If the unimaginable occurred, would you support the death penalty?
Industry colleagues often tell me they appreciate the ballsiness of The Good Men Project. Not only do I love the phrase “ballsy”, I love the fact that every person who writes for The Good Men Project is not afraid to put themselves (and their reputations) on the line by telling the world how they truly feel.
We don’t bullshit around here; we boldly speak what’s in our hearts and our minds. The Good Men Project is a visceral experience. We passionately write about what it means to be good, a lack of goodness, individual darkness, morality, gender, equality and everything in between.
What I’m about to tell you is not good. However, it is a good conversation to have, and The Good Men Project is the ideal forum. (Even though it’s frightening to publicly admit my feelings on this topic.) I wrestle with what I’m about to say. Perhaps someone will change my mind? Or maybe you privately identify with my truth and it will be cathartic to hear your sentiments spoken by another?
♦◊♦
Days after the Aurora movie theater shooting, my husband and I hosted a dinner party. The topic of conversation eventually made its way to capital punishment and the possibility of James Holmes receiving the death penalty.
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a proponent of the death penalty. Yes, I believe in putting someone to death if they have unequivocally committed a heinous, unconscionable crime. I don’t believe a sadistic sociopath has the right to life. I don’t want my tax dollars keeping him or her alive in a maximum security prison. I don’t care that there is a tacit code amongst prisoners and that they “take care of” the worst of the worst in lock down. Furthermore, I don’t care that certain guards look the other way and allow prisoners to eliminate those deemed most vile. I wouldn’t want to take that chance. I would need to know that my loved one’s killer was put to death by the state – after a trial and conviction.
At times, when I’m shaken by the brutality of my emotions, I push myself further to confirm my truth. I delve deeper into my soul and consider these scenarios: if I had a child, and my son or daughter was raped and murdered, would I honestly want the perpetrator put to death? Yes, I would. If my daughter or sister was a victim of Ted Bundy’s inhumane atrocities would I have sincerely wanted him put to death by the electric chair? Yes, of course; I would have wanted him electrocuted. If one of my loved one’s was a victim of the Aurora movie massacre, would I seriously want this madman to face the death penalty? Yes, I definitely would.
What I’ve confessed is not good, but it’s my truth. Given my upbringing – and my attempt to live altruistically each day – I’m tormented by my thoughts. Cognitively, I know I should not feel this way; yet emotionally, I can’t ignore my primitive disposition.
I will always feel conflicted by my views on capital punishment. If you feel differently, I’m in awe of your goodness. I wish I could be more like you.
Editor’s note: This post will be highly moderated. Please keep the commentary respectful and on topic.
About Nicole Johnson
Ok Monkey. Case in point. Elmer Wayne Henley accomplice to the Candy Man Murders in the 1970′s. “This man delivered into the hands of two serial killers his childhood friends for $ 1500.00 each . They were his friends from childhood who he played with as a child and was in and out of his their homes since infancy. He participated in the torture, but not rapes until Dean Coril turned on him and Henley shot him and confessed. Henely is going up for parole hearding on 08/14/12. You know this is a good example on the argument on this site for life in prison verses the death penalty. As we can see here. Life in prison does not mean anything. This man participated in over 29 murders and torture, received 6 life sentences, yet he gets to gets a chance to get out on parole? The fact is that people actually have to petition in order to keep this monster in jail, despite the fact that he received 6 life sentences? What about the victims? What about their lives?” If you read the documentary. It is horrendous, those poor kids suffer horribly. How is their any justice with this case? I ask you.
That is truly horrible. It still doesn’t justify a death sentence that disproportionately executes poor black and Latino men, and has been proven to result in innocent people on death row or even executed.
There is a reason that we don’t let victims or victims’ families decide the punishment of those who commit crimes against them. The legal system is not designed to be a vehicle for personal vengeance. Yes, if my child or husband were the victim of a violent crime, I would happily dismember the person who hurt them with my bare hands…which is why I’m glad that I wouldn’t bear the responsibility for that decision.
Examining the DNA evidence of prior convictions has demonstrated that we as a society make a lot of mistakes in determining guilt: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/criminal-exoneration-convicted-released-23-years-study_n_1531908.html. The death penalty doesn’t allow for do-overs.
