Posts Tagged ‘Death penalty’
No sympathy for the death penalty, but no sympathy for criminals either
I am definitely no in favour of the death penalty. I think it says a lot about the society that sanctions it, and none of it particularly flattering.
It’s a tacit acknowledgement that you have no interest in rehabilitation for some criminals. We can have a discussion about whether some people are beyond rehabilitation, but I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer to that question, just opinions. What’s troubling though is that the justice system then becomes simply a means for retribution and vengeance, and not much else. Death penalty has little value for protecting the public since those criminals are already incarcerated anyway. Evidence supporting the deterrence argument is thread-bare at best.
Vengeance and retribution is not the same thing as justice. In fact, our principled and legal opposition to vigilantism is based on that distinction. Punishments of crimes by the legal system is supposed to be based on what society thinks is a reasonable punishment (justice and retribution) to the criminals, when that society is deliberating reasonably. “Punishment should fit the crime,” as they say.
So my objections are mainly principled, based on conceptions of who we should be as a people, as a civilisation, rather than some soft-hearted compassion for the criminals. I’m less interested in saving criminals’ lives as I am about saving my, and our collective souls.
And I think many people who do object to the death penalty feel the same way. So it strikes me as naive for people to protest the death penalty drawing on whatever compassion they think we may feel for the criminals.
Case in point, Richard Cooey, who was recently executed in Ohio, was trying to argue that he should not be executed because his personal circumstances would mean that the particular method of execution would be cruel and unusual.
Although I don’t disagree with it, frankly, I’m surprised that argument has worked at all, considering that execution, almost by definition, could well be considered cruel and unusual, since most fatal events are painful and they are, by definition, terminal. Unless the method of execution is either deliberately designed to cause suffering of the condemned or for prurient values other than to end the life of the condemned, or there is clearly a more humane method of execution available (how’s that for contradiction in terms?), that’s a hard case to someone who has already accepted the justifications for execution.
Of course, you can’t fault the criminal for trying to make the case. What I find weak is his lawyer’s comments afterwards.
“The government has no conscience, only policy. Today the policy was state-sanctioned murder of Richard Cooey,” said one of the lawyers, Eric Allen.
That’s argument is never going to sell. If he had died by any other means, no one would be shedding a tear for the odious Mr. Cooey. When asked if he had anything to say, his apparently last words were;
“For what? You (expletive) haven’t paid any attention to anything I’ve said in the last 22 1/2 years, why would anyone pay any attention to anything I’ve had to say now,” Cooey said looking at the ceiling. He made no other comment.
No one is mourning his death, by “state-sanctioned murder” or otherwise. Mr. Allen would be better served in making other arguments than asking for our sympathy for someone whose time with us was already too long.
