Here are Two:
To the Editor:
Statistical analysis may sound scientific, but people don’t behave according to economists’ mathematical formulas. If the death penalty deterred killers, we would be able to find at least one, in a state without the death penalty, who expected to be caught and imprisoned for life but committed murder anyway. No rational person would make that exchange.
Economists will keep debating the numbers, but they should support public policy that sends clear, rational messages. Here’s one: Killing people is wrong ”” whether they’re walking in a dark alley or strapped to a gurney.
Howard Tomb
Brooklyn, Nov. 18, 2007
Ӣ
To the Editor:
Even if we have no clue whether or not the death penalty actually deters, crime prevention is only one of a handful of reasons that a jurisdiction might consider when choosing to mete out the ultimate punishment.
Retribution and the community’s expression of moral outrage are at least as important. Failure to deter doesn’t inevitably drive us to the logical conclusion to execute the death penalty itself.
Jonathan Lubin
New Haven, Nov. 18, 2007
The writer is a student at Yale Law School.
Well, it has deterred me, Mr [i] Tomb. [/i] It’s good for everyone I don’t live in one of those wussy states where they are afraid to defend the citizenry.
[blockquote]Retribution and the community’s expression of moral outrage are at least as important.[/blockquote]
So.. the lynch-mob mentality is ok, so long as it’s better organized?
I’m not for abolishing the death penalty completely, but this is a morally bankrupt argument for a Christian to use in its support.
Someone should have gotten a memo off to John Gotti that threatening witnesses, shopkeepers, etc. made absolutely no difference in getting compliance from them.
Gosh. So in a population of three hundred million, if one of the few thousand who commit murder per year doesn’t come out and say BOTH that a necessary condition of his crime was no risk of the death penalty being applied, AND that life in prison was an acceptable consequence, we have demonstrated that none of the remaining millions were deterred. Got it.
Quam asinus equi.
Difficult though it can sometimes be when one contemplates the horrific nature of the crimes inflicted, if we subscribe to the theological principle that the possibility of redemption always exists, I find it hard to see circumstances where one can uphold the death penalty.
This is not to subscribe to a denial of the existence of evil or to attribute all crime solely to environmental factors.
What does seem clear is that, as a society, we generally find it impossible to embrace the notion of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. In consequence, certain people are ultimately released back into the community, despite the evil they inflicted. One can therefore readily understand the desire to embrace an alternative course of action that removes that possibility.
Before anyone jumps in to point out that there are Christian arguments in defense of the death penalty, let me state that I am aware of them. They just seem to me to be as culturally derived (in their way) as secular liberal arguments against it.
Thank you Jeremy.
In Canada, we have something called “dangerous offender” status. Once you are a dangerous offender, you don’t ever get out of jail. Period. You won’t ever see Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernado out on the streets, I can assure you.
I’m somewhat surprised that no one has advanced the economic argument for keeping the death penalty, especially now that legal challenges have become more and more difficult to mount. A relatively speedy execution has all sorts of economic benefits, not least of which is the amount of money that won’t have to be spent to keep the executed person alive in maximum security prisons. Economics convinces more easily than lofty arguments about the need for rretribution and punishment.
years ago C.S. Lewis pointed out that if deterrence was the only goal of the death penalty, then guilt or innocence doesn’t matter. Just arrest someone and say he did it, and execute him. The example to the public is clear. Kind of like the Germans rounding up x number of civilians and shooting them if a one of their soldiers was killed. We don’t operate that way. Punishment for a capital crime matters, and if it doesn’t deter anyone that’s not a problem to me.
It’s certainly a deterrent to comitting another murder while in prison.
56 prisoners were murdered in the U.S. in 2005.
An individual who has committed a murder has exercised the death penalty. Proof: the victim is dead, at the hands of the perpetrator.
A state has the sovereign right to decide on its laws. Proof: any consistent, coherent theory of government.
Thus the representatives of a state can decide whether keeping an individual alive, after conviction for a specific offense, is warranted. To state that, without exception, persons must live out their natural lives, seems to substantially detract from the rights of states to decide what laws to enact. For a particular group of individuals to claim a higher authority is to grant them, and not the state, sovereign power.
True or false: persons who have carried out a death penalty have usurped the sovereign right of the state to exercise justice.
If usurping the sovereign right of a state is permitted, the conclusion will be anarchy.
Let be clearly stated here that the manner in which the laws of the several states are administered leaves MUCH to be desired. Example: the recent report that FBI lead-analysis techniques are fatally flawed because of variations in composition DURING the pouring process. Example: the lack of coherent and uniform Miranda rights to be represented by an attorney during all phases of an interrogation. Example: prosecutors run wild, as in the Duke non-rape case. Example: the extensive use of jury picking. The farce of packing a jury should immediately come to an end, and lists of persons who are qualified in terms of their impartiality and their knowledge of general law used for jury panels. No attorney for either plaintiff or defendant should have the right to strike a person from a jury because they have determined that the individual will not rule in a way acceptable to them.