One of the comments makes an interesting point that hadn’t occurred to me: executing an innocent person also means that the guilty party will never be brought to justice.
Not necessarily true. The fact that an innocent person is punished for something he did not do does not preclude the punishment of the actual guilty party. The guilty party could be subsequently discovered and punished after the wrongful punishment of the innocent person. Or sometimes an innocent person may be false accused of being an accomplice to the guilty party and they are both similarly condemned. Though it is bad that an undeserving person would get punished, the guilty party would still be getting punished as well in that scenario.
Indeed, but that is not the only reason. Crimes are not solely private grievances between the offender and the victim(s). On the flip side, even if the victim or victim’s family is entirely forgiving and want the offender to go free, that will not excuse or exempt the offender from punishment. The state and the community are affected as a whole and have jurisdiction over the crime, apart from the wishes of the victim(s). Though, it is good for the court to listen to the victims and families and take their views into account. Same thing for listening to the family of the perpetrator.
Most punishments do not allow for “do-overs” and carry the risk of somebody losing their life, or years of their life, for something that he/she may not have done.
“Yes, you’d want to see him put to death. You’d want it to be cruel and unusual, which is why it’s probably a good idea that fathers of murder victims don’t have legal rights in these situations.”
-Toby Ziegler, The West Wing, Aaron Sorkin & Paul Redford
Really? No rights at all? Well, in most of the US today, victims and relatives of victims are afforded some minimal legal rights, despite what Ziegler wants. These rights are just things like being informed about the charges against the defendant, being informed about the status of the case, being informed when they have to testify, being informed about what kind of punishment the defendant may get if he is convicted, being consulted if the prosecutor is thinking about a plea bargain, having an opportunity to be heard in court during sentencing and being told if the defendant is released.
Before these “Victims’ Rights” policies, victims and families were often left in the dark about criminal cases. Prosecutors would dispose of cases without ever telling them. A defendant could get a slap on the wrist and be on his way without the victim’s family ever hearing about it. Or they would be told that the defendant was going to get a long prison sentence, but they were unaware that he could get out much earlier because of things like parole or good behavior.
Certainly, they do not have the right to unilaterally control the proceedings and decide the punishment. But families of victims are a relevant party to “these situations” and they are entitled to some minimal considerations.
My arguments against the death penalty have almost always been that i am in favour of it in extreme cases but against the governments who make the decisions. In both the cases listed in the above article i would have no problems with it.
However if you were to add say Vince Li, who killed a man on a greyhound bus, cut him up and ate parts of him I would vote no. To put it bluntly I honestly believe he is repentant, a man who can be saved rather than a man not worth saving.
I also have a problem with many western governments justice systems, the US has had far to many sketchy convictions some even ending in death to be given the ultimate life or death decisions and here in Canada, there is talk about the constitutionality of every jury trial ever conducted thanks to the universal use of “jury vetting”, basically stacking the jury pool in conviction happy people before jury selection. I simply have very little faith in the justice system.
There is too much circumstance here to really say yes or no, would I logically and rationally be able to come to a conclusion on the subject, or would i simply be angry and want revenge. That poll question is one i hope i never have an answer for.
Your Thomas Aquinas quote is an appeal to authority. If that where a valid argument then everything that Thomas Aquinas said would be completely correct, including his conclusion that something that moves without moving itself is the christian God, not the God of any other religion or a group of Gods and certainly not a blueberry muffin. I am not saying it is wrong but rather that quoting him (or anyone else for that matter) does not reinforce your argument.
You talked about how someone who has no morality will go around hurting everyone and getting pleasure from it, giving him long term happiness. That’s like saying someone who drugs himself everyday with meth will achieve long term happiness or that someone who makes small investments every day is making a long term investment.
Another subject you touched in your message was morality. To quote you: “Sadly, the morality of something does not always correlate with the happiness and gratification it brings”.
I disagree. What gives you or ANYONE ELSE pain of any kind is wrong.
Also, logic is not a matter of opinion and not all opinions are equal. (ever heard of people going to another doctor for a second opinion? Obviously they don’t value them equally).
