Of Life, Love, Death and Hate (Crimes)
by Stephen Foster
Because systems of criminal justice are inherently flawed to the point that few question whether it is probable innocent people are occasionally executed and guilty people are occasionally exonerated, I am against the death penalty. Whether someone is executed by the state is often directly dependent on the quality of the legal defense the accused can afford immediately or soon after being charged.
There is nothing worse, in my view, than an innocent person being executed for a crime that, by definition, he or she did not commit. Whatever is gained by the existence and imposition of the death penalty is not worth the occasional and perhaps inevitable execution of people who are not guilty of the crimes with which they have been charged.
It is no more evil, in my view, to murder someone in cold blood (will malice aforethought) than it is to put to be willing to kill an individual who might be innocent. The willingness to do this – that is, to put someone to death who may actually be innocent – is the evil that precedes and enables the actual act of executing someone who may be innocent. Without the societal willingness to do this, it would not happen.
This is, of course, reminiscent to what happened to Jesus at the hands of Pilate. Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent but, for reasons of political expediency, was willing to satisfy the blood thirst of those who wanted Jesus dead. Conversely, the willingness to die for something that you did not do in order that the guilty does not have suffer the penalty that they deserve is the opposite of the willingness to kill someone who is, or may be, innocent. The former is motivated by love; the latter is motivated by the opposite of love – indifference.
The willingness to execute someone who may be innocent is very, very similar to the willingness to execute someone who is certainly innocent. Perhaps the difference is similar to the difference between that of hate and indifference; in either case, love has nothing to do with it.
As far as hate crime legislation is concerned, to be against such legislation is an admission that you are not willing to give a harsher punishment to the perpetrators of such crimes; and you are therefore willing to protect those who are most often accused of such crimes (no matter who they may be) from harsher penalties.
In hate crime legislation, no one is excluded or treated differently. Such legislation applies to anyone and everyone no matter the race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion of the accused/perpetrator.
Now, for those who may, in general, actually favor harsher sentences for crime, to NOT be in favor of harsher penalties for hate crime convictions is evidence of a curious hypocrisy at best. They are, for some strange reason, in effect protective of those who are the more frequent perpetrators of such crimes (whoever they may be).
To be clear, not to mention consistent, I would have much preferred that James Byrd's murderer(s) in the Texas dragging case been given life in prison without the possibility of parole.
If, because of his race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion, they had "just" beaten him up — instead of having dragged him to his death — they should then have simply received a more severe sentence than would normally have applied; very much like the aggravated circumstance penalties for assaulting or killing a police officer, or for using a gun in the commission of a crime.
Hate crimes, of course, are not punishments for thoughts; they are punishments for actions. Much like gun crimes are not crimes because of guns, they are crimes because of actions. If someone acts with criminal intent on a thought (which anyone is free to have), it is like acting with criminal intent with a gun (which most adults are likewise free to have).
In point of fact, I actually favor stricter sentences for murder than most currently meted out; in that I do not believe that parole should be considered for people who have been convicted of murdering someone. Life means life, 30 years means 30 years, etc.; I am simply against the death penalty for the reasons I have stated above.
It is my view the legal authorities in Georgia recently committed legal manslaughter; simply because—over two decades later—it was not obvious that Troy Davis was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and they were hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would bail them out.
Did this also make the Court — by perhaps even a 5-4 vote — “guilty,” beyond a reasonable doubt?
Stephen wrote:
"Hate crimes, of course, are not punishments for thoughts; they are punishments for actions"
If that was true there would be no reason for the addition of a hate crime. Because the action would be identical to the action of someone who committed the crime without hate But I see the reason you want to believe that incorrect idea. I mean it does sound aweful to want to punish thoughts…but that is what hate crimes do. Oh yes and gun crimes are in fact crimes involving guns, yes because the gun was used in the crime. You do seem very confused on this article.
The idea that a person should face a stiffer penalty because it was a so-called "hate crime" is ludicrous. Murder is murder, pure and simple. If someone commits premeditated murder, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whether they murdered them for their money, or because they hated the ethnicity of the victim. All premeditated murder stems from hatred of some kind. You beat a guy up to steal his wallet, or you beat a guy up because he belongs to a different ethnic group. What's the difference? The guy gets beat up. It's assault and battery, no matter why you did it. You don't help the guys wounds heal any faster by a stiffer sentence for it being a "hate crime."
As for the death penalty, I agree that it is despicable to execute someone if there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt. But the Bible does give the state the authority to execute murderers. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Gen. 9:6.
Enacting hate crime legislation borders on the idea of unleashing the "thought police." I can imagine a scenario in which someone acts in self defence and kills someone of another ethnic group, but when it is found out thay they were prejudiced against that ethnic group, they get convicted merely because of their erroneous thinking.
