Who is Responsible for the Death Penalty?
Recently, The Dallas Morning News reversed its long-standing support for the death penalty. Mike Hashimoto apparently was one of the few members of the editorial board to oppose that switch.
Today, he uses the example of a killer who set out to kill, who killed with no hesitation, and who has no remorse, to defend the death penalty. Hashimoto challenges readers "spell out your principles, in whichever direction, on this case, since this is the guy whose life we're trying to spare."
Hashimoto himself offers no principles. He makes an emotional appeal by giving us a particularly heinous crime. What principles does he offer that can be captured in legislation so we can distinguish between the heinous cases and the mistakes? None. I particularly object to Hashimoto shifting the responsibility to those who want to "spare" a killer's life instead of keeping the responsibility on those who want to take it.
In reader responses, Zachary Hilbun offers the fullest argument in favor of the death penalty.
He argues that, despite arguments to the contrary, you can be certain of the guilt of criminals in many cases. Perhaps he has a lower bar for certainty than others do. In the next breath, he says "the SCOTUS has said that trials do not have to be perfect for there to be justice." Yes, he does has a lower bar.
He admits that "You can find studies for or against capital punishment being a deterrent." In the next breath, he concludes that capital punishment must be a deterrent because no one wants to be put to death. In other words, the evidence be damned, go by what I think must be so.
He dismisses the possibility of rehabilitation, saying the future doesn't matter, only the past. OK, but he should dismiss his argument of deterrence then, too.
He dismisses the argument that poor people are put to death more often than rich people by saying, in effect, life isn't fair. No, life isn't fair. But our justice system ought to be.
He argues that capital punishment isn't "just revenge." He calls it "social justice" instead. Tomato, tomahto. I'll admit that the case Hilbun makes for capital punishment isn't based on emotion, but it isn't based on logic, either, at least not sound logic.
I am used to hearing that the irreversibility of the death penalty is a reason to do away with the death penalty. Eyewitness mistakes and prosecutorial misconduct can lead to wrongful convictions. It's too late to make things right if the defendant has already been put to death. Another reader, "JK", uses irreversibility as a point in the death penalty's favor. Lest society might change its mind in the future, "JK" prefers to put criminals to death now. I'm used to this argument used by, say, dieters ("Get the cake out of the house, so I'm not tempted to eat it."), but I've never heard it used in a matter of social policy ("Kill him now, in case I change my mind later.")
No comments:
Post a Comment