Anyway, you say revenge helps people achieve closure. I’d like a logical explanation on how the process works.
And your insistence that taking satisfaction in another person’s pain is always condemnable, no matter what, is an appeal to yourself. I am not claiming that Aquinas is necessarily or indisputably correct on that subject (much less every subject). I only cited his statement as a historical and philosophical example of someone suggesting that satisfaction in another’s suffering is not per se bad and is dependant upon context.
Here you go again, insisting that there is some kind of strict separation between long term happiness and short term happiness, and that long term happiness is indisputably better.
First off, not all people who hurt other people do it for the pleasure of it. Some of them are after a different interest, but they are willing to hurt other people to achieve it. A robber who steals money may actually want the money, and may not necessarily take pleasure in hurting his victims (though some robbers do have such pleasure). Secondly, not all people who harm and violate others are akin to impulsive drug users. Some of them are quite patient and endure for the long term, even though they are harming people as a matter of course.
Madoff enjoyed a lavish, charmed life as a result of his deception and stealing from his victims. He continued his crimes for decades until he was almost 80. It was a “long term” investment for him, which amassed him hundreds of millions. Some investigators think that had it not been for the recession, he may have gone undetected until he died. Now, perhaps his moral guilt for harming his victims spoiled his comfort and happiness, but I am skeptical of that. He gave a solemn apology in court. But when he got to prison, he said “Fuck my victims.” Probably he is only sorry that he got caught and punished. And for every Madoff, there are plenty of CEO’s and corporate types who enrich themselves by deceiving and exploiting their stockholders and other people. Most are never punished, and a lot of them will live comfortable, privileged lives to a ripe old age. There are even unrepentant pedophiles who happily reminisce about the children they have violated.
Even accepting your comparison to a methamphetamine addict, how do you know that a drug user is not happy? Granted, lots of drug users admit being unhappy and have good reason for unhappiness. But some drug users will tell you how it is wonderful to be high and insist that the drug makes them happy. And as long as they can have the drug, they will be happy in the long term, up until the day that they die of an overdose or something else. Even people who have quit using drugs and have been sober for years sometimes admit that they think fondly about being high.
But even if you want to dismiss chemical gratification as beneath consideration, what about somebody who enjoys frequently engaging in intense, high risk activities? A mountain climber? A sky diver? A race car driver? Even though these are dangerous, intense activities with lethal risk, some people claim that these hobbies give them lasting joy, with full knowledge that they can be horribly injured or killed by doing them.
Now about your distinction between “small investments” and “long term investments.” Why is it that you know that “long term” things are necessarily superior to “small” quick things. Some investors are long term investors. But some investors operate by making numerous, fast, small investments. It carries different risks and hazards than long term investing, but it is not without rewards. And if these short-term investments result in a gain more often than a loss, the investor can steadily add to his “long term” profit. He is not necessarily inferior or impaired compared to the long-term seeker. And this does not just apply to financial matters. Some people are happy when they marry one person and stay sexually faithful to that one person for their entire lives. And some people like having short, intense passionate relationships throughout their lives, without staying committed to any one person. And even though these relationships are brief, a person can still be happy because of them, even after the relationships end.
I was merely pointing out that moral things do not always cause happiness and satisfaction for everyone, and immoral things do not always cause unhappiness and suffering for everyone. Caring for a dying parent is probably painful and depressing, but it is usually a morally good thing to do. If somebody’s family member committed a terrible crime, it may be painful for that person to report the crime and tell the truth. But that is usually the right thing to do. And some people may take pleasure from doing bad things, especially if they never get caught. Happiness does not necessarily require morality. Morality certainly does not require happiness.
I hope you will refine this statement. So childbirth is wrong? Surgery is wrong? Getting a vaccine shot is wrong? A funeral is wrong? If I shoot somebody in self-defense and cause them pain, is that wrong?
