|
The Death Penalty: Just Retribution or Unjust Violence
One of the most controversial moral and legal issues in the United States (and many places around the world) today is capital punishment. It is one of the most emotionally charged topics today and often crosses party and ideological lines. There are many reasons proposed as to why the death penalty is right, and there are many reasons proposed as to why the death penalty is wrong. Some of these reasons include deterrence, "thriftiness", revenge, and rehabilitation. Some of those in favor of the death penalty believe it to be deterrence for other would-be murders, and some of those against the death penalty believe that it is not a deterrence. Some say that it is cheaper to kill murderers than it is to keep them in jail, while others say it is more expensive to do so with the current means used for the death penalty (electric chair, lethal injection, and gas chamber).
A lot can be said about the economic and deterrent elements in the capital punishment debate, but the focus here will be on revenge and rehabilitation. I will analyze the idea of revenge and "just retribution", in general, and with respect to the death penalty in order to show that the death penalty ought not to be pursued as a means of retribution. I will show that revenge is simply a bad reason to kill those who could live in jail. The idea of rehabilitation is central to potential alternatives to the death penalty, and I will take this approach by giving an explanation of why rehabilitation is to be pursued and how it should be done.
Retribution is punishment for some wrong done, or a reward for some right done. Since the issue at hand is capital punishment, reward will not be discussed. Those seeking retributive justice call for a punishment that "fits the crime". The punishment should somehow be proportionate to the crime. It is the idea of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Proportionality is often times very difficult to achieve in punishment however. For example, if someone commits armed robbery it may be hard to "return the favor" to the robber. Armed robbery involves surprise and fear, and those two emotional responses would not be produced in the robber if he or she knew that was the punishment.
Many feel that proportional punishment for murder is much easier to achieve. If one kills someone, he or she should be killed as retribution. There is an equality of "ends" here in that both the murderer and the victim are dead, while in the armed robbery case the equality of ends is hard to achieve. So the death penalty provides a somewhat clear-cut means of proportional punishment.
Yet there are some who want more than just death for murderers, especially if the murderer tortured or raped his or her victim. Death sometimes is not enough for some people. Exact proportionality is not reached just by the electric chair or a lethal injection, but only if the murderer goes through the same misery that the victim or victims went through. So if a murderer buried someone alive, he or she should be buried alive in return. Retribution in death penalty cases requires revenge. Revenge is the inflicting of injury on another in return for an injury done. Revenge is a primary motivation for many people in everyday life. If one is hit by a person, he or she may want to retaliate to "get back" at the person who hit them. "Getting back" at someone is a rather common sentiment in society. If someone feels that they have been wronged, often times he or she will want to do wrong in return, that is, inflict some sort of injury on another person. The victims of murder do not have a chance to avenge themselves, so it is up to the State to do so by enforcing the death penalty.
With the exacting of revenge there may seem to be an equality. One person does something wrong, he or she gets wrong done back to him or her and everyone involved is now equal in terms of what has been done to them. However, revenge relies on the idea that "two wrongs make a right". The victim receives the first wrong, and the rapist, murderer, thief, etc., receives the second wrong. Some may argue that this is right and that justice "has been served" because everyone was wronged equally, or as close to equally as possible. Some argue that this is just retribution because there is an equality and proportionality in punishment so that the punishment "fits the crime".
Two wrongs do not make a right however, they just make two wrongs. Adding a wrong to a wrong does not make either of the two less wrong. If someone randomly hits a person in the head with a fist it is wrong (senseless violence assumed), but it is also wrong if the victim retaliates with a punch of his or her own (it is just as senseless). If someone does exact revenge, he or she has let another person affect him or her in a way that makes that person commit a wrong. It is not generally accepted as right and just if one is influenced by another to steal a bike or a car. In both cases a person has been influenced by another person to commit a wrong, yet some argue that in the first case it is okay to exact revenge, even though this really means that "it is okay to be influenced by another person in such a way so that one commits a wrong".
