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:
Categories: Debate |
12 Comments »
