Capital Punishment - Merciful and Just?
Posted by Amanda on March 1st, 2008 . Filed under: Debate .Welcome back to the ongoing debate between Min and I about the death penalty. In case you haven’t seen them, Min posted a few rules for us to follow. This conversation is going to be good for me because, as Min pointed out, my views seem somewhat problematic and conflicting. This will be a chance for me to really think about why I am against the death penalty, rather than just stating that fact.
Min believes that it is impossible for someone to logically believe that it is both merciful and just to abstain from the death penalty. He asserts that if the definition of mercy is “not getting what you deserve” (our pre-determined definition), then justice must be linked somehow. Min’s definition of justice seems to be “getting what you deserve.” And I will concede that one definition of justice is “the administering of deserved punishment or reward.” But another definition is essentially “moral rightness.” So my question becomes, is the death penalty morally right?
I think the death penalty is morally wrong. So then, that fits just fine with my assertion that allowing a man to live is both merciful and just.
But lets think about the idea of justice for a moment. As a Christian, I see two kinds of possible justice. Earthly justice, based on our human perceptions and ideas (will he/she get the punishment I think he/she deserves?), and godly justice, based on a higher standard (forgiveness, mercy, grace, and compassion). When we decide the fate of a man’s life, regardless of what he has done, what kind of justice is being served?
Min, you argue that it isn’t merciful to keep a man in solitary confinement for the rest of his days, so we should kill him so as not to prolong his misery. But then you say that keeping him alive and in jail is not a good idea because he might somehow end up released. The first sentence sounds like you want mercy for this man; the second seems quite merciless to me.
I also don’t understand how someone’s death could ever be merciful to someone else. You assert:
Second, I would argue that it is more merciful on the families. The current system prolongs the agony while awaiting closure. The family deserves to have the situation finished. They were unjustly punished by the removal of their loved one, and yet the one that took the life still lives and has everything he needs for life provided for him.
Based on the aforementioned definition of mercy, I don’t see how it could relate to the family of the victim. It is entirely possible I’m being quite thick skulled here, but the transition doesn’t make sense. I can understand that you might think that a murderer’s death might bring a sense of closure, or even one of relief, to a family, but I don’t see how that is mercy.
And finally, going back to my question (is the death penalty morally right?)… I can think of no circumstance where willfully putting someone to death can be a moral right. We may have to put a definition on morality here, but it’s generally the sense of right and wrong that we innately have. And we do have morality, or else we wouldn’t be so all-fired up to see justice served. I just don’t think justice could ever be served in a situation where the solution is morally wrong.
Other posts in the series:
March 1st, 2008 at 12:53 am
Here’s my two cents: as long as the vast, vast, vast majority of those sentenced to death in this country are men, and of those mostly men of color, then how can the death penalty be just? If you go to the Texas Department of Corrections site you can read for yourself all of the final statements and vital info on every one of the 300-plus souls that have been executed since the mid-1970’s. You’ll find, I think, 3 women and precious few people from privileged backgrounds.So, if the ultimate penalty is simply not dispensed in an impartial way with respect to race or sex, how can it be just?
March 1st, 2008 at 12:57 am
I, too, am against the death penalty. Great post
March 1st, 2008 at 7:00 am
Hi, Amanda. My name is Jonathan and I´m from Argentina. I´ve reading your blog for a little while already, and I wanted to comment something about this particular post.
You said: “As a Christian, I see two kinds of possible justice. Earthly justice, based on our human perceptions and ideas (will he/she get the punishment I think he/she deserves?), and godly justice, based on a higher standard (forgiveness, mercy, grace, and compassion)”.
I think you are not quite right in that statement. You are confusing God´s justice and mercy as the same thing. They are not. Let me get this straight: when we were forgiven, it was not only through mercy, but also through justice. That is: the result of sin is death (as sin is the separation from God, the giver and sustainer of life), through God´s mercy we did not get that consequence BUT, nevertheless, someone did get it (Christ), and there´s justice! Christ died to fulfill God´s justice. God´s mercy could not just put justice aside, but just “redirect” the consequences to Himself. If justice wasn´t served, then God wouldn´t be a just god, and if mercy wasn´t provided, He wouldn´t be a merciful God. When Christ took our place in the cross, he showed mercy and ALSO served justice!
Therefore, I think the question about death penalty (at least from a christian point of view) it´s not about “mercy vs. justice”, but how do we serve justice AND show mercy at the same time while dealing with the matter. That is: what is the most just punishment and at the same time, the biggest and greatest way to show mercy at the same time?
At least, that´s how I think God would see it.
Forgive my english, if bad, or if I used a wrong word to describe something instead of the right one.
God bless you!
March 1st, 2008 at 7:13 am
using IE now. maybe my comment will format better….
