Some while back I discussed the death penalty here, in response to a couple of atrocious crimes that happened in Connecticut and provoked a lot of controversy. The first person to be executed in the state following the Supreme Court moratorium was a man named Michael Ross, who raped and murdered young women in what is now my neck of the woods as it were, a bit before I moved out here. He asked his attorneys to stop trying to prevent it, in other words he went to his death willingly, evidently preferring it to life in prison. So in that situation one has to ask, what's the point? One element of controversy was whether his attorneys should have continued defending him anyway, despite his wishes.
The second occasion was the home invasion, rape and murders committed by Stephen Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Their actions were sufficiently depraved that I won't trouble you by describing them. They were the last people sentenced to death in Connecticut before the legislature eliminated the death penalty, but in order to get the votes they stipulated that existing sentences should be carried out, on the probably correct belief that the public would not want Hayes and Komisarjevsky to be spared. (The survivor, Dr. Stephen Petit whose family was exterminated, advocated vociferously for their execution.) However, the court ruled that in eliminating the death penalty for any future offenses, the legislature could not treat previously sentenced individuals any differently, and the sentences were commuted to life. (Hayes then tried to kill himself.)
Now we have the man who murdered 11 people in an attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. I remain opposed to the death penalty in any and all circumstances, but all three of these cases are obviously challenging. The perpetrators' guilt is incontrovertible, and the effect of the crimes horrific. The affected survivors wanted them executed, as certainly seems to be the case in Pittsburgh from the public statements we have heard. We'll hear more in the sentencing hearing today. The murderer didn't just affect those families of course, but millions of people who feel targeted because of their religion or ethnicity. Their ancestors have felt that fear, legitimately, for more than 2,000 years, as we are reading right now in our Bible series, and we all know of the worst atrocity of the very violent 20th Century.
It is of the utmost importance that the federal government demonstrate its utter abhorrence for such crimes. If there is any justification for a sentence of death, this situation would have to qualify. It would seem very perverse to criticize the Israeli government for hanging Eichmann. The justification is not deterrence, or vengeance, but rather the ultimate demonstration of the moral basis of the state. However, my view is that the state undermines its moral basis by carrying out a sentence of death: the action is paradoxical. Life imprisonment without hope of release makes the statement. Forcing distinctions between situations in which death is and is not justified creates problems that are best avoided, in my view. You may disagree.
5 comments:
I think we could get a lot more creative with sentencing. For instance, if Shitler is found guilty of trying to defraud the United States and overturn an election, basically of traitorous behavior, I think he should be sentenced with no possibility of leaving the national borders to an all-brown country in Africa, where he has to spend the rest of his life being rehabilitated to whatever degree possible, even if that is minimal.
On the other hand, you can't talk to crazy. How do we sentence people who are hopelessly mentally ill? Of course, prevention and early intervention need to be a bigger part of our national infrastructure.
The shooter has shown such disregard for others' lives that I'm not sure why anyone would give a shit if he were executed instead of paying for his housing, healthcare and, now, possible gender transition surgery for the next 20-30 years. Political resistance to the death penalty is a relatively new phenomenon. It has its place.
Sometimes the gene pool needs a little chlorine.
I'm sorry, but there are some crimes that warrant death.
I suspect there is a line that, if crossed, even you will agree with me.
Of those crazy shooters that are "neutralized" during the commission of a school or mall shooting, how many have lamented his death?
Throughout history countless people have lived out their lives in conditions far worse than the average American prison; for example, many slaves in the antebellum South.
Rather than execution, a suitably designed gulag might be more satisfying to our sensibilities. Also, bad people have sometimes come to recognize their own depravity over time and reformed themselves. I prefer to leave that option open to them.
Post a Comment