So, are you both in principle against aggravated circumstances sentencing (in general), or only (against them) in relation to hate crimes?
Would you consider yourselves "hard" on crime generally; but have a somewhat nuanced, evolved, or enlightened position relating to hate crimes?
Would you acknowledge that opposition to aggravated sentences for such criminality is protective of those who engage in such activity; as opposition to the death penalty is protective of those who have actually murdered someone?
(Remember, to be convicted of a hate crime, it must be “proven” that criminal action resulted directly from previously expressed motives.)
Obviously each case must be decided individually, and mitigating circumstances must be considered, but we already have laws against violent crime: murder, assault, rape, etc. I question the need to add another category. If the penalty for murder is life or execution, do we increase it because hate was involved? As I said before, murder and assault have always involved hatred to some degree or another. I'm unaware of any method of executing a person twice or of increasing a life sentence beyond the grave. If the penalty for assault and battery is 10 years, do we make it 20 because the perpetrator happened to have a bias against the ethnic group to which the victim belonged? It would be too easy to attribute the motive of hate to any violent crime, especially if the ethnicity or sexual orientation of those involved were different. I think this opens a door to a path that should be avoided, or we may wake up some day to find monitors in all of our roooms, listening for any signs of disloyalty (interpreted as hatred) to Big Brother.
I'm not sure how to answer your questions. Violent crime deserves a proper punishment, but I'm not convinced that adding the category of "hate crime" will solve anything. It has the potential of turning bigots into criminals simply because they are bigots. Some of the reactions to ill advised politically incorrect statements by various individuals of late seems to be taking us in that direction. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are close cousins. To restrict the one is to restrict the other. From creating a class of crimes prefaced by the word "hate" it is a short step to making it criminal to voice "improper opinions."
Since you are not quite sure how to answer my questions, Horace; allow me to suggest that you try to address them one at a time, or individually.
We do, after all, certainly have aggravated circumstances sentencing for crimes committed with guns. (As an example, armed robbery is generally treated differently than is other larcenous crime; even if the gun is not fired, and is legally owned, licensed, and registered.)
If either of you—or anyone else, for that matter—don’t mind, I would sincerely appreciate answers to my three (3) questions above; each of which can technically be answered with a “yes” or “no.”
Stephen, only simple questions can be answered "yes" or "no." Those you asked do not fit that requirement.
|"are you both in principle against aggravated circumstances sentencing (in general), or only (against them) in relation to hate crimes?
Both and neither.
"Would you consider yourselves "hard" on crime generally; but have a somewhat nuanced, evolved, or enlightened position relating to hate crimes?"
Nuanced.
"Would you acknowledge that opposition to aggravated sentences for such criminality is protective of those who engage in such activity; as opposition to the death penalty is protective of those who have actually murdered someone?
Neither.
Now if you would kindly answer this question with either a "yes" or "no":
When did you stop beating your wife?
Elaine,
Yeah, I see your point; and on reflection, you’re probably right. I suppose that I was just looking for ways to make it easier to address these questions; because Horace had indicated that he was not sure how to answer them.
Although I could not determine whether your answers were facetious to reinforce your point, or genuine responses; what I believe their answers should actually be are as follows, respectively 1) that they are only against aggravated sentencing insofar as hate crimes are concerned, but are not against this option in sentencing generally, 2) Yes, meaning they are “hard” on crimes generally, but have either a nuanced, evolved, and/or enlightened position as relates to hate crimes because of fear of the slippery slope syndrome (regarding “thought police”), and 3) while I anticipate their answers to be “No,” the reality is that I believe the correct answer to be that, in point of fact, opposition to harsher sentences for hate crimes is a tacit protective act toward those accused of such activity; in the much the same way that opposition to the death penalty tacitly provides protection to the lives of those accused of capital offenses.
The law only recognizes degree of homocide: involuntary (or accidental), premeditaded, and lst, 2nd, & 3rd degree, and motive should not be considered, as murder is murder.
Killing, as in war, is not considered murder, although in most circumstances to deliberately shoot to kill is considered murder, so the circumstances do affect the charge.
I'm uncertain, has "hate crime" been legislated yet? And how is it defined?
Homicide has many descriptions. Currently, Michael Jackson's physician is on trial for his death. It appears he was very negligent as a physician, but he did not "kill" Michael. This is an example of one of the many degrees of homicide which may be prosecuted.
What punishment would you find acceptable, Stephen, for someone who "might" be innocent? How about life without the possibility of parole for Troy Davis? Would you be okay with that? Surely not, since you believe he was legally innocent! If the person who is willing to impose the death penalty for someone who "might" be innocent is guilty of murder, then isn't the person who is willing to imprison someone who "might" be innocent guilty of kidnapping and false imprisonment? Have you not, by so dramatically taking away a man's freedom, deprived him of life in a very real sense?
