Answers to the argument against the Death Penalty

Chapter 3 - Part Two

In Part Two the following clichés and assertions shall be answered:

1. THE DEATH PENALTY IS DISCRIMINATION. IN THE USA MOSTLY BLACKS AND POOR ARE EXECUTED (answer)

2. THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT INCREASES THE BRUTALIZATION OF A SOCIETY (answer)

3. THE DEATH PENALTY CREATES "TRIGGER-HAPPY" CRIMINALS (answer)

4. THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS UNNECESSARY, BECAUSE NO RELATIVE CAN GET THEIR MURDERED ONE BACK, AND THE GRIEF IS STILL THERE (answer)

5. THE DEATH PENALTY IS THE PREMEDITATED AND COLD-BLOODED KILLING BY THE STATE OF A HUMAN BEING (answer)

6. THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS ABOUT RETRIBUTION AND AN EYE FOR AN EYE – THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR ENLIGHTENED TIME (answer)

7. WHEN PEOPLE ARE FACED WITH A REALITY WHERE THEY THEMSELVES CARRY OUT AN  EXECUTION THEY BECOME ABOLITIONISTS (answer)

8. WHEN PEOPLE ARE FACED WITH THE REALITY THAT THEIR BEST FRIEND IS SENTENCED TO DEATH THEY BECOME ABOLITIONIST (answer)

9. SHOULD THE DEATH SENTENCED CONVICT BE EXECUTED BY BEING HALF BURIED AND THEN STONED WITH LARGE STONES, OR SHOULD THEY SLOWLY BE ROASTED OVER A FIRE? (answer)

10. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THE COMMON SENSE OF JUSTICE. IF WE DID THIS WE WOULD BE FORCED TO INTRODUCE CONSIDERABLY MORE SEVERE PENALTIES AND MAYBE EVEN THE DEATH PENALTY. (answer)

11. MURDERERS AND VIOLENT CRIMINALS SHOULD BE REHABILITATED, NOT KILLED (answer)

12. THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS OR LOVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY (answer)

FINAL REFLECTIONS OVER THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY, AND CONCLUSION.

THE DEATH PENALTY IS DISCRIMINATION. IN THE USA MOSTLY BLACKS AND POOR ARE EXECUTED

This argument does not aim its point at the death penalty as such but against an eventual discriminating legal system.

According to statistics young black males do most murders in the USA. Therefore it is not discriminating but natural that it is mostly blacks that are convicted of murder. It is not an allocation of quotas or a common desire for equality between people of different skin color that should determine who receives a death penalty.

Besides, hard facts from the USA show that the discriminating hypothesis to a considerable extent is a myth: 

From January 1977 to December 2000, 683 executions took place; 55% where white and 43% were black. During this 23-year period a total of 6,588 persons entered State and Federal prisons under sentences of death, among whom 49% were white and 41% were black. In 2000 there were 3593 prisoners sentenced to death in the USA. Among them 55,4% were white and 42,7% were black. 85 criminals were executed in USA 2000. Among them were 49 white and 35 black."White death-row prisoners are more likely to be executed: from 1977 to 1996, 7.2 percent of white prisoners were executed, compared to 5.9 percent of blacks." (1) And among women under sentences of death in 2000, 33 where white and 18 black.

Unfortunately abolitionists often hide such facts (if they are at all aware of them?). When it is revealed, the abolitionists point to the fact that the black community is an obvious minority in the USA, about 12%, and that the amount of black men who are sentenced to death is disproportionately large. 

This must then be met by fact that shows that the black men in the USA commit disproportionately much more amounts of homicides than the white population: 

In 1993, the ratio of murders committed by black men were 33.5 per 100,000. Among white men the ratio was 3.9 per 100,000. That showed that, proportionally speaking, more than 8 times the amount of murders were committed by black men. "In 43.2 percent of violent crime cases in 1996, and 54.9 percent of all murder cases, the perpetrators were African-Americans according to federal statistics." And from 1976 to 1999 there were 51.5 % black men offenders of homicides and 46.5 % white men offenders of homicides, according to federal statistics from Bureau of Justice Statistics. And that could be compared to that during this period, of those who were executed, about 56 % were white men and 37 % were black men. (2),(3),(4)

And two reports from The U.S. Department of Justice have confirmed that there is no racism in the federal death penalty system. Click here to read the latest report.

Besides, the guilt is not a collective issue but a personal: If, for instance, a black man is guilty of murder and is sentenced to death he deserves it, and this is true even if some white men who also are guilty of murder escape the death penalty.

