CHAPTER 2
Argument 2 (17)
Through the Death Penalty the respect for man's inviolable value is kept
Already nearly four thousand years ago these words were written: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." The Bible, Genesis 9:6.
Whether we believe that the words come from a god or not, these words testify of an ancient sense of justice, which in turn testifies of the view of the high value of man that has existed far back in the history of humanity. There is something within us that instinctively says that man has such a value, dignity and greatness that one who murders does not deserve to live. This natural intuition of the heart is something we need to confirm and cherish.
If a state governed by law values man - the victim of a crime - with the highest respect, then it becomes natural with the death penalty for murderers and violent criminals. In a deeper sense therefore the capital punishment is actually about the human value.
What is a human being worth?
Faced with this question it is important to come to the understanding that the judgment that a state governed by law imposes on the violent criminal and the murderer at the same time reveals what value that the State places on its ordinary citizens and especially on the victims of crimes.
A state governed by law can speak warmly about the value of man. But it is in action that the words show their value. And one way for me to find out what value the government places on me as a citizen is to read in the code of law and see what penalty there will be for one who could kill me and my loved ones. There I will have it in writing on what I as a human being is worth in the eyes of the government.
But will we accept the value that the State places on us after we have read the code of law? Sweden, for instance, does not have a civilized legislation in that matter. Around 10 years in prison can hardly be viewed as a real punishment in comparison to the crime, but should more be vied as mercy and regard and goodness towards the murderer.
The sanction of a few years in prison for a murderer brutally kills every beautiful statement that the human life would be considered as inviolable. The condemning by the lips of violent crimes and murder should have the utmost justice as a consequence in order to make it credible.
When the violent criminal only has a prison term for a time it means also in practice, that the state governed by law trivializes the suffering and the permanent mark that the victim has been afflicted with. And when the murderer has approximately the same sanction it does not only mean trivializing but an open scorn against all victims.
It is the death penalty that in a practical way most effectively can confirm that the citizens have an inviolable value and that the state governed by law respects the human value. Any other penalty than the death penalty for murder means that the value of man isn’t inviolable. In order to make clear the value of an innocent human’s life (the victim) the murderer must be punished with death. Every other punishment undermines the value of the innocent victim. The death penalty is necessary if the state governed by law in a concrete and true meaning is to be able to show that it respect human life.
The US Supreme Court wrote with deep insight in verdict Gregg v. Georgia: "Indeed, the decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death."
The respect for life is a characterizing sign for the civilized society. The state governed by law maintains this respect through the death penalty in a stronger and clearer way than through any other punishment. The message of the death penalty is: If you do violence to, or murder, a human being, you show entire disrespect for life, and the state governed by law condones such disrespect through the death penalty.
Prison for a few years does not in a real sense mean any respect at all for the life of the victim. It means that man - the victim - has a very small value.
If the murderer is allowed to live we have to regard him as more worth than the dead victim. This is immoral and uncivilized since it normally means that a criminal get a higher value than a law-abiding, a guilty more than an innocent, a dishonest more than an honest.
Every citizen should have the right to think: if anyone kills me, he would loose his life too.
The state governed by law owes it to its citizens to give them this insurance. It gives man value. But today citizens of many countries are forced to think: if anyone takes my life - even by using the worst methods of torture - the sanction for the murderer will be prison for some years.
Do we citizens want it this way? What does this say about the governments’ attitude towards us citizens? Is it fair and just by the State towards me? And what happens to man’s inviolable value?
Now that the State instead of the death penalty sentences the murder to prison, we have reason to feel fear for each other, since the government has taken away a great part of respect and value from us citizens. We are almost worthless. There are no greater consequences if someone kills us. Fear of death easily creeps into our souls when we become aware of the fact that anyone out there by any reason who doesn’t like us can take our lives, and the price on our heads is only some years in prison.