Your moral views on this topic, Stephen, are so idiosyncratic and exceptional in the context of human history that it seems to me you should hold them very lightly. The ability of the state to hold a person criminally responsible is predicated upon proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty. Does that standard, for you, mean "might" be innocent? If so, then why not advocate a higher standard? To better understand your argument, which implies that you'd be okay with the death penalty if the "possibility" of innocence could be eliminated, I would like to know what level of proof you would need to find the death penalty acceptable.
I do not want to debate the Troy Davis execution, or the mainstream media's highly selective and biased reporting of the story. But the case has gone through multiple filters in a justice system predicated on the maxim that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted. Neither jurors nor judges reviewing the case thought that Troy Davis might be innocent. You did not hear or weigh the evidence according to the rules of law. So your belief that a legally innocent man was convicted and executed is not really an argument against the death penalty. It is an argument against the justice system that yielded a conviction. I'm curious…have you ever written to protest an acquittal or reversed conviction of someone who was clearly guilty of a heinous crime? Does such a result ever cause you to think that our justice system might in some ways provide safe havens for crime to flourish and go unpunished? Can you think of someone convicted and executed who did not fit into the "might be innocent" category?
Do you believe that in the moral realm, all possible doubt cannot be eliminated, and therefore, everyone charged and convicted of a criminal offense "might" be innocent? If so, then a legal determination of guilt is morally impossible, and your "might be innocent" rationale becomes a tautology.
Nathan,
It is really, really, this simple. Death is a worse fate than life; whether in prison or not. Now, if people are literally being physically tortured for the rest of their natural days, which would be indisputably unconstitutional in America (and which, of course, they are not), death would then clearly be the more humane approach. However, since this is not the case, it is evil to be willing to execute someone who might be innocent.
To the extent that someone might be innocent in cases where the death penalty is not on the table; the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is theoretically appropriate, in my view, for conviction and sentencing.
To argue whether life in prison is tantamount to death by execution is not worth the time of either of us. If you are really in doubt about that (yourself), I would suggest that you conduct a poll among death row inmates.
I may not know the facts in the Davis case, but I know a lot of people more knowledgeable than I seemed to believe in his innocence. Such support should have made a difference in the outcome as it reflected a large degree of doubt.
I am opposed to the death penalty with the possible exception of serial killers. Not only are these more of a danger, but probably lead psychotic, miserable lives.
While I disagree with practically all of Stephen's points I will say I agree to the the postion of getting rid of the death penalty. Not just because it often becomes more expensive through the appeals process then keeping the person in prison for life but on the more Christian philosophical view that a person can change and be a witness for God in prison. I think it was Carla Faye Tucker that settled me on this idea. She became a Christian in prison and helped her fellow inmates. She did not request a stay of execution and acknowledged her murder and was executed. To me that is a light taken away from the job of Christian Ambassador to a group of people that few others could ever reach. So as a Christian the higher calling is to preach the good news even over public punishment laws that are traditionally based upon Judeo Christian beliefs, they may be right and good in most instances but to protect the exceptions where Christ can be proclaimed I will as Governor Perry said "err on the side of life".
The Innocence Project has released more than 250 prisoners scheduled for the death penalty with their careful analysis of the cases. Many had very inept defense attorneys, police lied on the witness stands, judges and prosecutors who needed such cases to prove their were tought on crime, and falsified evidence.
With the possibility of life without parole at least there will be no cases that will afterward be found innocent, as has happened, and simply for the heavy costs of those on Death Row: they can live 20-25 years with repeated appeals that are costly and without end. It costs much more to have them on Death Row than in for life, and prison costs are now eclipsing education costs in many states. This must stop.
Something not usually considered in the question of the death penalty. Ancient Israel did not have the facilities for life imprisonment. Their imprisonment capacity was extremely limited. If there is someone in the community who has murdered and is likely to murder again, they either can execute the murderer, or let the murderer live and probably murder again. In that society there is good reason to execute a person deemed dangerous, even if occasionally you execute an innocent person. Not executing a dangerous person perpetuates the danger in the community.
Modern societies have the capacity for life imprisonment. Therefore, the death penalty is not necessary to protect the community from the violent person. And if the death penalty is still used, it should be reserved only for the most extreme cases where the evidence is overwhelming.
There have been far too many innocent people condemened and on death row for years, only to have their convictions overturned because of faulty evidence or inept defenders, and lack of DNA. It is a sentence that cannot be revoked.
Studies have shown that it has never been a good deterrent and is very unevenly used. Why does Texas have a far larger perecentage of executions than any other state but not the largest population?