I agree. However, there is a difference between opinions concerning things like mathematics and biology versus opinions concerning human subjectivities and internal emotional states. You can judge between “2+2=4” and “2+2=5.” Those are not equally valid opinions. But you cannot rank and judge between opinions like “chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream” or “vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream.” There is no objective, logical hierarchy to determine whether chocolate or vanilla is superior. When somebody says “being a mountain climber makes me truly happy” or “being a Buddhist monk makes me truly happy,” there is no adjudication between these claims of personal fulfillment, or some sure way to determine whether mountaineering or monasticism are true ways of finding happiness. Likewise, when somebody says, “seeing the person who harmed me get punished makes me happy” and somebody else says “forgiving the person who harmed me makes me happy,” there is no objective basis to determine which of these two claims is the true, superior one. I am willing to believe that some people are truly happy by being forgiving and renouncing any claim to retribution for wrongs done to them. If such people claim to be happy, I do not conclude that they are necessarily lying and/or psychologically defective. You, however, make that conclusion quite readily about people who claim to be happy and satisfied when wrongdoers and punished.
I do not consider revenge and retribution to be the same thing, even though you like to conflate them. I do not claim that punishment always and unfailingly helps people achieve closure. I only argue that it can, and often does, help victims and families of victims achieve closure. You, however, insist that punishment and retribution absolutely never help achieve closure or happiness (or what you consider to be “real” happiness).
First, let me ask you for some logical explanations. Explain to me how forgiveness helps people achieve closure. Explain to me how getting married helps people achieve happiness. Explain to me how having children helps people achieve happiness. Explain to me how not having children helps people achieve happiness. Explain to me how having a pet helps people achieve happiness. Explain to me how scuba diving helps people achieve happiness. All of these things, and much more, are things than can help people achieve happiness or some other positive emotional state. Conversely, explain to me how a dying relative causes someone to feel unhappy. Explain to me how being raped causes someone to feel unhappy. There is no linear explanation of how the process works and culminates in an emotional state. But I will try.
When people are harmed and violated, they often feel aggrieved and distressed. They know that they are supposed to respect people and not do certain things to people, but somebody did those bad things to them anyway. Somebody disregarded their rights and their wills. When we punish the person who harmed and violated them, the people see that he will suffer loss and harm against his own will. Probably not the same exact kind of harm or loss he inflicted on them, but something “proportional” to his wrong. They can see that the power he assumed over them will not be without cost for him, and that what he did to them “matters” and is important. If the person who harmed them stays unpunished, people may think that they are less important than this person and that he has special power to treat other people however he wishes. When punishment happens, people may be reassured that society cares about wrongs done to them and that their rights and equal human worth can be vindicated if they are violated. They are not left worrying that they are less important than the malefactor or that he retains the power to harm them without consequence. Perhaps that is what may help people to achieve some kind of resolution or “closure.” Of course, emotional states are not strictly logical things. And that process can involve a bunch of other variables or work in some other roundabout way for other people. Some people do not achieve “closure” even with the aid of punishment. Some people can achieve “closure” without punishment. And some people you just cannot tell how they psychologically respond. I do not think that the moral propriety of retribution depends entirely on the psychological closure of victims and families of victims. However, I think that it can often be a benefit and credit in favor of the process.
Strange that you would ask this. In your August 2, 2012, 6:45 P.M. post, you said:
So, you know that it can help achieve closure, but you just want it explained?
Closure is when the traumatic experience stops affecting you.
Some people do achieve closure from revenge. They are ok with the act of morally reducing themselves to the level of the criminal and in a way give the criminal a reason why they should of been victimized. They achieve closure in the least healthy of ways, by becoming similar to the criminal.
Most cases however people do not achieve closure from revenge. It’s these cases that I wanted your explanation onto why you think it helps them achieve closure.
Closure by this last group of people is achieved through forgiveness. The realise what their abusers did to them as being wrong but they have decided there is nothing they can do to ever get back what the abuser took away from them. They aknowledge the loss and work around it. For this process to happen it’s imperative that the victim gets rid of all the anger that is natural to have in these cases because anger makes you self destructive and self defeating. It gives you an external locus of control, meaning that you blame everything that’s gone wrong in your life on the victim and you avoid to see your responsability in your acts.
Many people make it an issue of pride and honor. They want to take revenge (or retribution which I see as the same thing) so people don’t think about abusing them again. This is using your fears to rationalize hurting a criminal. It points to narcissistic traits and should be taken into account because they might see getting their pride back as closure but they still harbour anger.
