First, when we discuss the death penalty as practiced in America, its opponents always bring up the facts – facts regarded as mere bagatelles by proponents – that not a small number of innocent people have been executed – and that convicted killers from a minority group have a greater chance of being given the death penalty.
But let us for the sake of argument ignore the complaint that the death penalty is sometimes given to the innocent – or more generously given to the colored races. Let us instead stick to killers who are in fact killers and who are guilty of truly awful crimes. The ultimate crime.
My friend is a thoroughly honorable man, a man who has had broad experience in policing and crime prevention, a man who has risked his own life when dealing with violent criminals, a man who has been generous and caring in his support of the victims of awful crimes.
And because he has seen pain and injustice close up, he advocates the death penalty in certain cases, for at least two main reasons: sympathy and respect for the families of victims – so that they can have a sense of full justice meted out and finally feel some relief.
And my friend supports the death penalty so that certain convicted killers cannot go on to kill guards or other prisoners while in prison – nor will they be able to kill again on the outside if they are ever released. (Why can't the most dangerous killers be kept in solitary confinement, without possibility of contact with guards or fellow prisoners, meals served though a slot in the door as in maximum security prisons today and the door never opened? The walls of their cells could have the built-in photos of the killer's victims to stare at for all eternity. Although it may be difficult, total isolation for certain killers can be achieved.)
First, let's examine the feelings and the rights of the family members of victims:
In a very recent case in Texas, a white supremacist who had murdered several local Muslims and Hindus, was executed by the state despite the fact that some of his victims and their families expressed their opposition to his execution. They campaigned to spare his life.
I would like to ask my friend, is it the families that should make the decision who should live and who should die?
And if so, what should be done if the various family members disagree? Always favor the ones wanting death? Or decide by majority vote?
One can see strange complications if the feelings of victims' families are to be polled and given major deciding consideration. The justice system was evolved to take the place of personal vendettas and the arbitrary assignment of punishment based of strong feelings. And what about cases of rape – or pedophile abuse? If family members can only be satisfied with death for the perpetrator, should that determine the punishment?
Remember, Jesus Christ was executed because of the strong feelings of those who felt he had wronged them with his blasphemy.
Remember, too, that in England 300 years ago, as an example, there were over 30 crimes punishable by death, from pickpocketing to killing the king's deer... and all the deer were the king's!
Imagine you lived in England then, had your pocket picked, your megre savings stolen, and the judge decided to let the criminal off with 30 lashes and a branding? If you, as the victim, were not satisfied with anything less than death, should your feelings always be respected? After all, the death sentence at the time was applicable!
In Norway now there will be many many, both family members and members of the public, who will want to see this monster killed. But there will also be family members and others – large numbers, if I know Norwegians – who will be content with locking him in a bleak cell until he rots.
Whose wishes here are paramount?
The entire subject can perhaps be boiled down to Which came first – the chicken or the gun?
For those societies with the most guns floating around and have the most primitive legal systems are often the societies with the most murders and the most executions. The fact that China, America and Iran are the 3 countries that execute the most prisoners, is considered irrelevant by most proponents of capital punishment in America.
“We kill for different reasons – for better reasons!” is the boast.
I'm not so sure.
But is it also a bagatelle, that in a world of outsourcing America's last great products – products which still dominate world markets – are arms and action movies? Lethal weapons and movies named Lethal Weapon, movies that glorify violence?
Yes, American movies may well chronicle the fight of good against evil. But have you noticed the evil criminal is never taken away to jail in an Arnold or Stallone, or Bruce film. He is always killed and killed with excruciating pain, much to the delight and satisfaction of audiences. (And the evil idiot in Oslo wants to dress up as a kind of Darth Vader for his trial!)
If the death penalty is designed to satisfy our own murderous pleasures we cannot claim to live in a civilized, moral and thoughtful society, but instead in a society which mirrors the hatred and desire for revenge that motivated the monster from Oslo.
Finally, I'd like to ask my friend, “Do you believe that the societies of Europe - Norway, Denmark, Britain, France and many many others – are somehow inferior or hypocritical societies – societies which do not offer victims of horrendous crimes full justice – and that the American way of an eye for an eye is the superior practice? Are they more vulnerable or dangerous societies - or is it a mere coincidence that the numbers of murders per capita is vastly lower in Europe than America?
For if it is not just a strange coincidence, could it be evidence that human life is held more valuable and sacred in countries which do not lower themselves to murdering their captives – and therefore their citizens generally behave somewhat better?
Which came first – mercy or civilization?