It may not be the best deterrent; however, it guarantees that the criminal will not go free to kill again. The two that murdered almost an entire family in front of the father in ?Connecticut? should never see the light of day. My fear is of the numerous cases let out early by either overly sympathetic or activist judges. What's the average stay for life imprisonment these days? 10 years maybe?
Elaine – what do you mean by percentage of execution? If you mean per capita, why should state size make a difference? If you mean percentage of "death" verdicts compared to those condemned to life in prison, again, why does population make a difference?
The percentage clearly shows that in some states, notably Texas, has the highest number and percentage of executions that any state. FYI, percentage indicates how many per population.
Overwhelmingly, the death penalty has had no deterrent effect as numerous studies have shown. Also, there have been more than 200, on death row awaiting execution who were found to be innocent by DNA. Because there have been so many unjust people sent to death row it is fraught with many errors: inept defense attorneys, perjured witnesses, and more. If your loved one were accused, would you not want the very best defense available? Most who are on death row have been penniless and unable to get a top-rate attorney.
How do I know this? Two very close relatives involved in law enforcement for many years. For those who assume that everyone there deserves it, please be better informed. Also, when one says they will not be able to kill again, there have been murders in prison.
I wonder do we put people into prison to punish them, or to isolate them from society to prevent them from doing more harm? Personally I am against the death penalty. Life in prison is a very harsh sentenance. BTW many lifers have become SDA Christians. Everyone is redeemable. Jesus saves to the uttermost.
Things they are a-changing! With the costs of prisons in the state of California exceeding the education budget, many prisoners have already been released because of overcrowding.
Usually non-violent criminals. When the ratio of prison costs to education are upended, things must change or it will become a state with more jails than schools.
From a European perspective the death penalty is seen as quite barbaric, and the media of any political color were quite unanimous when it came to the case of Troy Davis. Obviously, for Christians the "public opinion" is not the ultimate criterion (but – as this blog shows – we are influenced by it!). Thus – simple question: What would Jesus do? John 8:11; Lk 6:27-35; John 10:10 just to name three texts. Too idealistic? Maybe – the Christian gospel is quite idealistic.
And about the Tucker case …. I watched the relatives of the victim come out of the prison after her execution (yes, it was on European TV). What struck me – they didn't seem any happier or more peaceful. Revenge does not bring peace or "satisfaction" (in the original latin sense).
Ah yes, WWJD? But I see that the texts quoted only present a one-sided picture to the character of Jesus. It should not be forgotten that it was also Jesus who voiced the words found in Gen. 9:6, as well as those recorded in Deut. 32:41, and those quoted by Paul in Rom. 12:19. Loving our enemies does not mean that evil must go unchecked and that the perpetrators get off with light punishment, all in the name of forgiveness and political correctness.
"Evil must go unchecked."
The U.S. has one of the best justice system and yes, they are not always met with complete public approval. There are attorneys, judges, juries who are responsible for punishment and sentencing. What suggestions for improvement are offered?
Because the system is run by fallible human beings it will never be foolproof or perfect. The concept of "reasonable doubt" is an important one, and should play a part, especially when the death penalty may be imposed. The shenanigans that are used to keep legitimate evidence out of court should be eliminated. I know someone who is serving a life sentence for a crime of which he is innocent. The evidence that would have cleared him was not allowed in court. This is just as much a travesty of justice as when someone who is clearly guilty gets off on a technicality.
Texas ranks second in population. Only California has more people. My guess as to why there are more executions in Texas is that the death penalty is carried out in Texas, whereas here in California there have been so few executions for capital crimes where the death penalty is given, that the ranks of those on death row just keep rising.
As for the arguement of whether it is a deterent, it can't be argued that it isn't if the sentence is carried out. No chance to get out and murder again if you are dead.
Tom,
The points that should not be lost are that it is evil to be willing to execute someone who may in fact not be guilty; and that our system of criminal justice is sufficiently flawed to the extent it is clear that there is no possibility of infallibility.
Our criminal justice system has come a long ways from the days when lynching was a common practice. DNA has given us a new degree of evidence we never had in the past. Today a defendent has recourse of numerous appeals and no stone seems to be left unturned to determine guilt or innocense in capital crimes. The benchmark is reasonable doubt. To rise it to possibility of infallibility is unreasonable.
Capital punishment should be a last resort sentence, reserved for the most hideous murderers. I do not believe it should be used for anything less, such as treason.
Tom,
While DNA evidence is an obvious improvement—and provider of some “evidence” of how flawed the criminal justice system has been—it is by no means a forensic panacea for all criminal system injustice.
