I consider myself a very rational and skeptical person. I try not to adhere to beliefs or philosophies that I haven't at least given some serious thought to. So it can be frustrating to deal with another person's arguments that seem, on the surface, to be based on nothing at all. However, at some point in our lives, we're all guilty of it. I have found myself taking a side in some conversations, and realizing that I really don't have any good reasons for choosing my side other than some visceral appeal to emotion. Thankfully, that doesn't happen often.
Let me get this out of the way: I support the death penalty. And I have for as long as I can remember; or at least as long as I was able to fully understand what it was and what it entailed. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my early feelings about it were influenced by emotion, and had little rational thought behind them at all. As you might have guessed, I can be a pretty angry person; it's the one emotion I'm comfortable with. And so I use it to deal with many situations. However, I'm not violent or beligerent. And a vast majority of the time, I'm not even outwardly angry. I just tend to put things on simmer as I slowly pick them apart, analyze them, and finally file them away.
So what does all this have to do with capital punishment? Well, I was reading a thread on a forum the other day about abolishing the death penalty. Some (not all) of the responses were well thought out and articulate. And both sides were pretty well represented. But as I read more and more, I kept second-guessing my stance. Was it based on a visceral reaction? A need for revenge? Did my hot-headed teenage self still cling to this idea in defiance of my more tempered, rational, older self?
After a good couple of days of serious introspection, I'm happy to conclude that no; my stance remains the same. And my reasons are sound - or at least self-consistent. Rather than sum up the arguments on the thread, I'm just going to put my position out there. After all, this is my blog, and I can do what I want. There are plenty of other blogs you can read that will preach the saving of a life - ANY life.
As soon as humans started living together as groups, communities, societies, etc. it became necessary to set up rules. These rules define what we, as a society, think is acceptable. But that's not enough, is it? Because there will always be some asshat that doesn't care what you or your buddies think is acceptable. So there has to be some enforcement, and punishment, for when you break the rules. So our society says that to kill another, except in self defense, is wrong. Every time. If that's the case, how can I agree with allowing the government to kill someone? Isn't that just the government exacting revenge, which we've all agreed is also wrong? Well...not exactly.
The penal system provides pushishment for criminals that break our laws. But another primary, worthy, admirable, important goal is rehabilitation. My opinion, based on personal experience with other people besides myself, is that there are individuals for whom rehabilitation will never work.
What recourse does a society have for people like this? What punishment do we reserve for the most heinous crimes? The simple answer is to remove them from society. But even that is not so simple. The resounding argument, the one I see most often, is to simply remove them from society by incarcerating them until their death. Opponents of the death penalty will say that this is far preferable to denying them life; from actively taking their life from them. Well, I disagree.
First, I disagree because allowing individuals like this to exist and carry on living inside the penal system means that they have a chance to influence other people. Perhaps even other prisoners for whom rehabilitation is possible. That's not a risk I'm willing to take.
Second, there's no reasonable way of separating such a person from the general populace and ensuring - guaranteeing - that they will not be a threat to other humans; inmate, guard, or otherwise. And believe me, there are people out there who want to construct some kind of crazy structure like the one used to house Magneto in the X-Men movie. Well, this ain't a movie. Try to refrain from suggesting fictional solutions to our very real problem.
Finally, and this is a biggie, I don't agree that every human life has the same value. Before I start some major shit, or walk off the deep end of some sort of eugenics derail, let me clarify. I certainly don't propose some sort of sliding scale, or ranking. I'm merely suggesting that there are people out there who are perfectly happy murdering innocent people simply for their own enjoyment - and we should value their lives less than those who don't go around murdering people.
If murdering for fun was a popular human condition, there would be a society that embraced it, and we could send those individuals there. However, I'm not aware of such a place. Barring that, each society is forced to deal with this incredibly shitty situation. And I truly don't think there are ANY attractive options here.
There are twisted people out there, living among us. When we find them, I think we have to deal with them appropriately. And in my opinion, that means they should be removed efficiently and expeditiously from society. And the only option I think is viable is the death penalty.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about cases where rehabilitation can work. I'm talking about the sickest people out there. People like
Javed Iqbal,
Jeffery Dahmer,
Ted Bundy, and
Andrei Chikatilo. These people have no redeeming qualities. They have no place in society. And they have no value for human life. In cases like these, I feel the government should not shy away from its duty to protect its citizens.