If you let ten murderers, nine white men and one black man, draw lots and only one lot would mean the death penalty, then the one who drew the lot of death, even if it were the black man, would not be unjustly executed, because he would deserve death, and justice for him would be served.

Then one may ask if the murder victims, if able to state their opinion, would care as much as the abolitionists, whether their killer had white, brown or black skin?

And why do the abolitionists seems to think that, as regards the USA, there has to be close to an exact balance between black and white men who is judged to death for the death penalty to be accepted?

If we take the argument of the abolitionists to its extreme and if we are consistent, it will also mean that the prison sentencing as well as the fines will need to be abolished if the facts show that for instance mostly black men (proportionally speaking) are put in prison or has fines imposed on them. How many want it that way?

Of course it is the crime in itself that is the only determining factor if a death sentence should be imposed, and not the colour of the skin.

The tearful but untenable discrimination argument have probably developed since we people generally feel sympathy for oppressed minority-groups, and if one can say that one of these groups in one way or the other were treated badly one may win a few points. But he who scratches the surface of this argument will soon find how irrational and repugnant the whole thing is.(6)

Sometimes the abolitionists say that because blacks who murder whites in the USA run much greater risk to be sentenced to death than whites who murder blacks, that is a proof for racial discrimination. But that is also wrong. Because when blacks murder white it is done considerably more often in connection with another serious crime so that the murder end up in that category (first degree murder) where death penalty can be imposed. Click here for more facts about that. Furthermore:

"Blacks, for example, are many times more likely to commit crimes of violence against whites than vice versa. Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial violent crimes involving blacks and whites reported every year, blacks commit 90 percent and whites commit only 10 percent. Black are therefore more than 50 times more likely than whites to commit interracial crimes of violence." Quotation from a large investigation from USA, you can read it here (pdf file).

The abolitionists may also express their anger concerning the capital punishment by suggesting that it is mostly the poor who are sentenced to death. They try to play on the strings of sympathy. But there is no wisdom hidden in that argument. Let us say that in the USA there were a few more poor people who were sentenced to prison or fined than average income takers and rich people. Would this be reason enough to work for the abolishment of the prison sentence or the fine?

Would it not be better, from many sides, to instead work for a better social standard for the poor than to abolish punishment?

And what do the abolitionists feel concerning punishment for crimes mostly committed by rich people, such as economic criminality? Do they consistently want to abolish punishment for such crimes also since it otherwise would be "discriminating" against the rich people? And one may continue to wonder if the abolitionists would at all protest if the larger number of the death sentenced prisoners had a lot of money and a large share portfolio? Would the death penalty perhaps be more justified if the rich were "discriminated" against?

The capital punishment does not have anything to do with whether the convict has a lot or a little on his bankbook. A civilized state governed by law can take no regard to such matter, but only whether a person really is guilty of the crime he is charged with. If the person is guilty he is to be sentenced according to the law regardless of the amount of money he has in the bank.

And just because justice does not always reach everyone without exception, and not all guilty are arrested and convicted, that is no reason to refuse to impose the death penalty or any other penalty on those who after all are arrested and who are guilty.

The completely determining issue is that – knowing that no state governed by law is perfect – the guilty one is punished and justice is served regardless of whether the defendant is a man or a woman, rich or poor, black or white, educated or uneducated.(5)

Then naturally there is no reason to assume that the legal system and the legal practice in a country that reinstates the death penalty will be as it is in the USA. Why do we have to believe that the worst examples of eventual misuse that have taken place in the USA must happen in every country that reinstates the capital punishment?

Several of the arguments that are brought against the death penalty have in common that they do not attack the death penalty as such, but they attack misuse and improprieties within the legal system that surrounds the capital punishment.

If it happens that people are executed because they are poor (and can’t afford the well-reputed lawyers) or because of the color of their skin, arbitrary judges, religious or political views, these can never be made into an argument against the death penalty. These are unjustifiable missuses within the legal system that surround the death penalty.(7)

We will therefore make the following, very important, notes:

If someone is sentenced to death due to an arbitrary or unjust judicial decision, it is an undeveloped legal system that should be attacked and blamed not the death penalty.

If someone is sentenced to death because a judge is led by racial opinions, it is the racist and inappropriate judge who should be attacked and blamed not the death penalty.

If someone is sentenced to death because of a religious or political opinion, it is a politically corrupt legal system that should be attacked and blamed not the capital punishment.