You have the impression that “no stone seems to be left unturned to determine guilt or innocence in capital crimes;” but, as was apparent in the Troy Davis case, prosecutorial professionals perceive an interest in maintaining an appearance of systemic integrity in cases where there is no physical or forensic evidence, or any impeccable eyewitness testimony. In this particular case, the so-called “reasonable doubt” threshold certainly appeared to have been essentially erased, decades after the original conviction.
Besides, reasonable doubt is in the eyes of the beholders—and with enough money, can be literally purchased—as evidenced by numerous high profile cases in the past.
If there is any doubt that an individual is guilty, it is evil to execute said individual. Clearly, it is my view that it is systemically evil to be willing to take the chance of executing someone who is not certainly guilty.
With money, human frailty, and the manipulation of emotions all integral to human systems of “justice,” the death penalty is something that should be relegated to history books.
"With money, human frailty, and the manipulation of emotions all integral to human systems of “justice,” the death penalty is something that should be relegated to history books."
Considering how corrupt man had become before the flood, it is interesting that God spoke the words of Gen.9:6 after the flood was over, knowing how evil the world would again become. Does that text no longer apply to us? Should we relegate it to the dustbin of history?
I am certain that you realize that we do not live in an antediluvian or postdiluvian theocracy; nor has our society adopted the Divine edicts as constitutional law.
While we find no fault with the biblical principle of reciprocal justice, I have grave doubts about, and significant problems with, modern systems of criminal (and civil) justice.
Because you have rhetorically framed the argument to dictate the conclusion you desire, Stephen, you foreclose the possibility of an honest debate where differences of opinion are respected. Who do you know that is content to see someone who "might be innocent" sentenced to death for a heinous crime? I have never heard anyone express the view that it is okay to execute someone "who is not certainly guilty." So it seems to me that you have really set up a straw man on which to found an implicit argument that those who support the death penalty are evil. All moral citizens would agree that moral certainty should be a prerequisite for not only implementing the death penalty, but convicting a person of any crime. They just differ about what constitutes certainty. That's why unanimous verdicts are required in our justice system – because we believe it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted. That is the most formidable standard of morality the world has ever seen. But it's not good enough for you.
I assume you would concede that SOME who are executed for terrible crimes are certainly guilty. If society chose to follow the Stephen Foster standard of certainty, would you be okay with the death penalty? Many moral, intelligent people believe that when one deliberately takes the life of another, justice is best served, in certain circumstances, by requiring the murderer to forfeit his life. The reality that miscarriages of justice have occurred, and will occur in the future, should not cause us to shrink from the solemn duty to do justice. When the quest for perfect justice, and the realization that it can never be achieved in this world, paralyze us from humbly and fearfully implementing justice in human societies, our justice will become an impotent oxymoron.
Stephen, you laud societies such as that of France, where the death penalty is outlawed. Nonsense! They just have different ways of making sure that justice is done. Do you know what prison life is like for the most violent criminals in France? I have heard that the French have made a verb of the word "suicide." They have a word that means "suicided". It's what happens when someone who has committed a heinous murder or series of murders is being interrogated by the gendarmes at police headquarters. While "no one is looking" the murderer suddenly bolts and jumps out a tenth story window to his death. RIGHT! The French knowingly say he was suicided. That's what happens when a society obfuscates justice in the name of justice.
Maybe, we should take another look at the past and future events as depicted in the The Great Controversy?
Gailon, Jim, Andreas,
You make excellent points, especially as relates to how the death penalty could be used for those who may be considered subversive, for religious reasons.
That is indeed interesting. How does one account for the fact that those who repudiate traditonal values and advocate violent overthrow of Western governmental institutions are, and have been, vehemently opposed to the death penalty? These are the same folks who are defecating on police cars, parading Marxists slogans, and shouting "death to capitalists." They are backed by some pretty scary forces that believe in world government. (Does world government figure anywhere in SDA prophecy?) Contrast the venom, vulgarity and destructiveness of "peace" demonstrators and protesters of Western values and institutions with the decorum and cleanliness of Tea Party rallies, Christian mens' rallies, or The Glenn Beck rally.
"Peace" is of course a somewhat different issue than the death penalty, though they are philosophical siblings. So it is worth reflecting on the reality that the biggest supporters of peace movements in the Twentieth Century turned out to be champions of state sponsored murder. It is not difficult to see how today's death penalty opponents could be sharpening the guillotine tomorrow. Those who are prepared to trample on freedom for the greater good will not hesitate to use the death penalty, once it seems useful and necessary, against those they hate and those who are considered subversive.
Right now, in the Western world, it is overwhelmingly those who despise Christians that oppose the death penalty. As they gain power and align their utopian visions with totalitarian methodologies that are the envy of our intellectual elites, I suspect we will see prophecy soon fulfilled in ways we did not imagine.
