Some personal thoughts on the Death Penalty
(Prompted by coverage of Peterson sentencing)
Much of this argument depends on distinguishing between "can" and "should", and also addressing the real world as opposed to an idealized world.
First: I offer no argument against society's right to apply the death penalty to responsible adults.
Second: I argue the efficacy of the death penalty. The death penalty may be a satisfying form of extracting vengeance, but I do not believe it plays any reasonable role in crime prevention. Many people contemplating capital offenses do not, for whatever reason, care about the consequences, or are operating on the assumption they will not be caught. I just can't imagine someone thinking to himself, "I'd accept life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, but if the death penalty is on the table, I will refrain from this action". If such a penalty is to have any chance of being a deterrent, it must be prompt, very public, shameful, and terrifying to behold. Picture postcards of the last moments to perpetuate the shame for history would help. In the USA of today, and for the foreseeable future, the execution of the condemned will not be prompt, will not be very public, and will avoid, where possible, excessive pain or public disgrace of family.
Third: The cost to society of attempting to utilize the death penalty over and above the cost of settling for life without parole is humungous. The entire process of jury selection is complicated and the automatic review processes interminable and pricey.
(As an aside, I wonder how I would be treated as a prospective juror? I would find a defendant guilty if offered proof beyond "reasonable doubt", but would not consider voting for death without proof "with a certainty" - a higher standard permitted by the law.)
(I asked the question "Do you believe in the Death Penalty, my answer would have to be "I believe in society's right to apply the death penalty, but I do not support society exercising that right!")
Fourth: As a practical matter, I would take the Death Penalty off the table except for persons already serving a life sentence who are convicted of a subsequent capital offense. I would also offer persons condemned to life without parole the option of electing a painless suicide administered by the government.)
In conclusion: Do I think the government has the right to apply the death penalty - yes. Do I think the government ought to apply the Death Penalty - no. (This position also gives me cover to avoid discussing the much more complicated issue of death for the mentally retarded and juveniles.)
Now, my experience with can/should arguments is that they satisfy no one, and anger everybody. Those opposed to the Death Penalty will bemoan my reluctance to campaign against it, those who support the penalty will bemoan my wimping out on vigorously pursuing it.
I have been constantly frustrated in arguments with uber-fiscal conservatives - those who refuse to support sate funded abortions, pre-natal care for the indigent (regardless of citizenship status), and state funded immunization programs. In my mind, these all fall into the "state does not HAVE to, but the state OUGHT to category. (I have some sympathy for pro-life folks opposing state funded abortions, but still think majority vote should apply in this case.) All of the programs mentioned get high grades on any cost-benefit analysis.
Awaiting my hate mail,
Der Brucer