You cannot achieve closure and be angry at you abuser. That would be cognitive disonance or having two opposite ideas at once.
A valid question, if the goal is to empathize with people who have lost loved ones to violence. Or, as a thought exercise to talk about people’s perspectives on the death penalty.
However, there’s a good reason why people who have lost loved ones to an accused murderer are not allowed on the jury of that accused murderer and are not allowed to set the penalty for the murderer if there’s a conviction. We generally would not expect them to be objective or treat the case fairly. I assume if I lost a loved one to a murderer I would not be allowed anywhere near the accused, because I would likely do something quite un-objective and viciously contrary to due process. Then, imagine how his family would feel about my taking his life without due process, back and forth until the families are all dead.
As awful as this sounds, I don’t think the feelings of a victim’s family should really be taken into account when figuring out the sentence for murder. This is why I think it was a bad precedent to allow family members to make statements during sentencing. I am not discounting their pain, and I’m not discounting the benefit of reminding the justice system that a real person has been killed. But, that could set up a situation where the more beloved the victim, the harsher the punishment. Conversely, someone without friends or family would have a life that’s less worthy of protecting.
Most jurisdictions that permit “victim impact statements” or “family impact statements” engage in a sort of doublespeak as to the purpose and role of these statements. They try to discount that these statements will affect or change the punishment and insist that their true purpose is for the victim or family to “be heard” in court. Basically, these statements are written off as some kind of catharsis for the victim or family, with no real impact on the judicially determined punishment.
And in most cases, that is how it works, especially if the punishment has been fixed by statute or the defendant has negotiated a plea. The punishment has been predetermined and the “victim impact” portion of the sentencing is just a courtesy to the victim. Some commentators suggest, and with reason, that these statements are a cynical way of humoring victims and families and making them think that they have a valued role in the case, and as a way of making up for the fact that most victims find the average punishment to be insufficient.
But there are exceptions. I have seen cases in which judges specifically cite a victim’s letter or statement as reason for increasing a punishment. And when a sympathetic victim makes a poignant case at a parole hearing, Lord knows that parole boards do not want to be seen as traumatizing a victim. Of course, parole boards deny parole most of the time anyway.
I forgot about the sentencing guidelines that most states have. In a lot of places, the sentencing has very little room for any person to affect one way or the other. The sentencing has really all been worked out before the victim’s family says anything.
I’m guessing the family statements also work as a kind of safety valve for the court system. Besides possibly being a cynical ploy to appease the community, it could also be a quite practical internal security measure. Family members who may feel like jumping over the seats and attacking the defendant in court may be able to control themselves if they know that they will get a chance to speak to the defendant at sentencing. I don’t have figures on it, but I’d guess that jurisdictions with such statements have a lower rate of in-court violence. I’m sure it makes for fewer outbursts in court, less stalking of judges, and fewer nasty editorials in the newspaper.
I wonder how appropriate it is to expect the justice system to provide closure for the family of victims. Is this really supposed to be a function of the courts and prisons? That sounds like overburdening a system with something that it is not very good at and which is better found elsewhere. It also sounds like letting third party feelings dictate the course of a legal case between the state and an individual. I think we already have enough emotional subjectivity built into our political and judicial systems as it is.
The whole idea of having a justice sysem is to substract the emotional component in morality so it’s more just.
Emotion clouds our sense of morality and justice.
I still believe Justice is revenge. The justice system is there only to give the victims a Just revenge.
All well and good, but you are the one saying that because you think punishment does not reduce or alleviate emotion pain and exacerbates bad emotions, then that should be an argument for abandoning it.
So what is a “Just revenge”? If justice and revenge are the same, isn’t that like saying “vengeful revenge” or “just justice”?
For the record, wellokaythen, I do not demand that the justice system fulfill “closure” or emotional resolution for victims and families. That is not its function. Due process and justice should reign supreme. However, sometimes closure can be a collateral result when the justice system functions properly. I was responding to the contention that victims and families absolutely never ever get a sense of closure from trials and punishments. Sometimes, victims and families do feel a sense of closure when the justice system has run its course. And I see nothing wrong with that.