Nathan,
Let me try to address your concerns with my admittedly strong—perhaps even dogmatic—opinion, and then address concerns that you have expressed that are not representative of my opinion; but are themselves straw images of your representations of my opinion.
My concern with absolute certainty of guilt as it pertains to the administering of the death penalty is, of course, based on the principle that, as you put it, it is indeed “better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be”…EXECUTED. I have substituted your use of the word “convicted” with “EXECUTED” because that is precisely what I am arguing; that where there is not an absolute certainty—what John McLaughlin would categorize as metaphysical certitude—of the guilt of the accused, the death penalty should never be considered, much less administered.
The fact that miscarriages of justice are inevitable, and that this is a readily acknowledged and self-evident fact of societal life is the very basis of my case. It is both morally and logically untenable to be willing, in the name of our “solemn duty to do justice” no less, to take the chance of occasionally executing innocent individuals so that SOME/MOST guilty people may get what they have coming to them—that is, of course, if we believe that it is “better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be…” executed.
The unanimous jury principle and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard are sufficient for convictions. I would, however, remind you that convictions and executions are not the same thing. My concern is about executions wherein, to answer your question, “the Stephen Foster standard of certainty”—where the guilt of the accused and the circumstances under which the crime was committed are as certain as life and death itself—in tandem with “the Stephen Foster standard of equal justice under law”—where everyone, regardless of wealth or the lack thereof, gets an O.J. Simpson quality “Dream Team” defense—would permit the death penalty to be administered; but short of these standards, no way.
As for your France reference/straw man, I have no idea where you get the idea that France’s system of justice, with which I am totally unfamiliar, is one which I “laud;” as I didn’t reference other societies in this context at all.
What sense does it make to apply an oxymoronic standard of "metaphysical certainty" to the realm of human affairs? By metaphysical standards, it is quite possible that the execution you think is taking place is simply an appearance, and the essence underlying the appearance, if indeed there is one, is in no way extinguished by the ritual we call capital punishment.
What superior knowledge or insight are 21st Century elites privy to that enables them to assert moral hegemony over history? The same evidence which creates uncertainty ( DNA, for example) may also increase certainty, leading responsible, moral people to fine tune their standards of justice while maintaining the integrity of the principle that human beings sometimes commit acts so heinous that they forfeit their right to live. Your opinion that the very nature of capital punishment mandates an entirely different moral vocabulary than life in a dungeon is simply that – your opinion. It seems remarkably arrogant of you to assert, without new knowledge or information, that millions – probably billions – of intelligent people, now and throughout history, who disagree with you are benighted fools and moral cretins.
Throughout its history, humanity has been aware of its frailty. It has also recognized that, to the extent human finitude is a trump card to preclude acting on principles of justice, justice is sacrificed, since perfection is not possible. How many executions of innocent victims have been carried out by criminals who have gone free because legal barriers to truth finding have been erected by courts in the name of justice? How about trading those artificial barriers (Exculsionary Rule and Miranda) for the death penalty? Those who purport to know cosmic justice inevitably see it as a shield against imposition of consequences and personal responsibility for actions – a shield which prevents society from protecting itself against evil, since after all, it is society itself that is responsible for the evildoer. Justice itself seems to be the primary collateral damage of the chimerical quest for cosmic justice.
I accept and respect your political position on this issue, Stephen. But when we turn our political beliefs into universal moral mandates, characterizing those who disagree with us as immoral and evil, we sow the very seeds of hatred and evil that we puport to be uprooting. We also end up with a patchwork quilt of illogical, idiosyncratic morality that has no qualms about destroying innocent human life at conception, but sacralizes the lives of vicious predators. I am not suggesting that you support abortion, but most people who share your moral views on capital punishment do support abortion. Is it merely conincidental that they are also (with the exception of Jews) overwhelmingly non-religious and anti-Christian?
Obviously Nathan, you have not watched The McLaughlin Group. Otherwise you would have recognized the “metaphysical certitude” phraseology is similar to the late Johnny Carson’s Carnack the Magnificent reference to “hermetically sealed” envelopes. I’m not even sure what “metaphysical certitude” literally means; and it is doubtful if McLaughlin does either. It is simply meant to convey certainty.
The point of course, is that the death penalty should not be considered in cases where there is any question as to who did it; and under what circumstances.
For some reason, and I think I know what it is, despite the fact that I am focusing on the death penalty, you insist on including all criminal justice in your argument(s). I believe you are doing this because you have a philosophical approach to the law that you believe to be under attack. What I am attacking is the morality and logic—or lack thereof—that undergirds the societal willingness to risk the execution of innocent individuals, in the name of justice.
