the death penalty. I do not wish to downplay the value of retribution in the delivery of justice; I simply prefer the noble cause of the prevention of future loss of life, as opposed to the more primitive notion of "getting even." It saddens me that we must deal with these types of issues in society. If I could have my way, the taking of another's life would be nothing more than an appalling lesson in the development of mankind. Unfortunately, as long as we have an element of society that places little or no value on the sanctity of human life, we will have need for extreme measures to demonstrate our intolerance of such behavior. Lex talionis (rule of retaliation) is a low level thinking guideline, but murder is the action of low level thinker; hence, one must deal with the perpetrator on a basis, which he/she understands: namely, an eye for an eye.

Abolitionists feel that the proper method to deal with murderers is by setting a proper example through refusing to lower ourselves to those very standards that we reject. This would work if we were dealing with higher level thinkers, but for the most part we are not. Were this the case, then we could easily deal with the crime of robbery by announcing that from now on, as an example of our faith in our fellow man, each and every one of us will be leaving our doors unlocked when we are away from home. This is a simple experiment, which I encourage anyone who thinks this way to try. However, I suspect that the results of such an effort would be somewhat less than what they had hoped for. If I thought that symbolic efforts would actually affect murder rates in any way, I would be the first to join in example. Unfortunately, I entertain no such illusions.

Another problem abolitionists see, is that of a contradictory justice system. Does not the right to life contradict the death penalty? This reason alone should be enough to repeal the death sentence, shouldn't it? Well, if that were the case, we would be obliged to free every criminal we have in prison. After all, doesn't it read "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Surely there is some kind of contradiction between imprisonment and the right to liberty, is there not?

And then there is the issue of disproportionate suffering. It is not in keeping with equitability to force a prisoner to endure the extra amount of anguish that comes with the prolonged period from condemnation until the carrying out of sentence. The problem I have with this concept is that I just cannot ever recall any prisoner asking for a quick delivery of sentence in order to ease his suffering. In actuality, the situation seems to be quite the opposite.

But what about the possibility of an innocent person being executed? Is not this alone reason enough to abolish the death sentence? If that were the case, then should we not ban all air travel? For certainly, many innocent people have fallen prey to sudden and tragic death due to a variety of air disasters, have they not?

And lastly, what about the injustice of the economic advantages the rich have over the poor? Surely, one can't deny that the wealthy have a distinct advantage over those without means. On this point I will concede that the rich do have an advantage. But when you are starving, do you leave the food line in protest because the "lucky ones" up front had an advantage and got the best food? As a society, we are starving. We are not sending the proper message of the sanctity of life to our children. We are not instilling in those around us, a sound set of values. With a concerted effort on the part of retentionists and abolitionists alike, perhaps we can raise a generation devoid of our shortcomings. Perhaps we can move forward to the time we would all like so much to see; a time when there is no need or reason for the death penalty. Unfortunately, that time is not now.

Works Cited

Irwin, Julie. "Terror in the Heartland." The Cincinnati Enquirer 14 June 1997: A3B.

Saul, Stephanie. "Adult Punishment." Newsday 3 March 1997: A05.

Sowell, Thomas and John J. DiIulio, Jr. "The Death Penalty Is a Deterrent." The Death Penalty. Eds. David

Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1997, 103-107.

Van den Haag, Ernest. "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense." Taking Sides. Ed. Richard C. Monk.

Guilford: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., 1991,220-225.