If someone is sentenced to death because of inexperienced, low-paid defence lawyers who don’t do their job, it is a failing law and order that should be attacked and blamed not the death penalty.

If someone is executed by a method beneath contempt, it is the method of execution that should be attacked and blamed not the capital punishment.

The abolitionists need to learn to separate what is misuse within the legal system from what has to do with the death penalty as such. If one can’t, it will be like when an innocent man is accused of stealing and is sentenced to pay fines by a corrupt judge. And then the fool calls out: See how horrible it is to pay fines, it must be abolished!

Or when an innocent man is accused of assault and is sentenced to prison because of a primitive legal system and the fool says: Prisons are barbaric, they must be abolished!

It is not the pure innocent child that needs to be thrown out, only the dirty bath-water.

In the discussion about the death penalty it is therefore important that we do not start in a legal system that is misused but from a place where the state governed by law is well-developed, where every accused has an equal value and where there is no disrespect of person. And to reach such foundational values within the legal system is not hard for any country that has a sense of humanism.

Click here and read how John Perazzo with a sharpen pen expose and undress the myth that there is racism in American capital cases.

THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT INCREASES THE BRUTALIZATION OF A SOCIETY

Sometimes the abolitionists may speak of a form of "brutalizing effect" in the death penalty. They claim that the society would be more bent for violence if the authority, as they say, "legalize killing" by the death penalty.

This curios reasoning means that in the long run the capital punishment would transform some in society into monsters who would rob, rape, assault and kill people. One can almost see the violent criminal, through the eyes of the abolitionist, talking to a psychologist: - "When the death penalty was used I often felt furious and I was very violent. And when the death penalty was abolished I thought that it would get worse now that I no longer was under the threat of death. But, the strangest thing happened and now I feel so kind and I have no need to hurt another human being. What in the world has happened to me?" –"You have to understand, my friend, that you have now become good since the awful and barbaric death penalty no longer can influence you and make you evil."

According to the brutalizing thesis: A person who lives in a country that uses the capital punishment is in risk of becoming so influenced and intoxicated by "the brutalizing spirit" that exists in this punishment, that he sometimes will feel the urge to hit a person on the jaw and stab the knife in someone else.

The argument of the headline is made up of one of these myths that is usually revealed when the subject of the death penalty is brought up.

The reality is of course the opposite. The natural atmosphere that hovers over a nation that consistently applies the death penalty brings forth an increased respect for the lives of the innocent and increased dignity for all victims and ordinary people. And at the same time it sends out the most powerful warning over society that he who murders will have to pay with his own life. Every execution will therefore stake a pole in the heart of most presumptuous criminals who muse in criminal thoughts. This would mean a somewhat kinder and less brutal society.

The philosophy of the brutalization faith means that an execution brings less respect for the human life (the criminal’s) which has as an effect that people become more inclined to commit violent acts. Well, it should not be excluded that an execution may mean that a single disturbed person feels his soul strengthened in an evil way and is tempted to commit violent acts without really understanding that the death penalty may be a threat also for him. But most presumptuous criminals are not crazy. Most of them understand, when they hear about executions, that this punishment can also be imposed on them if they commit certain acts. They understand that the capital punishment shows that the State values the innocent life so highly and regard heinous crimes so seriously that he who murders deserves to lose his own life. This, in its fullness, creates prerequisites for less brutality in the society.

It is important to discover the loose foundation that the whole hypotheses of "the brutalization effect" rests upon. It is only if people in general consider that the death penalty is the same thing as cruel murders that such an hypothesis at all can arise in ones mind. But this is not what people in general think. Most people think that the death penalty is a just, righteous and morally defendable punishment. And to all of those who more or less confirm the death penalty, an execution may only be like sunbeams that create and bring forth positive fruits. That justice is done can never create a violent society. That righteousness and morality is defended can never create violence. That the human value of the victims is respected can never create brutalization. On the contrary, the capital punishment can only create "effects of righteousness" in the society. It is only among the extreme abolitionists – those who consider the death penalty equal to violent murder – that the so called "brutalization effect" can find support.

Abolitionists contend that the brutalization hypothesis is supported by certain American surveys. The surveys are thought to point that the death penalty is brutalizing since murder sometimes has increased after an execution. But the argument must be seen as a desperate hunting for the smallest straw that can possibly increase the terror for the death penalty. There are naturally hundreds of factors that have worked together in the USA if there some times have been more murders in the weeks preceding an execution. Maybe there was a gang-war at that time? Maybe there was an increase in divorces at another time? Maybe a social disarmament? Maybe a new drug wave? Or increased unemployment? Eventual possibilities can be multiplied to infinity.

