Last night the chief DC Sniper -- John Allen Muhammad -- was executed in Virginia. While I agree that his crimes were heinous, I don't agree with the punishment.
I am strongly opposed to capital punishment -- the death penalty. I suppose I'm one of those bleeding heart liberals who believes that it's wrong to teach someone a lesson for intentionally killing someone (murder) by intentionally killing them. While it certainly exacts a measure of revenge upon the guilty person, it sends a very convoluted message to the general public. Really, if murder is wrong for private individuals, then it should be wrong for the state as well!
However, even if I allowed for the fact that it's okay for the state to murder people, I'd still oppose the death penalty on the grounds it's not fairly administered. You can have two people who are found guilty of essentially the same crime and one will be given a prison sentence of 20 years to life or less and the other will be placed on death row. Often, the only difference between the two concerns gender, race, ethnicity, financial standing and/or the effectiveness of their counsel.
There is one other reason I oppose capital punishment. I don't believe in hell. I think the vast majority of those who do support the death penalty do believe in hell. So, from their standpoint, the guilty first lose their lives, then get to spend all eternity suffering immeasurably. It is tantamount to the ultimate twofer!
Since I tend to believe that, when we die our sense of self ceases, I think the condemned is being let off easy. Yes, the person does lose his/her life, but they aren't forced to spend the rest of their days contemplating the actions that led to a lifetime of incarceration.
What most people say that they value most about their lives is freedom. Thus, taking away someone's freedom is a terrible thing to endure, especially if there's no way to earn it back!
I am strongly opposed to capital punishment -- the death penalty. I suppose I'm one of those bleeding heart liberals who believes that it's wrong to teach someone a lesson for intentionally killing someone (murder) by intentionally killing them. While it certainly exacts a measure of revenge upon the guilty person, it sends a very convoluted message to the general public. Really, if murder is wrong for private individuals, then it should be wrong for the state as well!
However, even if I allowed for the fact that it's okay for the state to murder people, I'd still oppose the death penalty on the grounds it's not fairly administered. You can have two people who are found guilty of essentially the same crime and one will be given a prison sentence of 20 years to life or less and the other will be placed on death row. Often, the only difference between the two concerns gender, race, ethnicity, financial standing and/or the effectiveness of their counsel.
There is one other reason I oppose capital punishment. I don't believe in hell. I think the vast majority of those who do support the death penalty do believe in hell. So, from their standpoint, the guilty first lose their lives, then get to spend all eternity suffering immeasurably. It is tantamount to the ultimate twofer!
Since I tend to believe that, when we die our sense of self ceases, I think the condemned is being let off easy. Yes, the person does lose his/her life, but they aren't forced to spend the rest of their days contemplating the actions that led to a lifetime of incarceration.
What most people say that they value most about their lives is freedom. Thus, taking away someone's freedom is a terrible thing to endure, especially if there's no way to earn it back!
On a philosophical level, I embrace the death penalty wholeheartedly.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, it makes no sense to punish murder with murder. But the State is actually making an awe-inspiring statement: it's saying, "it is all right to kill as long as it's the State that kills, otherwise the State will kill you". The State makes itself the only exception to its own rule, and it punishes this infraction, which it itself can do, with the ultimate punishment.
Joseph de Maistre noted that society falls apart without the hangman. I think this is probably true.
I don't believe in hell, but I think nonexistence is a pretty frightening thought. I would rather continue to exist than to cease to exist. And I don't think most murderers are sitting in their cells thinking about what they did; if they were sorry about it they wouldn't have done it in the first place most likely. They're probably just bored out of their minds (which, true, is a punishment, but I think I'd rather be bored out of my mind than cease to exist).
Why would nonexistent be frightening? It's just like sleep with no dreams. :) Frankly, I think nonexistence would be a state of perpetual bliss -- except, of course, you or I wouldn't recognize it as such because we no longer exist!
ReplyDeleteI don't know. It always struck me as frightening on a visceral level: I don't think it would be perpetual bliss, or anything really, because there's no-one there left to experience anything at all. I guess that's what's frightening: no more possibility of experiencing anything. As Albert Camus said, the only reason not to commit suicide was to have more experiences.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the original post. If it's wrong to kill then it's wrong for the state to kill.
ReplyDelete