The Death Penalty

Philosophos: Onto a whole new topic. Is the death penalty permissible?

Nomodiphas: It is used in the Bible so that seems to be an obvious yes. Why do you ask that?

Philosophos: In the extremity of my youth I used not to think so. I was seduced by the teachings of the pacifists—men like Tolstoy and Gandhi. I took Christ’s Sermon on the Mount literally and thought that all violence was wrong. Now I have come to a different conclusion. I believe that based on Scripture it is plainly not unjust for a government to put certain criminals to death. God told the Israelites to do this in the Old Testament era and God clearly would not command an unjust action. Further, in circumstances where lifetime incarceration is not a viable option (such as in the Israelite wilderness wanderings of the Old Testament), it seems to me that a just society absolutely must use the death penalty. But, we are no longer in those circumstances. So, perhaps, other alternatives should be examined. Though it is in no way unjust, I don't really have a strong sense one way or the other on using the death penalty in our age.

Nomodiphas: In regards to the death penalty I really don't have a strong opinion either. Lifetime incarceration is more or less the same thing; it in effect takes a person's life from them. One thing I have noticed is the swiftness with which justice was administered in the Law of Moses. True there is a system of 'appeals' if the case is too hard for a judge. But in cases where guilt is obvious the people are instructed to execute punishment immediately. That is one thing unmistakably lacking from our death penalty and I think waiting 20 to 30 years to enact a punishment takes away from its effectiveness.

A pro to imprisonment is that people have a longer time to repent and find the truth. However a con to lifetime imprisonment would be that prisoners may put off coming to terms with their mortality, as many do, because there is no immediate end to their life in sight. Contrast this with a quickly administered death penalty. Since death is imminent and comes closely after a crime a person may be more overwhelmed with conviction and repent. Though they lose their life their soul may be saved.

A final thing to consider is justice to the victim. Some cases are so heinous that it is hard to imagine the killer living for decades with good food, TV and entertainment, fellowship with other inmates, books etc.—after depriving one or maybe a number of people of their lives in a terrorizing and torturing fashion. (But that problem could lie more in the prison system than in a need for the death penalty).

The main objection to the death penalty seems to be that people executed are more likely to be poor and of minority status. I think there is truth to this. The amount of money a person has determines what type of lawyer they will have access to, and to some degree, the level of justice that they will receive. This however is not a problem with the death penalty, but a problem with our justice system that, I believe, needs to be reformed regardless of the status of the death penalty.

There are my general thoughts on that. The more I think about it, the more I would be in favor of the death penalty if it was done correctly (administered equally across races and classes and done swiftly without millions of dollars and decades spent on appeals—I think it is an indictment against our system that many of people on death row die of natural causes).

Philosophos: Your thoughts look reasonable to me with one exception. I have never seen any real evidence that the death penalty is NOT administered equally across races and classes. I have only seen so-called evidence—statistics showing a disproportionate number of minorities or relatively-low-income folk (I don't use the term "poor" for any American) convicted and sentenced. But it is undeniable that a disproportionate number of heinous crimes are committed by members of these groups, so I don't see how this type of statistic proves unequal treatment under the law. On the contrary, equal treatment demands this very result.

And another thing: crimes that are based on neediness (or perceived neediness), such as theft, are not capital crimes. So neediness (or perceived neediness) does not directly drive someone to commit a capital crime. I think it does have an effect, but only indirectly. It tempts one toward a culture with twisted valuations of freedom, violence, success, entitlement, victimization, etc. This twisted culture, I think, is the basis of most capital crimes. And this is the reason why we see a statistical connection between minority/low-income groups and conviction of capital crimes.