» Letter to the Editor: Capital Punishment
Lawrie McFarlane argues that there is no reason why we should not give the death penalty, but he doesn’t give any reason why we should. Since capital punishment is not a deterrent, we are never given an option between the life of a child and the opportunity for corrective justice. Some offenders may be pure sadists (let’s leave to one side the difficulties involved in actually proving that), but why respond to sadism with execution rather than life imprisonment? If society atones for creating Tori Stafford’s killers, will her mother miss her any less?
That’s a stupid letter. I almost stopped reading when he started talking about how the “elite” just don’t get the good salt-of-the-earth people. And that the crux of his argument is because that’s what her mom wants. I’ve seen people say similar things for assault, child abuse, etc. “This lady on the news said she would like it” is a very shitty basis for legislation.
And seeing as his counter-arguments consist of “I don’t know how psychologists work, so they must be lying if they say they know more about psychology than me” and quoting a romantic comedy from 1969, I remain unconvinced.
Kyla
29 May 09 at 9:04 am
Really? Really? In Canada, in the 21st century, we’re still talking about the death penalty?
Gimme a break.
Jack
29 May 09 at 10:23 am
Maybe it’s a useful debate because it reminds us what the justice system is supposed to do? While writing this letter I was thinking about what I’ve been learning about restorative justice: watch for it in an upcoming post.
Jared
29 May 09 at 10:39 am
I agree with Kyla, I too almost stopped reading it.
I often wonder if people are really for the death penalty or just frustrated that life in prison often doesn’t result in life in prison. Victim’s families have to keep track of the murder and make sure they don’t miss the parole trials to keep the murder in jail. (thinking about manson here) If I had to be connected to the murderer for the rest of the murderer’s life, especially if he killed my child, I would certainly be wishing for his death.
karen
29 May 09 at 11:32 am
Lets say a murderer is convicted and given a sentence of life in prison with no chance for parole. Why should we as a tax payer pay to house, feed, cloth and provide health care for the rest of this persons life. In this case I feel that the death penalty would be correct and just. The issue is that people don’t get convictions like that. Even Robert Pickton, convicted of killing 6 people was only given life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. We foolishly think that after 25 years (less good behaviour) we can integrate him back into society. What happened to an eye for an eye?
Fred
29 May 09 at 2:26 pm
@Fred:
I think revenge is totally a valid argument (whether it’s sound, we can debate another day), but McFarlane excludes revenge as a justification.
There’s some evidence that executions are more expensive than life imprisonments in the US.
Jared
29 May 09 at 3:49 pm
Canada’s criminal punishments are far too lax.
That said:
One false positive execution is too high a cost, and the justice system can’t guarantee against false positives (nor do we really expect it to).
Plus:
There’s evidence that capital punishment increases incidence of violent crime by socializing people to see violence as a valid way of solving problems. People think by analogy, and our social institutions are didactic.
State-sponsored execution costs more, has troubling moral implications, adds nightmare scenarios to our justice system, and makes society more violent.
So yeah: No point in discussing it really, it’s just a bad idea. I mean, what’s next? Weighing the pros and cons of indentured servitude for sub-prime mortgage defaulters? Debtors’ prisons? This is the 21st century, not the 19th.
Jack
29 May 09 at 10:41 pm
@Fred:
The typical usage of the lex talionis, the law of tit for tat, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:23–27) is that you should take an eye to repay the loss of an eye, which is actually a disputed reading.
Some people think that chapter is about the limits of punishment, for example that the loss of an eye should not be punished by death. In short: there is no interest on injuries. The verse, under that reading, doesn’t require a minimum punishment, it just establishes a maximum. In this case the snippet permits lethal retribution but doesn’t require it.
What you want to be quoting is Exodus 21:12 — just below the bit about how to sell your daughter as a slave — “Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death.”
Jack
29 May 09 at 11:11 pm