The Death Penalty.

Generally I consider myself to be politically progressive. I tend to think of the root causes of our social ills. I'm a big proponent of public education, labor rights, expanded healthcare, job training programs, reproductive rights, environmental protection, corporate regulation, and a progressive policy of taxation. But on at least one key issue I've had difficulty adhering to the accepted progressive line- the death penalty. It's not that I wouldn't like to be against it, but rather that I can't think of any compelling reason for opposition. I've spent a lot of time trying to be convinced otherwise, but I've yet to experience the definitive argument to sway my thinking.

In forming my opinion about the issue, I have to confront several components of the debate. Many people oppose the death penalty for philosophical and/or spiritual reasons. I like to say (with some humor) that humans are animals, and that I eat animals. Therefore it seems it would be inconsistent for me to believe that the lives of human beings are somehow particularly "sacred". Perhaps I'd be a more compassionate person if I thought otherwise... I don't know. But my position certainly eliminates an entire class of opposition to this most severe of punishments. Humans have as much of a right to kill other humans as any other creature on Earth. It's a harsh viewpoint, but in line with evolutionary thought. The only reason to prioritize human life is species identification.

Next I have to consider whether or not it is appropriate to have the government act as the surrogate in enhancing the public good. Undeniably, we live in a social environment. We have devised many rules, and consequences for their violation. It seems somehow more just to have a representative body act out the will of the people. In allowing the governmental enforcement authorities to administer punishment, we avoid the nasty effects of vigilantism. I don't find it at all contradictory that we have laws against murder for society's individual members, while we have specified a number of capital offenses for which the government carries out the execution of criminals. That seem to me as it should be. On this issue, I feel I am adopting a utilitarian perspective.

As to a deterrence effect, I think we need to look at the issue from a couple of angles. It would be difficult to prove that the death penalty deters potential criminals, yet it is equally hard to prove the opposite. Everyone in society is a "potential criminal". We can't study this effect unless we rely on the unreliable method of self-reporting, a method which is insufficient for our ends. I view any such research as suspect and incomplete. On the other hand, it is intuitively conclusive that the death penalty deters future crimes in the case of those who suffer it. Obviously it couldn't be any other way. And criminal recidivism is a major problem in our society.

I feel that we have a responsibility to ask ourselves about sensible alternatives. Is it more humane to place convicts in the brutal conditions of our prisons, without hope of escape except through "natural" death? If there is no hope for rehabilitation, then what is the point of keeping them alive? That seems as inherently cruel as killing them. If we are going to do away with the death penalty, then I believe we should do away with life without parole. I don't believe that we should apply purely punitive fates for the convicted. There must be logic beyond simple retribution.

Some will counter that it costs more to put a person to death than to imprison them for life. I recognize that as a reality because of the appeals system. And I think that is the way it should be. We should have to pay a huge price to execute someone. If it was a cost effective way of dealing with crime, then the danger of applying the punishment indiscriminately would increase dramatically. Although I support the death penalty, I recognize it as an extreme end and a last resort. I am fully aware of the many injustices in the way the death penalty is currently applied. The accused must be extended every benefit of the doubt. To rush to judgment is to commit a grievous injury to both the individual, but also society. Personally, if I were going to impose the penalty, I would want to be free of any doubt. Its application is not a cause for celebration or pride (like in Texas and Florida).