It should not be condoned if one commits a wrong because he or she is influenced by another to do so. It may be easier to understand why the person committed the wrong, but he or she still committed a wrong. So, if someone kills another out of revenge, that person has let his or her actions be influenced by another to commit murder. The person has still killed someone, and now two people are dead.
Now if the State is in charge of killing murderers, then it takes the personal side out of execution, that is, an individual does not get revenge directly by killing the murderer, but the indirectly through the State. The State is now in charge or exacting revenge. The State is the provider of "just retribution" by executing a murderer. In the actions of the State it can be implied that it saying to the murderer, "You have killed someone and that is wrong, so you will be punished. Your punishment is execution. You are going to be killed because you killed another". The State in providing "just retribution" has to kill someone. People may argue that the murderer has forfeited his or her rights and that life is not in his or her hands anymore. This is debatable as it is, and it is surely debatable to what extent the murderer has forfeited his or her rights, but for argument's sake assume that the murderer has forfeited the right to life. Since the individual's life is not in his or her hands, the State often thinks it necessary to kill the individual. Just because one does not have the right to life anymore, does not mean that he or she should necessarily lose his or her life in the name of revenge.
Alternatives to the Death Penalty
Instead of committing another wrong by killing the person, does it not seem more correct to lock the person up in prison and give the person a chance to regain his or her right to life? No additional wrong has been committed (no more violence committed), and now there is a chance for the murderer to live and overcome whatever caused him or her to commit the murder. This gives the criminal a chance at moral retribution; a chance to redeem oneself. It also gives the criminal the opportunity to be forgiven for what he or she has done. This may seem to be an inverted assessment of the relationship between the murderer and those who knew and loved the victim, but it still seems possible to forgive someone no matter how terrible the act he or she committed was. Not executing the person allows all those involved a chance to come to terms with what happened, accept it, and move on. Moral retribution can be made in the honest recognition by the murderer that what he or she did was wrong and that he or she is truly sorry for what has been done, and the acceptance of those who knew the victim of the murderer's forgiveness. Killing the murderer ends all possibility for redemption and putting someone to death is an example of unjust violence. This may seem like a lofty possiblity, but it is a possibility. By not killing the murderer, there is the chance of moral rehabilitation. Also, it gives those involved a chance to overcome the emotional turmoil they are suffering from. There needs to be drastic changes in the prison system if one hopes to ever produce the environment for such moral rehabilitation to take place. Prison life should be strict. There should not be television in prison. There should not be weight rooms in prisons that allow criminals to get stronger and more dangerous once they get out of prison (other opportunities for exercise should be provided). Also, something should be done to keep the violence and rape to a minimum in prison. Criminals can not be expected to redeem themselves in environment of fear and violence. Such an environment only keeps the criminal at the state of mind he or she is at, or it makes the criminal worse. There needs to a thorough education system put in place for prisoners. This assumes that education can solve problems and reshape an individual morally, of course, but it seems to be the case that knowledge about the world, others, and themselves would enable the prisoners the opportunity for a more meaningful, moral life. There also needs to be an extensive evaluation program for prisoners. Professionals in psychology, philosophy, and sociology should be involved in the rehabilitation and evaluation of criminals. Possibilities of mental illness should be looked at, and people should work with criminals to gain knowledge and wisdom of the world.
Many may be unwilling to do this to the prison system, but reforms could serve to enhance moral rehabilitation, which would likely decrease the likelihood of repeat offenders.
The death penalty should not be argued for on the basis of revenge and just retribution because: two wrongs do not make a right, the State is being influenced by the murderer's actions in such a way that it commits a wrong, and it denies the possibility of moral redemption. There is no just retribution with the death penalty, merely revenge. The death penalty is unjust violence carried out by the State that denies all possiblity for rehabilitation and forgiveness. With the death penalty there is one more person dead, without it there is the possibility for the enhancement of the lives of all those involved.