The capital punishment always has the effect that it deters some from committing crimes. But yet the crime-rate curve can be going upwards if other factors in society develop in a negative direction. Besides, there are surveys made in the USA that, on the contrary, point to the fact that the murder frequency sometimes decreases around the time of an execution (see "Surveys concerning deterrence", chapter 4).

And it should be noticed that in the USA, during the entire 1990’s, the development of violence and murder decreased dramatically and at the same time the executions increased. If the abolitionists were consistent and honest they should now instead claim that the death penalty in a drastic way reduces the brutality in the society. Even if it would be tempting for us to use this information it would be just as misleading since we confess and know that the constant change in the crime-rate curve depends on a multitude of complex reasons and not only the one – the death penalty.

Suppose that an upset person would say: "My mother ate a banana a day. Yet she died from a disease when she was 50 years old. Therefore bananas are dead dangerous!"

How many would suspect the banana? Hardly anyone would. On the contrary, maybe the banana increased the life-span of the mother by a few years. But how many would not be concerned with the person who made this statement? How could something that is healthy lead to death?

And how can something that is an expression of the highest form of justice, that shows the highest respect for the ordinary citizen, that highly values every citizen, that grants peace and security to many, that reduces murder and cruel crimes (since a dead person is unable to commit further crimes); how could all of this, and more, increase the violence in society?(8)

And just as the death penalty doesn’t increase the number of murders, the prison term doesn’t increase the number of kidnappings or fines the number of thefts. Justice and reasonable punishments do not increase criminality. On the contrary, it prevents crime and has a deterring effect.

The level of brutality in a society is determined by many factors and mainly by the condition of the country – political, social, economical and spiritual. The State’s continuous walk on the path of "mild sanctions" for the worst of criminals is something that also contributes to the increased level of brutality. When people see that the punishment no longer is a punishment in the real meaning of the word it is reasonable to assume that the temptation to commit crime is stronger. A short prison term to violent criminals, means that after parole there will be a number of new crimes committed. On top of this there is the discontentedness of the ordinary citizen with the repugnance of the State to function as the punishing authority that it was made to be.

There is also the risk that the natural desire of retribution turns into hate if the state governed by law, in cases of very heinous crimes, does not bring forth a just retribution as the people in general desire. Then there will be a hate that is directed at both the state governed by law and the criminal. And some may be tempted to take the law into their own hands. All this means that the criminal policy of today is, in the long run, taking part of creating a rather hard social climate. But the capital punishment would most effectively be able to prevent that such a brutalizing force as hate would rise and spread its poison.

And a state governed by law that refuses to use the death penalty is practically saying "yes" to the worst kind of brutalization. If a state governed by law allows e.g. the murderer to live, the unavoidable signal will be that it is not so serious to commit the worst of all crimes. This creates an atmosphere in the society that makes it easier for violence to thrive. It is therefore reasonable and sensible to assume that the State’s refusal to execute violent criminals and murderers creates a more fitting climate for such creatures to dare to step out from the shadows.

But doesn’t violence always create more violence?

Principally, yes. And violence is for most parts unfair, demeaning, full of contempt and immoral. But not always. There can be a great difference between violence and violence. And sometimes violence has to be justified. The solider, the police officer, and the citizen in a case of emergency sometimes has the right to use violence. Who wants to blame the soldier who just threw his hand-grenade and in that way killed four enemy soldiers who were getting ready to shoot civilian women and children? And who wants to call to the police, who is using their baton to protect an elderly couple against hooligans, that violence creates violence? And the police’s bullet that hits the threatening murderer and thereby clears away an obvious danger for a group of innocent people, is not a brutal bullet but a saving angel. And who wants to say to the woman, who with fists and feet defends herself from the rapist, to stop her brutal violence? She is terrified and desperately fighting for her dignity and her life!

There are, in other words, situations where violence can not only be defended but is even necessary if we have a desire to have a somewhat safer, more just and less brutal society. And the death penalty is one of those justified "acts of violence" since it does not only defend us from violent criminals and murderers but also lifts up the human-value of the victim and allows sense of justice and compassion and other good fruits grow and spread.

