The death penalty debate: A case of emotion versus reason?
The high-profile and controversial execution last week of Stanley “Tookie” Williams in California, has reignited the public debate on issues surrounding the use of the death penalty. But will this new round of debate result in death penalty reform? Don’t count on it.
Williams was cofounder of the notorious Crips gang, reportedly implicated in countless killings and other criminal activity. He was convicted for the 1981 killing of convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, and Los Angeles motel owners Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and the couple's daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43.
Over the years Williams has maintained his innocence in the murders. He, nevertheless, renounced his former life as a gang leader, and spent his time on death row writing children’s books about the dangers of gangs and a life of violence. For his efforts Williams received international acclaim, even being nominated for Nobel Prizes in peace and literature. In the end, however, even appeals on his behalf by international celebrities were not enough to enable him to escape death by lethal injection. Even celebrity Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to intervene to commute Williams’s sentence to life in prison.
Like many attitudes, those concerning the use of the death penalty, whether pro or con, are usually held quite firmly and passionately. The arguments on both sides are familiar. The logic of the arguments, however, does not always succeed in persuading, particularly those most affected by the crime. Research has demonstrated that emotions sometimes trump logic, particularly among those less educated or less analytical.
Some arguments, such as those based upon appeals to authority, religious, or cultural values, cannot be easily challenged by appeals to “facts,” or “evidence.” Bible passages, for example are sometimes used to defend capital punishment for murder. Few, however, would tolerate capital punishment for those engaging in premarital sex or adultery, although support for such punishments can also be found in passages from the Bible. The contradictory injunctions, “You shall not kill” and, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” are also Biblical.
Other arguments can be informed by research carried out by social scientists, and can be factually challenged and refuted. For example, the claim that it is less costly to execute a convicted criminal, than to incarcerate him for life has been investigated, and refuted. Likewise, the notion that the threat of execution acts as a deterrent to other would-be murderers has been found to be without empirical support. Nevertheless, such beliefs persist among the public, and arguments like these continue to be offered in support of capital punishment.
Death penalty advocates often correctly point out the harm experienced by the family and friends of the murder victim. A victim’s family members can often be seen attending the murder trial, applying whatever influence they can muster to obtain a conviction and maximum penalty against the accused. Some victims take the position that they cannot possibly achieve “closure,” find peace, and get on with their lives until they see their loved one’s murderer duly convicted and executed. The evidence of others who have done just that, despite a failure to receive “justice” for some reason, fails to persuade that nonviolent routes to achieving peace and closure are also available.
Death penalty advocates often base their arguments upon appeals for justice, a sort of balancing of the scales. They, nevertheless, appear to overlook the secondary trauma and suffering produced as a result of the offender’s execution. For example, innocent family members of the accused and convicted offender, already adversely affected by their loved one’s heinous crime, are further traumatized when the offender is subsequently killed by the state. It has also been demonstrated that those who serve on juries at capital trials are prone to suffer the effects of trauma as a result of their role in putting another human being to death. Witnesses to an execution have also experienced psychological distress as a result of the experience. Can the traumatization of other innocent people be considered a “just” outcome? Who is to determine when the requirements of justice are sufficiently fulfilled?
Our world is, after all, filled with injustice. One need not look far to see evidence of this fact. Death penalty advocates appear quite selective in their choice of injustices to attempt to rectify. If fighting injustice were truly the motivating principle behind death penalty advocacy, wouldn’t such proponents be equally vocal on other glaring injustices, such as poverty, hunger, and similar human right abuses? Viewed in this way, the use of appeals for justice as a rationale for capital punishment begin to appear more as rationalizations for further acts of violence, perhaps motivated by darker impulses, such as hostility and a desire for vengeance.
Crime is certainly not pretty. Murder is arguably the ugliest of all crimes. Those impacted by crimes are understandably affected emotionally, and anger is a quite natural human response to such events. Punishment and retribution, however, by no means guarantee a sense of closure, nor do they necessarily restore justice and dissipate anger. We have other more humane means at our disposal for resolving anger and for working toward social justice. Perhaps future societies will evolve away from the use violence as a response to violence. Perhaps we will begin to develop and make use of more creative alternatives available to us.
