Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

[sciguy125]

That deadline is a little sooner than I wanted, but I guess I'll have to live with it. I have jury duty this week, so I wanted to see if I get put on a jury before I respond to this. But here it goes anyway...

I present the following information as I see and understand it.

In discussions as controversial as this, I don't like to look at things on a case by case basis. Doing so often muddies the discussion with irrelevant information and petty bickering. Get ready for a long one...

I begin by exploring the morality of he death penalty. Aside from the beliefs of a higher power or force, religion is also a framework for the moral values of many people. With that, I decided to start my search there. I had a Catholic upbringing and, as such, can only give in-depth comments about Catholicism. I have had limited exposure to the details of other religions, so I can only present what I have read. Wikipedia's article on capital punishment covers several religions. Buddhism's pacifist believes apparently extend to its take on the death penalty. In essence, you are not to take anyone's life, particularly for vengeance. So, the death penalty is out. Judaism has some laws explicitly concerning the death penalty. It is allowed under certain circumstances. These circumstances are so specific, however, that it is hard to use them to put someone to death as a punishment. Islam also allows for the death penalty. So long as the law allows for the death penalty for their crime, and they are given due process, the death penalty can be administered if they are found guilty.

And now, on to Catholicism and Christianity. There are several places that the Old Testament allows for the death penalty. In Genesis 9:5-6, God tells Noah that the punishment for murder is death. God will kill the animals the kill people. However, humans that kill humans are to be put to death by the hand of other humans. Deuteronomy 17 outlines the laws given to Moses from God concerning the use of the death penalty. Worshiping false gods is grounds for a stoning if found guilty by the local judges. In the case of murder, the priests at the place of worship have the final verdict that must be followed. Presumably, this allows the death penalty for murder. On a side note, disobeying the priests' decree concerning the case is grounds for being put to death.

In the New Testament, however, things get murky. For those that don't know, the New Testament is about the life and teachings of Jesus. The Old Testament is about things before Jesus' time, namely Creation and the beginnings of Judaism (Noah, Moses, and their descendants). There are a few places that Jesus seems to dislike the death penalty. In Matthew 5:38-48, Jesus talks about revenge and loving your enemies. When someone hits you, you're supposed to let them hit you again. If someone mistreats you, you're supposed to go above and beyond and show them that you don't mind. You are also supposed to love your enemies to separate yourself from them and to be more like God. God loves everyone and you should too. In John 8:1-11, Jesus stops a woman from being stoned. The law allowed for her to be put to death for committing adultery. Jesus, however, preached forgiveness. He argued that someone who was free of sin should throw the first stone. Nobody present was, so they left, but Jesus told the woman not to sin again. This would seem that Jesus was against the death penalty. I don't disagree that he was, but he also mentions something else. In Matthew 4:17-20, he says that the Law of Moses should be obeyed. It seems that he calls upon people to follow the spirit of the law, not the word.

The Catholic Church has taken a stance against the death penalty. A brief look at the official stances of some Protestant denominations reveals that they too have decided that the death penalty is not compliant with their beliefs. There are many, however, whose beliefs are not inline with the official positions of their churches. Google reveals that there are many Christian fundamentalists that hold that God and Jesus are in support of the death penalty.

So what about something from a more secular stand point? Many argue that by killing a murderer, we are lowering ourselves to their level. We are committing the crime that we are trying to amend. I fully agree with this. It's like stopping a fire by setting another one. But wait, I thought they do that. Remove a section of forest and the fire can't jump it. The death penalty is a deterrent. It tells people that if they kill someone, they themselves will be killed. Some argue that it doesn't work. I'm sure that, to an extent, they are right. It won't deter everyone. But, it will deter some. Isn't some better than none?

As for the criminal's right to live, I contend that they can give up that right when they commit their crime. Society gives you your rights. Americans have the right to free speech because we gave it to ourselves. People have the right to live because the society that they live in gave it to them. Rights can be taken away as easily as they are given. If someone chooses to commit a crime, they will loose whatever rights their society deems necessary to punish them. If we can take away someone's right to move about freely, we can take away their right to live. You live by whatever laws your society gives you. So long as you have the right to leave, you have to abide by them and accept whatever punishment your laws prescribe.

Now, what about the innocent people that are executed? What's the ratio of truly guilty to wrongfully accused? I don't know, but I have a feeling it's relatively low. They're collateral damage. How many times has the threat of collateral damage stopped a war? Serving the wellbeing of the many is more important than protecting the few. There is an important aspect to point out here. These innocently executed people are collateral damage, they aren't sacrificed. If I go out and kill someone to harvest their organs, I can probably save several people by killing that one. That person, however, would be a sacrifice. It's not the same as harvesting the organs of someone who is dead or dying.

Wherever you stand on the moral aspect of this argument is up to you. I'm not going to sit here and try to change your moral beliefs. Not only because I don't feel that is right, but because I can't. People will believe what they want to believe. What I can change however, is your logical perspective.

The death penalty permanently eliminates threats to our society. Many, including Pope John Paul II argue that, with respect to that, the death penalty is no longer needed. We have the ability to securely hold dangerous criminals and keep them away from the public. But, there's always a way to get out. Many may refute that by saying it's possible for me to be struck by lightning and win the lottery in the same day, but it's not going to happen. Well, I could easily increase my odds of that happening by carrying around a long metal pole and buying a bunch of lottery tickets. Similarly, we can easily prevent the possible release/escape of a hardened criminal by executing them. (I include release because people get off on technicalities sometimes.)

There's also the need to put the victim's family at rest. If it helps them to know that the person that hurt them is no longer around, then so be it. It might hurt the criminal's family, but they should have thought about that before they committed their crime. I'm sure that families don't like to see their relatives in jail either. So does that mean that we should let them go? I realize that prison and execution are not the same thing, but I contend that the reasoning is still sound.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent. What else can we do? Well, one I idea I was toying with is to give everyone a gun. If you knew for a fact that I had a gun and that all the people around me have guns, would you try to hurt me? It's called mutually assured destruction. It seems to have worked to prevent nuclear war. Of course, this has a problem. If I give a gun to everybody, it only takes that one crazy guy to destroy everything. It would be a very delicate balance that could easily be upset. So, obviously, this wouldn't be a very good solution either.

I assert that we will never find a good solution. Everything will have some flaw. In the end, we will need to figure out what we want and what we are willing to sacrifice to get it. For the last few years, I've been calling this the Imperfection Principle (see Uncertainty Principle). Everything has some amount of baseline imperfection associated with it. If you finally filter down to the best ideas, you'll only end up with things that require sacrifices. What you have to work with will all be equally good, but require trade-offs.

So, is the death penalty good or bad? Whatever you think is up to you. I, however, feel that it's the best we have at the moment. Until you can think of something better, we'll have to go with it.