The "violence" of the soldier, the police, the citizen or the death penalty that sometimes is necessary and allowed and justified, does not, as a rule, mean that more violence is created. On the contrary, when it comes to the meaningless, evil and irrational violence of the violent criminal it will only cause more brutality if it isn’t stopped and punished in an effective and just manner.

THE DEATH PENALTY CREATES "TRIGGER-HAPPY" CRIMINALS

This reasoning has the meaning that if we introduce the death penalty the criminals who are free and who are risking the death penalty will have no consideration with other people since they can’t have a more severe punishment imposed on them. But this argument is not thoroughly thought out.

First, there is a far way large gap between committing a cruel crime and suddenly beginning to assault or even shoot unknown police officers and strangers. Then another moral barrier would have to be passed first.

Secondly, no one who is free but guilty of violent criminal activity can assume that the punishment will be the death penalty. Every murder case is unique and no one can find out how a murder trial will end beforehand.

Thirdly, the same situation may arise if the punishment waiting is lifetime in prison. A murderer who knows that he can not be sentenced to more than lifetime in prison may reason the same way: "I will continue to shoot, it does not matter if I kill more people, because I can’t get more time in prison than I would get if I got caught now."

Yes, even if the highest possible punishment found in the law was 1 year in prison a similar circumstance could arise.

Maybe someone is thinking that if the society is to completely avoid the risk of trigger-happy criminals at liberty we must abandon all our thoughts of punishment and instead offer the perpetrators kindness and mercy. But there are few that longed for such a society. It would be a parody on justice and the State, and even lead to an increase of criminality and thereby an increase of the level of brutalization when no real punishment would be sentenced due to brutality.

The statement of the headline can for these reasons not even touch the death penalty as such. Instead there is probably the opposite effect since the capital punishment in itself reduces the risk of there at all being many situations where trigger-happy violent criminals are free.

And concerning other not so serious crimes the "gain" of the death penalty becomes even more obvious:

It happens often today, for instance, that robbers are ready to fire as soon as anyone tries to stop them in the act. A robber in Europe who today shoots and kills a citizen or a police officer will only have a few extra number of years added to his sentence except for the time in prison that he has to serve because of the robbery. This is a fact that the planning criminals are very well aware off. It is understandable if they do not hesitate to use their weapon during, for instance, a robbery. Why should they hesitate? They don’t have much to lose.

But if we had the death penalty this would not happen as often. What robber, who will serve a few years in prison for the robbery itself, would use his weapon against anyone, witnesses or police, and then be sentenced to death?

And this also goes for other types of criminals, for instance rapists or assailant on the run with a weapon in their hand.

If these criminals knew that the death penalty (instead of a few extra years in prison) was waiting if they killed someone, many of them would naturally be careful not to use their weapon. The level of brutalization would thereby be reduced.

"The gain" of the death penalty is in that aspect great in comparison with what it looks like today when criminals without much hesitation use their weapon during or after the crime in order to get rid of witnesses or to get away from the police.

THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS UNNECESSARY, BECAUSE NO RELATIVE CAN GET THEIR MURDERED ONE BACK, AND THE GRIEF IS STILL THERE

It is true that the death penalty does not bring back any victim to life. But the death penalty can never for that reason become "unnecessary" since resurrection isn’t the purpose of the death penalty.

It is also partly true that the death penalty does not sweep away the emotions and feelings of grief and lack that the relatives and friends feel. But the grief for most relatives would yet be easier to bear if the capital punishment was used (see chapter 2, argument 6). The grief and the despair would be considerably heavier to carry if the relatives knew that the perpetrator only was sentenced to prison and would be released after some time.

The argument of the headline also leads to, in the long run, that we must, principally, cease with all kinds of punishment. Fines and prison for the rapist and the assailant for example would become unnecessary since it would also not mean that the victim could be healed both physically and mentally.

But most importantly we need to see that since the death penalty proclaims justice and restores the human value of the victim that the violent criminal or murderer has violated, it can never become "unnecessary."

THE DEATH PENALTY IS THE PREMEDITATED AND COLD-BLOODED KILLING BY THE STATE OF A HUMAN BEING

The wording looks brutal and paints a caricature of the State as though it were a killer.

But besides the overtones there is a bit of truth in the headline. Every execution must be thoroughly prepared and according to plans. An execution may not be carried out in a slovenly and crude way. Rules and principles must be carefully worked out in accordance to a well-developed legal system, and the effectiveness must be secure at an execution. In that sense the execution is "premeditated" and it must be in order to guarantee a civilized legal practice. And also the prisoner who is sentenced to death obviously gains from this.