What abortion has to do with my arguments about the death penalty (or hate crimes) is truly anyone’s guess. If by chance you wish to frame an argument or make a case against abortion or reproductive rights–as I have against the death penalty–you have a blog here in which you can do just that.
As for the raw numbers of people who may disagree with me, since when does what the vast majority of human beings think or do or believe, over millennia, determine what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, logical or illogical?
You continue to wage battle against a straw man, Stephen. No one – at least no one I have ever heard of – thinks it's okay to execute someone who might be innocent. If you accept that human certainty of guilt is sufficient for a heinous murderer to be executed, then most people will agree with you. I misunderstood you to be setting a definitionally impossible threshold of absolute metaphysical certainty. It appears now that you are not philosophically opposed to the death penalty as an appropriate punishment, assuming there is certainty of guilt. You simply believe it is evil and immoral to impose the death penalty unless you personally are certain of guilt. And since no one is likely to make your subjective sense of certainty the final judge of whether certainty of guilt exists, you want to suspend justice when it comes to capital punishment. Strange logic…
If you do not see the irony of opposing the death penalty, while supporting abortion as a right, then explaining it to you won't do any good. The wisdom and experience of the ages is certainly not the final arbiter of truth or morality. But it is a valuable source of authority and should inform our moral framework. Without new data, information, or arguments (you have offered none) we should be quite humble about taking up the moral sword against those who have gone before.
Lucky for you, moral certainty is much easier for you to find in your own head, in the context of your subjectively held values and opinions, than it is when it comes to objective evidence of guilt unanimously adjudged to be certain by twelve dispassionate jurors and multiple appellate courts. I guess "certainty" means exactly what you intend it to mean – nothing more and nothing less. That's not justice; that's the Stephen Foster rule of law.
I don’t mean to offend you, but it is disingenuous to imply that since no one wants—or perhaps has ever publicly advocated—the execution of innocent people, that therefore no one is willing to risk executing innocent individuals. Since we know that innocent individuals have been, and will continue to be, executed, what difference does it make—especially to those who will be or have been innocently executed—that no one either wants this to happen, or have advocated that it should happen?
The very suggestion that since no one is theoretically/officially in favor of executing innocent individuals, that therefore no one is willing to risk executing innocent individuals is the quintessential straw man argument! Anyone who is in favor of the death penalty in any case wherein there is any possibility that the accused is not indeed the actual perpetrator is in effect stating that they are willing to risk executing someone who may not actually, as opposed to “legally,” be guilty; and this is evil.
Now, it is only evil if in fact one truly believes that killing an innocent human being is evil; in which case voluntarily and unnecessarily risking the possibility of doing so must also be evil.
This may be arrogantly dogmatic. So what? Surely you would agree with me that unnecessarily killing innocent individuals is evil—even if it is legal—would you not?
Nice try, but individual/unanimous certainty of guilt on behalf of jurors is not nearly enough. Individual jurors generally do not prescribe the parameters or create the criteria under which the death penalty is considered. (Correct me if I’m wrong—since this is your field—but neither do most judges.)
Insofar as convictions are concerned, unanimous certainty of guilt is, again, an appropriate moral standard for the “beyond a reasonable doubt” principle or threshold. A standard of absolute certainty, with there being absolutely no possibility of any other scenario of occurrences to have taken place, should be the standard for the absolute punishment of certain death.
If this is too high a threshold for any executions, then so be it.
We have radically different world views, Stephen. You seem to see the world idealistically in terms of good and evil. Those who share your sociopolitical views are good; those who oppose them are evil. I have a much more cynical view of human moral pretensions and the cardinals of goodness who commit unspeakable evil in the name of justice and compassion. I see evil as an intractable, insidious presence in every realm of human activity. I agree with Solzhenitsyn that the line dividing good and evil runs through the center of every human heart. Tragic and unnecessary destruction and loss of innocent human life is the fate of all systems administered by human beings. We see "through a glass darkly" and argue over whether your system or my system prevents greater evil than the evil to which it opens the door. Politics is much more a trade-off between systems that can at best mitigate evil for a season or two than a choice between good and evil.
To support the execution of someone whom one believes may be innocent is indeed immoral. It does not follow, however, that the metaphysical possibility of being wrong renders the execution absolutely evil any more than the risk that I run of killing my children, by putting them in the car and driving them down the freeway, renders that act irresponsible or evil.
It is possible that the murderer you keep alive may murder again, either in or out of prison. That possibility does not make your anti-death penalty argument immoral. But it does underscore its moral incoherence. You implicitly believe that it is evil to execute someone whose guilt is morally certain, even if it opens up the possibility that many who are certainly innocent will be murdered as a result of your "compassion." This is a perversion of justice. There is a Talmudic saying: "Those who are kind to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the kind." Those who use abstract notions of justice to shield evildoers from justice end up using abstract notions of justice as a sword against the innocent.
