The mass killing in Norway in July of 2011 has, once again, raised in my mind an obvious question: what is an appropriate punishment for such a heinously evil act? Anders Behring Breivik ended the lives of 77 people, most of them youths at a political youth camp. Norway's maximum punishment for this seems to be 21 years in prison. It is possible that, through some legal maneuverung, Breivek will serve more time, perhaps even a life sentence, but Norway, like many Western European nations, lacks the only fitting punishment for such a crime, namely the death penalty. I hope to explain why putting cold-blooded, intentional murderers to death is the only just and sensible punishment for such a crime. In so doing, I will try to address the major objections that have been used to oppose capital punishment, and show the flaws in these arguments.
1. The death penalty is state-sponsored murder.
According to this line of reasoning, the ending of a life by the government for the crime of murder is no different morally than the murder of an innocent person by a killer. This is absurd on 2 levels: first, not all killing is the same, and second, legalized state punishments are inherently different from the same actions carried out by individuals.
Murder is specifically killing which is against the law. Killing in self defense, the defense of another, or in war are not considered murder under the law. So killing a murderer, when carried out by the state as a legal punishment, is clearly distinguishable from murder.
When a man holds another person against his will, depriving him of liberty, it is called kidnapping. When the state holds a person against his will and deprives him of liberty, it is called incarceration. No one argues that it is state-sponsored kidnapping to hold a criminal in prison. By the same token, a fine for speeding is not state-sponsored robbery. So the idea that the death penalty for murderers is state-sponsored murder is nonsense.
2. Only God has the right to decide when a person dies.
This argument appeals to those who believe in a good God who justly judges good and evil and determines the span of a man's life. But the very God revealed in the Bible calls for the death penalty to be used in cases of murder. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Genesis 9:6) In fact, death for the murderer is the one law found in all 5 books of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Old Testament). Now I am not arguing that the laws contained in the Bible should be used to determine laws in the United States; however, those who want to point to the God of the Bible as a basis for not implementing capital punishment do not have a biblical leg to stand on. Also, while it may be true that God alone judges people after they die to determine eternal consequences, the work of justice on earth has clearly been given to mankind to administer.
It should be added that in Christian doctrine, the murderer can still find forgiveness with God. The rebels crucified on either side of Jesus likely committed murder as part of their rebellion against the Romans (although this is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures); yet Jesus offered forgiveness and eternal life to the criminal who repented and turned his heart toward Jesus on the cross. But Jesus did not say anything against the penalty of death imposed on His new disciple; Jesus simply told him that they would see each other in a few minutes in Paradise.
3. The death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.
Some people point out that murder still occurs where the death penalty is in place. But just because the death penalty hasn't ended murder in places where it is instituted doesn't mean that it doesn't act as a deterrent; it simply indicates that there are some people for whom any punishment, including death, does not act as a deterrent.
The great Dennis Prager has pointed out that if the death penalty was administered for murders committed Monday - Thursday, but life in prison was the sentence for Friday - Sunday murders, there would almost certainly be a lot more weekend murders than weekday murders. It follows that a state that has the death penalty will also see a diminished murder rate compared to the same state without it, especially if potential murderers know that it will reliably and promptly be carried out.
Lastly, the knowledge that I may have to pay a $125 fine acts as a deterrent against speeding in my car. The knowledge that not feeding the parking meter will get me a $25 ticket gets me to drop my coins in the parking meter. The desire to stay out of prison keeps most people honest on their taxes. How can anyone seriously argue that financial penalties and loss of liberty are good deterrents to crime, but death is not a deterrent to murder?
4. Life imprisonment is an even harsher punishment than the death penalty.
This is an easy argument to dispense with when one observes the behavior of nearly all people on trial for a capital crime, or on death row. Nearly all defendants who are guilty and know that the evidence against them is overwhelming will accept a sentence of life imprisonment in exchange for a guilty plea in order to avoid being put to death. This hardly seems like the behavior one would expect if the prospect of life imprisonment was harsher than capital punishment. Also, few death row inmates go to their deaths without first exhausting every possible appeal the legal system affords them. The very people experiencing prison prefer to continue living in prison rather than being executed.
5. Innocent people may be put to death.
Truth demands that we admit this is possible, and if it happens, unspeakably horrible. So the argument goes that the death penalty should be eliminated because just 1 innocent person executed is far worse than allowing thousands of guilty murderers to live. I disagree. No system of justice is perfect, and we can't expect ours to work perfectly every time. But when murderers are allowed to live, they can, and often do, murder again. Sometimes they kill fellow inmates, sometimes prison guards. Sometimes they escape or are released from prison and murder again. While it is true that people who argue for the death penalty have to acknowledge that an innocent person could be put to death, people opposed to the death penalty must account for the far greater number of people who die because murderers are kept alive.
6. The death penalty is unnecessary since we can keep the public safe from murderers with life imprisonment.
People escape from prison. It's rare, but it happens, often with deadly consequences. People inside prison are murdered and maimed by people with life sentences. And civilians living in society are at greater risk without the deterrent of the death penalty to dissuade would-be murderers.
7. The death penalty isn't justice - it's revenge.
The state institutes penalties for crimes. People in society then have emotional reactions to those penalties. If the family members of a murder victim feel a sense of revenge against an executed murderer, that is their business. If others choose to forgive the murderer, that may be a beautiful thing, but it is still their business. The state must do what is just and right for its citizens, not what feels good to a certain group of people.
One final note: I am aware that in the case of Anders Behring Breivik, there have been some findings of legal insanity, and that these findings may, appropriately, negate the use of the death penalty in a society that uses it.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
