In the United States, as well as in other countries around the world, there has been a debate raging over capital punishment and its place in society. Should we keep the death penalty? Is there a justifiable need for capital punishment in today’s world? How does one justify his/her position either way? The answers to these questions will differ greatly, depending on whether one is an abolitionist (opposes the death penalty), or a retentionist (supportive of the death penalty). But, before taking sides, let’s consider the issues and ramifications of capital punishment.

Just what do we mean by capital punishment? How do we define execution? If we turn to the dictionary, we will find that execute means "To put to death, especially by carrying out a lawful sentence" and capital punishment is defined as "the penalty of death for the commission of a crime"(Microsoft). According to Thomas A. Mappes, author of the essay "The Death Penalty," "[i]t is normally thought to be the most serious kind of punishment, hence it is called capital punishment" (106). What must one do to deserve such a serious punishment? What crimes do we as a society deem to be so reprehensible that we feel their perpetrators need to forfeit their lives?

In the United States there are some 60 different offenses that qualify for the death sentence under federal guidelines. Among them are murder for hire, fatal drive-by shootings, car jackings that result in death, sex crimes that result in death, running a large-scale drug operation, and many other crimes that may or may not have resulted in death(s) (1994 Crime Bill Expansion). Individual states often have their own guidelines, as well. Although none of these crimes carry a mandatory death sentence, the trend has been to seek the death penalty for infractions at the federal level.

What methods might be employed in the carrying out of sentence on people convicted of these crimes? According to the U.S. Department Of Justice Bureau of Statistics, there are five methods currently in use in this country. They are: lethal injection (fast acting toxins are introduced into the blood stream), electrocution (high levels of electricity are coursed through the victim’s body), lethal gas (poisonous gases are inhaled, thus poisoning the condemned), hanging (dropped from a height sufficient to break the neck, resulting in instant death), and death by firing squad (no explanation needed). Between 1977 and 1996, 216 people were executed by lethal injection, 128 were electrocuted, 9 died by gas, 3 were hung, and 2 were shot by a firing squad (Snell 22).

Given the grave nature of killing people and the finality of capital punishment, are we as a society doing the right thing in retaining the death sentence? Are we sending mixed messages to our children when we demonstrate the sanctity of life by killing someone who has taken the life of another? These are some of the issues that are continually at the forefront in the debate over whether or not we should abolish the death penalty. Perhaps before deciding on whether or not we should keep the death penalty, it would be best to examine why there is a death penalty in the first place.

One of the first reasons retentionists cite is based on justice, and is rooted in the biblical reaffirmation of the lex talionis, or "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." This code, which dates back to the time of Hammurabi, is used to convey the idea that a crime should be repaid with a like or equal punishment. If someone takes the life of another, then they should lose their own, thereby satisfying the need for justice. This argument is widely accepted. However, it is not beyond reproach from those who oppose the death penalty.

In his essay "A Second Look at ‘an Eye for an Eye’," abolitionist John Howard Yoder looks at precisely what the Bible means when it cites the lex talionis. In Deuteronomy 19: 19-21, Moses references the lex after laying down the law against perjury. Obviously, Moses neither intended for a perjurer to be put to death, nor to be punished by exact retribution, which in this case would be perjury. Rather, Yoder implies that Moses quoted the lex as a justification for setting limits to the punishment. He goes on to state that a more correct reading of the lex talionis would be "For a life no more than a life; for an eye no more than an eye." Yoder warns not to assume that the lex talionus is used in the Scriptures to support the death penalty, and notes that when it is quoted, it is "[n]ever in a context that is textually central" (133).

Another argument retentionists use is one of social utility. When a convicted person is executed, the idea goes, that person is forever incapacitated and society is safe from any further harms that the criminal may have caused (Mappes, 108). But is this always the case? What happens when the wrong person is executed? The real criminal is still loose and the system is now guilty of murder. Who will protect society from itself?

In the essay "When the Death Penalty Itself Is Murder," John Howard Yoder maintains that of all the executions carried out, there is a small but significant number of innocent people sent to their deaths. Noting that "All human institutions are fallible" and that "[t]here is one kind of judicial error that can never be made right: a wrongful sentence of death," he underscores the gravity of mistaken justice by likening wrongful death sentences to "[m]urder, committed in the name of the people" (168).

Perhaps the most popular argument for retention of the death penalty is the idea that capital punishment is a uniquely effective deterrent in the prevention of capital crimes. Those who are executed are prevented from killing again, it is argued, and anyone considering committing murder will think twice if they know the gallows awaits them. But has this proven to be true? Is capital punishment a uniquely effective deterrent, more effective than life without parole?

When writing "The Death Penalty," Thomas A. Mappes was careful to point out that "[m]ost scholars … on this issue would say that the available evidence is conflicting and ultimately inconclusive." He goes on to ask, "If it is true that empirical studies have failed to resolve the central factual question, what else can be said about the deterrence rationale for the death penalty" (108)?

In the face of inconclusive empirical evidence and scientific findings, many retentionists rely on a common sense view of deterrence. Common sense would suggest that people fear death more than life in prison, so death should be a more effective deterrent than prison. Although this may very well be so, in the absence of conclusive scientific data abolitionists question whether we are justified in sending what might turn out to be an innocent person to his/her death based on a common sense hunch. They choose instead to cite the words of Lafayette, who said, "Until the infallibility of human judgement shall have been proved to me, I shall demand the abolition of the death penalty." So which side is right? What is the appropriate punishment for capital crimes? That is for we, the people, to decide.

 

 

Works Cited

"1994 Crime Bill Expansion." Federal Death Penalty. 26 January 1998.

<http://www.essential.org/dpic/feddp.html > (26 January 1998).

House, H. Wayne and John Yoder. The Death Penalty Debate. Dallas: Word Publishing,

1991.

Mappes, Thomas A. "The Death Penalty." Social Ethics. Eds. Thomas A. Mappes and

Jane S. Zembaty. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1997, 104-110.

Microsoft Bookshelf . CD-ROM. Redmund: Microsoft, 1997.

Snell, Tracy L. Capital Punishment 1996. December 1997.

<http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/167031.txt > (24 January 1998).