In the news today, a man incarcerated for 30 years, was freed because the DNA evidence, plus prosecutorial ineptness, even criminal was allowed to be used in the trial. This is another of the 200+ convictions that the Innocence Project has overturned. So much for certainty of capital punishment.
Stephen
I agree that a higher threshold than beyond a reasonable doubt should be applied if the defendent receives the ultimate sentence of capital punishment. Does Sirhan, Sirhan killing Bobby Kennedy point blank with a multitude of witnesses watching on, and millions more seeing it on TV, satisfy you that with absolute certainty he murdered the senator? The guy should have been given the jolt in the hot seat over 40 years ago, but when the death penalty was temporarily tossed out by the Supreme court in 1969, his sentence was commutted to life.
So, Nathan, you appear to agree, in principle, that it is better that ten guilty persons are exonerated than for one innocent person to be convicted; but you appear not to agree, in reality, that it is better that ten guilty persons not be executed, than for one innocent person to be executed. Strange logic indeed…
Tom,
The Sirhan Sirhan assassination of Robert Kennedy is an example of the kind of absolute certainty to which I refer. If you couple that with a (universal) Simpson-quality “Dream Team” defense, we can talk.
Not sure how you made that leap, Stephen. The fact that a lot of murders are enabled by the rules of our justice system is simply an illustration of my point, not an indictment of the system. I can also assure you, based upon my experience as a prosecutor in the distant past, that vastly more than ten guilty people go free for every innocent person that is convicted in our American criminal justice system. I would be deeply troubled if one out of every ten persons executed was innocent. That is way too high a figure for me. It would not cause me to question the justice of the death penalty as punishment, but it would cause me to question the justice of the society implementing the death penalty under those circumstances..
Obviously Nathan, I made the connection based on your comments on this thread. I won’t bother to put the quotes side by side, because I think that you get the point. Besides, my question at this juncture is what ratio of innocent people being executed is theoretically sufficient to get you to conclude that, though the death penalty itself may well be a just punishment for many, the societal implementation of this penalty is too problematic—in terms of the likelihood of innocents being convicted—to be considered unjust to continue?
My point—and my standard—is that we should never, ever, take the chance of executing anyone if there is any possibility at all that they are innocent. The execution of one innocent person is enough to stop executing everyone; if necessary.
I suppose that the last sentence in the first paragraph should actually have ended, "…—to be considered just to continue.”
I understand your argument, Stephen – that executing a human being is so consequential that it should be treated very differently from "mere" deprivation of liberty and happiness through incarceration. But one could as easily argue that the taking of another's life by murder is of such consequence that justice favors lowering the due process barriers that delay execution and impair the discovery of truth. Overwhelmingly, murder convictions and death sentences are overturned on appeal not because of doubt as to guilt, but because of technical procedural "errors" invented and ferreted out by judges who are philosophically opposed to justice as punishment. Resolution of these issues depend on one's values and worldview, not logic and reason.
So I take it, Stephen, that you are unwilling to look at the negative tradeoffs imposed by eliminating the death penalty? The maxim that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted is just that – a maxim. I don't believe that perfect justice is possible in this world. Nor do I believe that the certainty of good faith human error occurring occasionally is a reason to suspend the imposition of justice. If we agree that justice requires that a murderer should, under certain circumstances, forfeit his right to life, it does not make sense to me to erect impossible barriers to doing justice. Logically, the same rationale you use to abolish the death penalty could also be extended to deprivation of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's just a matter of degree. In fact, most activists who oppose the death penalty also favor other laws and policies that result in more crime going unpunished.
Perhaps you should re-read the blog once more Nathan. I don’t consider “the negative tradeoffs imposed by eliminating the death penalty”, whatever they supposedly are, to be worth the risk of executing an innocent individual.
Are you now indicating that you don’t necessarily subscribe to the “maxim” that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted? If so, perhaps then you don’t personally agree with the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard; or perhaps with the unanimous jury verdict standard, which you have said is based on this “maxim.”
Frankly, I agree that if ones values and worldview in this civil matter are neither undergirded or informed by, nor defended with logic and reason, then there can be no resolution with a differing view that is.
If you choose to make a case that the rule of law should be relaxed for those accused and/or convicted of murder, again, you have a blog in which to make that case.
It is a greater affront to justice if innocents are ever executed than if guilty murderers are held behind bars for the remainder of their lives. How is justice possibly served when—not if—the state occasionally, even through “good faith human error” (which I don’t but for a millisecond), executes an innocent person? “Good faith human error” might occasionally explain an unjust conviction; but never an execution. Finally, again, the difference between death by execution and life behind bars (or unhappiness?) is a bit more than a matter of degree!