First the only reaon Min sees conflict between your religious beleifs and your views on CP is becuase his beleifs look no further than the end of his fingers. By this i mean is that he, and dare I say most conservatives, have a self centered philosophy, which focuses how things are better for the individual rather than the community, or nation. This is why taxes are such a big issue for them regardless of how it helps the rest of the nation CP, regardless of how in impacts the rest of the nation, abortion regardless of how it impact the nation as a whole, etc etc.
You on the other hand choose to beleive that as a nation, killing people doesnt help the problem and willful killing is wrong no matter who does it. And you are right. I presented a link in the last post about this about how CP rates have no effect on the murder rate. Scot posted about how it is administered unjustly.
note to scot:isnt that ratio about the same as the ratio of people in jail? isnt that also administered unjustly? Or is it simply a matter of statistical descriptions, for example minorities and poor are less educated, less advantaged, exposed to environments that condone crime, etc etc so they do more crime. Is it the punishment that is distributed unfairly, or the economic and social opportunities which are?
What min hasn’t bothered to realize (does he have kids?) is that if your daughter or son dies….there is no closure. Period. Killing the killer doesnt undo the suffereing the child or friend received, and it certainly doesnt undo murder. Like abortion, the best we can do as a society is to drop the murder rate, and this is not done by CP, its done by giving everyone the same advantages, making it equally possible for a poor minority to succeed as it is for everyone else.
I’m not saying this is easy, and I’m not even saying it is possible. But it certainly is possible to do better and doing better will drop both the murder rate and the abortion rate. Economy has a far better correlation to crime than CP does. Abortion has been dropping steadily as we do better in educating about sex and its consequences in public schools and in the media.
But when your world view doesnt extend past your fingers then its all about how something is fair to only you, how economic policy affects only you, and how health policy affects only you and that other people, who don’t beleive the same things you do, should only be allowed to do the things that only you think are correct.
Don’t get me wrong. If someone hurt my daughter, I would not be able to stop my self from trying to see immediate retribution. But that is pure emotion talking, just like eye for an eye is simply that someone write down of this exact same pure emotion. While this has not happened, I have a cooler head, and if it ever does happen it will take the cooler heads around me to help control this. But Eye for an Eye is not the sign of a cooler head. It is the sign of condoning this exact emotional response. If we act in a way that is a result of pure emotion, we are not acting morally becuase we are acting selfishly.
I’ll beleive in CP when someone shows good data that it lowers murder rates. Until then, it should be off the table.
Second, this is one of the problems with religion overall. Look, some Al qeada guy kills everyone in a store. Min would put that guy to death. By doing so you have martyred him and he will look forward to it. He will go to a land of milk and honey and 70 brainless virgin will be at his beck and call. Min chooses to send this guy to that place. Its not different that an abortion clinic bomber, or anyone else who does bad things in the name of religion or even personal beliefs. To the person who did this becuase voices told him too, or becuase God told him too, or becuase he is suffering, etc etc there is no reason to beleive you have acheived retribution. The CP victim often doesnt go down in absolute terror like their victim did. none of them go down in pain (although there is some data to suggest they actually do). Many of them feel they have made peace with god and are not going to hell.
CP is a result of the presumption that some God will administer justice and send the person to eternal hell. While I do wish this was the case… your hell may simply be another mans land of milk and honey. so not only is CP not effective as a deterent and the murder rates in states without CP show, it doesnt provide closure for the family of the victim, and its not even a good form of retribution.
I’d rather see justice and crime prevention done now, on this planet, at this time.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Techskeptic writes:isnt that ratio about the same as the ratio of people in jail? isnt that also administered unjustly? The short answer is no. The long answer is that the percentage of women vs. men convicted of capital offenses is much higher than the percentage of women who are actually executed, vs. men. The same thing is true for people of color.The broader question of whether the entire legal system has a built-in bias in favor of those who can hire the best attorneys, etc. is a different question than that of capital punishment. My argument is simply this: given that capital punishment is dispensed inequitably between sub-populations of the convicted by gender and by race (and no one disputes this), then how can it be just?
March 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
i didnt realize that the demographics of those executed were not similar to the demographics of the jail population as a whole. I thought at least that part of it was consistent. I guess not.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 am
So do the people who support Old Testament judgement and justice think we should execute people who commit adultory or disobey their parents as well?
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Well they difinitely think homosexuality is condemnable that way. Why mixing linens and shaving beards isn’t punishable by death or exile to them is beyond me. Its in the same set of 613 commandments. I’ll never understand why people bother with religion.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
[…] Second, it’s really not the topic on the table. Regardless of who is right in the debate over both mercy and justice3 , the real issue is whether the Death Penalty is just. Which is where we’ll pick up on Amanda’s post. […]
March 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
no one said the 70 virgins would be women. the terrorists should keep that in mind
March 5th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
holy crap musicguy…thats friggin hilarious!
March 5th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Jeff Dunham uses that idea in his Achmed the Dead Terrorist spiel. It’s definitely funny.