Agony of death should on the contrary be exchanged for some security if we knew that the murderer was expecting a death penalty. We would then be able to walk the dark streets lit only by the moonlight with a greater sense of peace. We could then feel like proud and respected members of society. We would then finally begin to feel a little more valuable. The death penalty would clarify the value of man in a strong bolt of lightning. It would manifest the inviolable value of every man with strength.
With a simple figure of speech we can see the human value in this way: If I take an ax and chop down a tree on private property I may get away with being put on probation. If I take the ax and kill the neighbor’s dog I may get fined. If I take the ax and kill a human being I may get 10 years in prison. Why this difference in punishment? – Because a human being simply can be viewed as something more valuable than trees and animals.
And man’s value is revealed in the following ways: If I am guilty of defamation the punishment may stay at probation. If I am guilty of abuse the punishment may be a few months in prison. If I am guilty of murder the punishment will be a few years in prison up to lifetime in prison. One important reason for this increasing punishment when it comes to more cruel crimes is the human value. A punishment is in other words also related to the human value. Therefore the death penalty, more than any other punishment, would show how incredibly high the human life is valued.
The argument of the headline is about the inviolable value of man and about respect for human life. Both the opponent and the supporter of the death penalty use these expressions to defend his stand. It is therefore important to see the determining difference in the different points of view:
A. When the abolitionist speaks of human value he only has the heinous criminal in mind. Also he is a human being with an inviolable value. There are no exceptions; all humans always have the same human value. The abolitionists therefore choose to take side with the heinous criminal in the first place.
B. The supporter of the death penalty on the other hand chooses to show solidarity with the weakest and most exposed - the victims of crime. When the supporter speaks of man’s inviolable value he first and foremost think of the victim, then his relatives and after that all ordinary citizens. The violent criminal and the murderer on the other hand have lost his absolute inviolable value before the state governed by law.
When the murderer killed a fellowman he did not only show complete contempt for the inviolable value of the victim but also for his own. In one sense the violent criminal and the murderer maintains the same value as the most honest man on the earth. But before the state governed by law it can no longer be absolutely inviolable, because then it would prevent the final justice from working and it would also mean that the state governed by law practically despised the inviolable value of the victim, the state governed by law would, so to speak, take the criminal by the hand and chose to support him.
We mean that it is the weak one, the afflicted and exposed that in every way has to be protected and prioritized. It is the victim that needs our solidarity. It is the inviolable value of the victim that has to be maintained.
A violent criminal and a murderer should never be allowed to get away from the ultimate justice by pointing to his "inviolable value." He has brutally and without respect tried to crush the value of other people. Then compensation has to be made and justice administered.
There is no greater crime on earth than when a man takes a fellowman’s life. A man cannot be violated in a more brutal way. Human value cannot be more despised in a more drastic way. A murderer gives his victim a horrible punishment: never to see the light of the sun again, never hear the birds sing, never again feel the sent of the rose, never again hear the voice of a loved one, never again stroke the baby’s cheek, never again spend time with friends, never again smile at the nice and beautiful in life.
But this meant nothing for the violent criminal and the murderer. To him man is worth nothing. He has started a war against humanity. Every time a man is battered the whole body of society is beaten and every time a man is murdered part of the body of society is killed. Every attack on a fellowman is an attack on humanity, and an aggressive enemy of humanity should not be able to demand an inviolable value before the State.
A violent criminal or a murderer has therefore passed a holy border. He has crushed the conscience- and moral barrier and has passed outside the invisible border that makes us normal people. In that sense he does no longer belong to the humane humanity. He has through his actions left the human sphere.
We can only understand the totality of what the argument of the headline encloses if we have the ability to feel with the victim of crime and are able to place ourselves in his destiny. If we are unable, or maybe even choose to sympathize with the violent criminal we will never be able to understand this argument.
Murder is cruel, inhuman, degrading and destroys people’s lives and violates human rights. For this reason there can be no alternative to the death penalty.
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
© David Anderson 1998, 2002
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15509119