But all of this must not mean that it takes place in cold blood. On the contrary, every execution awakens a sense of compassion within us. Because we are reminded of the victim's horrible fate and we also think of the victim's relatives. It also awakens emotions of sorrow and anger when we think of how low a person can fall when it comes to cruelty against fellow humans.

Sadistic desires may be brought forth in a few people due to an execution. It may express itself in open malice or other bizarre expressions at an execution. But in most people an execution brings forth real emotions of legal pathos and compassion. The death penalty also brings this good with it; it protects and confirms our inner sound feelings and reactions towards insane violent crimes.

Death penalty is a cross

Even though the capital punishment is an instrument of justice it is natural that an execution fills us with feelings of sadness. It is not in cold blood but with a heavy heart that the state governed by law brings forth the guilty one to an execution. Only distorted people do it with scorn and dance. The death penalty will forever be a reminder of fellow humans, victims of crime, who have been afflicted by something horrifying. The death penalty is a cross that every society must bear. It is heavy and it is a reminder of death and tragic human fates. From one aspect one may even speak of the death penalty as a necessary curse. It is an evil reality that forces forth this awful instrument. If the world was a good and safe place this horrible tool would not fill any place of function. But in a poisoned world the capital punishment has a justified and even welcomed place. From the thick darkness that surrounds the death penalty there is a sharp light of justice beaming forth, which no civilized country can be without.

THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS ABOUT RETRIBUTION AND AN EYE FOR AN EYE – THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR ENLIGHTENED TIME

It is correct that retribution in its extreme form belongs in the past. But even today every modern state governed by law has retribution and an eye for an eye intertwined in its legal system even though they do not use those exact words. Every time a court anywhere in the world imposes a punishment it means that retribution is being made. And every time a fine is imposed something that more or less can be called "an eye for an eye" is practiced. For a thief for instance, a fine is in reality "money for money." 

This is how the legal system has worked in all times.(9) And all of this retribution is not a primitive matter as the abolitionists claim, but a perseverance of a natural and healthy reaction against the breaking of laws.

The reason why the abolitionists speak depreciatory of "an eye for an eye" and retribution is because the term justice within the legal system has ended up in a shadow-like existence. It is easy to notice that people who rarely or never take the word justice in their mouth when the issue of the death penalty is brought up are also the same ones who speak of retribution with contempt.

But justice, "an eye for an eye" and retribution, are and remain as serious and worthy triplets who have walked together throughout time. And either you like all three or you detest all three.

The experiment that is now being labored with in some States when one more and more wishes to remove from the retribution and justice that is mirrored in the death penalty will hopefully become a dark and fleeting parenthesis. An age that we believe sooner or later will be hit by the judgement of history. (See also chapter 2, argument 13 concerning "retribution.")

WHEN PEOPLE ARE FACED WITH A REALITY WHERE THEY THEMSELVES CARRY OUT AN  EXECUTION THEY BECOME ABOLITIONISTS

It is naive to demand from supporters of the death penalty that they must be willing to take part in the moments leading up to an execution. It is just as thoughtless as it is claiming that one who is glad that there are surgeons also have to be willing to perform surgical procedures. Or that the one who values the work of the police also has to be willing to become a police officer.

Of course far from everyone is suitable to work in an environment where there are moments leading up to the execution of a convict. But there will always be people willing and suitable for the task.

It is also an honorable task. It means that one is privileged to be a servant of justice, and maintain the respects of the victim’s, the relative’s and every person’s value and dignity. To be a part of and concretely work for such things is something good.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE FACED WITH THE REALITY THAT THEIR BEST FRIEND IS SENTENCED TO DEATH THEY BECOME ABOLITIONIST

It would be more appropriate to confront people with the risk that their best friend was brutally abused or murdered. How do they in such a situation view the capital punishment?

But to answer the seductive question of the headline: We do not believe that people in general are so selfish, thoughtless and have such a disrespect of people that they become abolitionists as soon as it hits them that the death penalty could fall upon their best friend or closest relative who committed the most heinous crime.

The principle of "everyone is equal before the law" is generally accepted. Whether it is the prime-minister or the homeless who commits a crime, the guilty one has to be judged. Before this principle our feelings have to bow, even if it happens to be our friend who is justly convicted.

It would look quite peculiar if the state governed by law began to form punishments with the consideration that the convict may have best friends or close relatives who would be very sad if the punishment was "too just", and because of this they lessen the punishment.

