The Death Penalty: A Modest Reform

Our death penalty rituals are no longer satisfying:  new ceremonies are needed.  The very notion of justice through execution can fall into disrepute if not applied to the satisfaction of all parties involved -- with the obvious exception of the drama's leading actor.

Let us begin by making the best possible case against the very idea of capital punishment. Maybe its critics do have a clue about what's wrong.  Most critics of capital punishment conclude that it should be replaced by unrelenting life sentences. Their case, followed by succinct rebuttals from death penalty advocates:

Cost. Our extreme timidity about killing somebody unjustly has driven the budgets for supreme punishments through the roof. Keeping an inmate on death row through the years of appeals now exceeds the cost of “three hots and a cot” behind bars for life.  There is no doubt that money is tight and a legal killing expensive. String 'em up and then give 'em a fair trial!  Throw a party with the savings.

Method. Ancient ways to execute -- lions in the arena, burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, crucifixion -- are out of style. Somewhat newer methods – stoning, the firing squad, beheading, hanging – are also not much  in vogue any place most would care to live.. Democratic societies still in the business uneasily debate electrocution vs a lethal cocktail  (injected, not shaken or stirred).  The ideal way would kill without hurt or dread.   Luck with that. Keep looking.

Deterrence. Murder most foul is the major reason the justice system executes. We hope that others hot to murder will cool down, not wishing to die similarly. However, the abundant headlines of the “Man Kills Family, Self” variety cast some doubt. Most murderers don't think at all ("I don't know what came over me!" “It was an accident!” “I loved him! ”), and deterrence by definition requires prior scheming.  We haven't invited the public to a hanging  or a beheading in a long time. More research is needed.

Justice. Is not justice as ably served by life imprisonment as by delays so long that most sentenced to death die naturally before we can pull the plug artificially.  But is justice what we want?  See below.

The Horror.  A more squeamish public no longer hankers for a public event.  Calls for televised public spectacles are usually a tongue in cheek way of suggesting that society should not do what it cannot watch.   People die on TV nightly: we just don't call CSI  or the Iraq war a snuff series. This both reassures and acclimatizes the children.

Obedience to Scripture. The Apostle Paul taught that, “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Can Christians in good faith usurp the work of their God?  A helping hand is not usurping.  Are you saying God lacks television?

But even in devout America not all are Christians, and not all Christians closely follow St. Paul. Besides abolition would leave friends, lovers and family of the victims unable to heal, find closure and begin life anew. Only the Old Testament “eye for an eye,” it seems, will do that. St Paul and his anti death penalty crowd would deprive us of what we really want: the raw desire for sweet revenge. Only death gives the heavenly victim and his earthly tribe that solace. 
So what new deathly ritual should we adopt to better slake this acknowledged thirst for revenge?  How about we allow a willing executioner to volunteer from among those closest to the victim? He or she would flip the switch, plunge the needle, trip the trap, light the fire, etc., and, if so  moved, lead the public in a fist pumping cheer for revenge at last.  Now that's closure for you.

Meanwhile, in fairness, we should also offer the condemned his choice of killing method. Borrowing from economic game theory, we could call the subsequent scenario "The Executioner's Dilemma." What's wrong with executions resembling Texas Hold'em -- no limit, everything at stake? 

A wily prisoner facing death might choose to have Henry VIII's axe imported from the Tower of London or the guillotine from Paris, causing the occasional nearest relative to shrink from his duty -- even with technical support from expert officials. But another less squeamish cousin would no doubt step up, especially for serial killers.  No doubt public interest would occasionally be high enough for a good riot, but so what's new?

Thoughtful readers will have already noted that revenge doesn’t save money, possibly rehabilitates quaint old methods of execution, does nothing much to deter other criminals, scares the horses and other sensitive beings, and does not necessarily do justice.

Thoughtful readers will also know the meaning of the Latin phrase reductio ad absurdum -- which is more than one can say about the country's state and national legislators, and unfortunately most of those who vote for them.  We will continue bungling the final scene to the occasional dismay of all, most notably the plays protagonist. 

But we will have new ceremonies to enjoy or deplore as we wish.  Change is good.  Only progress is uncertain.


































.