Williams was cofounder of the notorious Crips gang, reportedly implicated in countless killings and other criminal activity. He was convicted for the 1981 killing of convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, and Los Angeles motel owners Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and the couple's daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43.
Over the years Williams has maintained his innocence in the murders. He, nevertheless, renounced his former life as a gang leader, and spent his time on death row writing children’s books about the dangers of gangs and a life of violence. For his efforts Williams received international acclaim, even being nominated for Nobel Prizes in peace and literature. In the end, however, even appeals on his behalf by international celebrities were not enough to enable him to escape death by lethal injection. Even celebrity Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to intervene to commute Williams’s sentence to life in prison.
Like many attitudes, those concerning the use of the death penalty, whether pro or con, are usually held quite firmly and passionately. The arguments on both sides are familiar. The logic of the arguments, however, does not always succeed in persuading, particularly those most affected by the crime. Research has demonstrated that emotions sometimes trump logic, particularly among those less educated or less analytical.
Some arguments, such as those based upon appeals to authority, religious, or cultural values, cannot be easily challenged by appeals to “facts,” or “evidence.” Bible passages, for example are sometimes used to defend capital punishment for murder. Few, however, would tolerate capital punishment for those engaging in premarital sex or adultery, although support for such punishments can also be found in passages from the Bible. The contradictory injunctions, “You shall not kill” and, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” are also Biblical.
Other arguments can be informed by research carried out by social scientists, and can be factually challenged and refuted. For example, the claim that it is less costly to execute a convicted criminal, than to incarcerate him for life has been investigated, and refuted. Likewise, the notion that the threat of execution acts as a deterrent to other would-be murderers has been found to be without empirical support. Nevertheless, such beliefs persist among the public, and arguments like these continue to be offered in support of capital punishment.
Death penalty advocates often correctly point out the harm experienced by the family and friends of the murder victim. A victim’s family members can often be seen attending the murder trial, applying whatever influence they can muster to obtain a conviction and maximum penalty against the accused. Some victims take the position that they cannot possibly achieve “closure,” find peace, and get on with their lives until they see their loved one’s murderer duly convicted and executed. The evidence of others who have done just that, despite a failure to receive “justice” for some reason, fails to persuade that nonviolent routes to achieving peace and closure are also available.
Death penalty advocates often base their arguments upon appeals for justice, a sort of balancing of the scales. They, nevertheless, appear to overlook the secondary trauma and suffering produced as a result of the offender’s execution. For example, innocent family members of the accused and convicted offender, already adversely affected by their loved one’s heinous crime, are further traumatized when the offender is subsequently killed by the state. It has also been demonstrated that those who serve on juries at capital trials are prone to suffer the effects of trauma as a result of their role in putting another human being to death. Witnesses to an execution have also experienced psychological distress as a result of the experience. Can the traumatization of other innocent people be considered a “just” outcome? Who is to determine when the requirements of justice are sufficiently fulfilled?
Our world is, after all, filled with injustice. One need not look far to see evidence of this fact. Death penalty advocates appear quite selective in their choice of injustices to attempt to rectify. If fighting injustice were truly the motivating principle behind death penalty advocacy, wouldn’t such proponents be equally vocal on other glaring injustices, such as poverty, hunger, and similar human right abuses? Viewed in this way, the use of appeals for justice as a rationale for capital punishment begin to appear more as rationalizations for further acts of violence, perhaps motivated by darker impulses, such as hostility and a desire for vengeance.
Crime is certainly not pretty. Murder is arguably the ugliest of all crimes. Those impacted by crimes are understandably affected emotionally, and anger is a quite natural human response to such events. Punishment and retribution, however, by no means guarantee a sense of closure, nor do they necessarily restore justice and dissipate anger. We have other more humane means at our disposal for resolving anger and for working toward social justice. Perhaps future societies will evolve away from the use violence as a response to violence. Perhaps we will begin to develop and make use of more creative alternatives available to us.
posted by Michael | Tuesday, December 20, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home