We can also assume that many parents and siblings may become very depressed if a family member was sentenced to lifetime in prison. Should we therefore abolish the lifetime sentence? We can also assume that a 5-20 year prison term may rob some relatives of the convict their night’s sleep, and bring them anxiety and tears. Should we therefore abolish the prison sentencing?

The argument as such, that the convicts’ relatives may have an emotionally hard time and that therefore the punishment may be questioned, is not an attack against the death penalty but against every form of a stiff penalty.

The tears of a convict’s relatives may therefore not be considered by a righteous State when imposing just punishments, because if such tears were allowed to alter laws and sanctions they can do nothing but demolish the civilized legal culture.

But there are tears which should be considered by a constitutional state when making laws and sanctions: the tears of the crime victims and the tears of the victim’s relatives, and also the common citizen’s tears and indignation over brutal criminality.

We are convinced that even if people are aware of the fact that the just punishment may afflict one’s best friend, it is not seen as an hindrance to the reintroduction of the death penalty. People understand that the argument of the headline is both naive and deceitful and leads the thought process away from the issue – the punishment as such, justice and the human value of the victim.

Besides, even if it would happen that our best friend committed the most horrible of all crimes it is not mainly the friend or us that deserves pity but the relatives of the victim that our friend has violated. It is they who deserve care, comfort and love in the first hand.

But at the same time no one wants to deny that emotionally it would be painful for us if a good friend was sentenced to death. This is even if the sentencing was just and fair. Therefore even such a person needs support and comforting. But the status and value of the capital punishment is not moved the least by this reason.

SHOULD THE DEATH SENTENCED CONVICT BE EXECUTED BY BEING HALF BURIED AND THEN STONED WITH LARGE STONES, OR SHOULD THEY SLOWLY BE ROASTED OVER A FIRE?

Tragically many abolitionists try to portray the death penalty in the most repugnant way possible. If it is the lack of objective arguments against the death penalty one may always gain some ground by using scare-mongering propaganda.

We begin our answer with an anecdote: Let us assume that most countries had dental service but that in this country it had been abolished for a century. But some saw the need for its reintroduction and the debate began. The abolitionists of dental service then tried to frighten the people by speaking of the 1800’s bloody methods of tooth-extraction and they showed the large tongs that they used. One also described the dental service in the most undeveloped countries and showed the blunt instruments of the medicine man. One also showed several dramatic and terrifying sequences picturing screaming and bloody people. With a loud and emotional voice the abolitionists said: "We do not want to introduce something so cruel, painful and barbaric in our country!" This also became their winning slogan. And the country remained without dental service.

There is of course no reason for a well-developed state governed by law under a democratic constitution to follow the worst examples in the world of how to carry out an execution.

In the USA most states use a lethal injection as the method of execution whereby the first injection (sodium pentothal) is a sedative meant to make the convict sleep. The second injection (pancuronium bromide) is a muscle relaxation injection. The third injection (potassium chloride) stops the heart from beating. During 1999 96% of all executions in the USA were by lethal injection. Someone may think that the ruthless violent criminal or murderer deserves to first be tortured and not just easily pass away. Torture before an execution is something of the past. But the only concern is that all good fruits of the death penalty come to the society and not that one is physically tortured before the execution.

On the other hand it is unavoidable for every prisoner sentenced to death to be more or less mentally tormented from the moment of the death sentencing until the time of the execution being carried out. This self-inflicted ‘torture’ is enough.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THE COMMON SENSE OF JUSTICE. IF WE DID THIS WE WOULD BE FORCED TO INTRODUCE CONSIDERABLY MORE SEVERE PENALTIES AND MAYBE EVEN THE DEATH PENALTY

This is similar to what a Swedish minister of justice has said and this without blushing. It is probably not an unusual thought by politicians or lawyers, but rarely spoken. But the words express contempt for democracy.

Democracy means that the will of the people is allowed to have a decisive influence. If politicians feel that in foundational concerns of society – considering issues of law for example – they need not to consider the will of the people, it is no longer a democracy but the ugly face of dictatorship that is seen.

They who defend themselves by saying that ordinary people are unable to get into everything concerning law and order, and that that is the reason why no greater concern can be taken of the opinion risen concerning issues of law. But such reasoning is not only untenable but also rude and arrogant.

We may have referendums concerning complicated questions such as the use or non-proliferation of nuclear power, or if we should join the EMU. And we have public elections. In all those situations of voting there are hundreds of complex questions for the citizen to get involved in. Yet referendums and public elections are things that every civilized country sees as a foundational fundament in democracy.