I could go on, as this is just a beginning.
Being afflicted with a terminal inclination to sarcasm, I decided to make some pro-capital punishment slogans by resurfacing some pro-choice slogans. Here’s one:
Lethal Injection: Making sure that every inmate is a wanted inmate.
and so on. The rest are o’er there.
By conflating the argumentation, it seems to make supporting either activity (Abortion, Death Penalty) seem crass and unpalatable.
two things: 1) life is either precious or it is not. therefore, the state should not take life where it has the ability to defend itself with and alternative sentence (in Alabama, when we say Life Without, we mean Life Without). 2) from a legal and economic viewpoint, I’m sure that folks who have been exonerated after15 or 20 years on death row would be comforted by your analysis that we would be better off with a truncated appeals process. If you don’t think the state will lie, cheat and steal to get a conviction and death sentence, you need to come down south and let me show you around a bit!
Willie Horton was serving Life without Parole and yet managed to offend again. The death penalty certainly prevents recipients from committing further crimes.
Here’s one economist’s thoughts,
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/10/econometric_con.html
Re #2
I’m not for abolishing the death penalty completely, but this is a morally bankrupt argument for a Christian to use in its support.
Mr. Lubin didn’t claim to be a Christian, just a future lawyer. That points up something that we have to keep in mind–in order to be persuasive to the population at large, we have to make arguments that don’t depend upon accepting Christian presuppositions (e.g., the argument from redemption). That goes for whichever side you are on.
Re # 16: “in order to be persuasive to the population at large, we have to make arguments that don’t depend upon accepting Christian presuppositions (e.g., the argument from redemption).”
The problem that I have with many of the comments on this blog is that they are devoid of any underlying Christian reasoning. This is a blog under the auspices of an Anglican, Christian theologian; yet I would argue that the majority of the comments on this blog are uninformed by the gospel, Christian theology, or any recognition that the Kingdom of God may take precedence over the kingdoms of this world. For example, can you imagine Jesus encouraging his disciples to make an ethical decision based on economics?
[blockquote]For example, can you imagine Jesus encouraging his disciples to make an ethical decision based on economics?[/blockquote]
Actually, Jesus uses economic models for much of his teaching. His ‘count the cost’ parable was a great cost-benefit analysis – albeit in the spiritual plane. He also used metaphors and parables of economics in the Shrewd Steward, the invested vs. buried talents, the rich fool and so on. I think he using those models because money/survival is so close to our hearts.
Re 18: “Jesus uses economic models for his teaching.” RevK, I think it’s a stretch to equate Jesus’ metaphors and parables with using an economic model for ethical decision-making. I agree that “money/survival” is close to our hearts; however, Jesus seems to be constantly leading us to lay down our self-interest for the good of others.
Yes, it is a different kind of economy, but all economies are about weighing costs and benefits within our bounds of choice. I remember my Systematics professor even referring to this notion as ‘God’s economy.’ Perhaps you have a different meaning for just what constitutes an ‘economic model.’ Please share it.
If you are using “economic model” in the broadest sense of its meaning, I believe that every economic model would draw on a system of values. In that context, Jesus’ economic model would be diametrically opposed to an economic model based on a dollar and cents analysis. He seems to particularly value people, particularly people seen by society as outcasts.
Jesus’ ideas and directions seem to consistently run counter to our natural predispositions. I think this point is particularly apt as we celebrate Christ the King this Sunday.
[blockquote]In that context, Jesus’ economic model would be diametrically opposed to an economic model based on a dollar and cents analysis.[/blockquote] Jesus economic model would be opposed to one based entirely on dollars and cents (or Euros). If that is what you are saying, then I agree; but many ethical decisions must take dollars and Euros into account. I remember a satire magazine article on how much ministry 15 million dollars could buy. It listed housing, water and food projects; electricity for remote African villages; medical care in the jungles of the Amazon; schools in various nations and disaster aid to various places. And then it concluded, ‘Or you could buy a Crystal Cathedral in Southern California.’ Most ethical choices are not diametric and economics can/should become one of the many factors used in making that decision.
I’m not sure we’re in serious disagreement here. I’m in favor of ministry to those in need, but I’m also in favor of fixing our leaking roof at the church. I’m not in favor of “beginning” ethical decision-making at the level of economics, and, in the case of the death penalty, I’m not sure I’ll ever give much credence to an argument that says that killing people is cheaper so that’s what should be done.
No, I don’t think we are too far apart. I was not commenting on the death penalty, but rather your comment, “For example, can you imagine Jesus encouraging his disciples to make an ethical decision based on economics?” From my arguments, I think you can see I would answer, “yes, but not only…” I suspect you might answer, “no, not as the only criteria…” Is that a fair summary?