The people need to have a deciding vote in what the state governed by law is to resemble, not in detail, but in principle and the main outlines. It presupposes that the people regularly receive objective information about everything that concerns the legal system. This is not the case today. The people and the common sense of justice is instead seen as a threat by many lawyers and leading politicians. They feel that they themselves know how it should be, but the opinion of the people, the uncivilized wild crowd that is driven by dangerous and primitive desires should not be considered.

How long will the people endure with this declaration of incapacity that the politicians and lawyers place upon them? How long will the people accept that the state governed by law is formed in a way where the will of the people only receives minimal respect?

We claim that the time has come for radical reformations within the legal system. Because it is obvious, as examinations show, that the common sense of justice is often ignored by the ruling power. In confidence it is said that "the power comes from the people," but the legal system today can hardly claim to be built on a purely democratic foundation.

The government forms the laws, but since the government is supposed to be the voice of the people, the people should be part of deciding what punishment should be inflicted on violent criminals and murderers. And if a majority of the people wish to impose the death penalty on such criminals, it is yet another reason for its introduction.

MURDERERS AND VIOLENT CRIMINALS SHOULD BE REHABILITATED, NOT KILLED 

This sounds respectful and in accordance with the nice and cozy criminal policy that is seen in many European countries. The well-meaning thought is that a violent criminal or murderer is to be sentenced to rehabilitation and care in order to finally be reintroduced into society as good citizens.

But how can such a philosophy ever be accepted if we start out from the suffering and distress of the crime victims and their relatives?

And who can explain where the justice is in such an argument? And what happens to the human value of the victim?

It is also easy for dark and disrespectful thoughts to begin to tempt presumptuous criminals with such criminal politics in progress:

"If I rob and murder this old man, who cares, a few years rehab in jail wouldn’t be bad. I’ll do it, it is d-mn well worth it."

"Rehabilitation and care, education, the gym, good food, friends, a room for myself, stereo, cable-TV. OK, a little less freedom for a few years despite leaves, but still, chr-st what privileges! Who cares if I get caught? She is so blo-dy irritating, I’ll rape and strangle her!"

Is there a chance that such thoughts may begin to work in evil-minded people when they begin to think of the good rehabilitation that is waiting for them in prison? Is it then going to be easy for them to commit a crime? Or are they deterred by all the rehabilitation and care that is waiting for them?

The criminal policy of today has meant that the state governed by law has created a society where violent criminals and murderers are comfortable. But do we, the ordinary citizens, want such a society? And starting from the perspective of the victims: is it righteous, just and dignified? And what signals are sent out into the society when the state governed by law says: this is what waiting for every violent criminal and murderer, and at the same time mildly smiles and points at all the good rehabilitation that they wish to give them?

Our premise is that a sanction that mainly means rehabilitation and care for the violent criminal and murderer will make the State somewhat accessory in the violent crime. Since such criminal policy creates a soil that makes it easy for perpetrators to step forth, one may wonder how many hurt and destroyed souls that the State is guilty of and how much blood that is on their hands? Every time a citizen is made the victim of rape, robbery, assault, attempted murder etc, then it is not without ground that he may ask himself how big a part the state governed by law is playing in all of this because of the "humane criminal care policy".

The society has become an unsafe place, and the state governed by law has a responsibility in this. Not deliberately, but a lack of judgment, blurry unjust criminal philosophy which does not anchor with the people, and the influence of loud liberal criminologists and lawyers has lead the constitutional state there.

The death penalty, with all that this implies, would on the other hand mean a turn back to a usual, honest and traditional criminal policy. Back to an approach that has been dominating all through world history, back to a confirmation of the fact that the legal system foundationally is about justice and the human value of the victims.

The arguments for the rehabilitation instead of punishment of the most heinous criminals are these two:

Reason 1: One has paid attention to the tragic childhood and adolescence of the perpetrator.

It is correct that the perpetrators often have had a tragic childhood and adolescence, but not always. Reality is rarely black or white. The society has had its share of "good" and important people despite their miserable childhood and adolescence. And society has had some "evil" people, despite the fact that they come from a high standard of living, caring childhood and adolescence and good education. Basically, criminals come from all classes of society and situations.

It is important to know that a bad childhood never can be used as a reason for special treatment within the legal system. An unhappy childhood must never justify the acts of a criminal even if it sometimes may give some understanding of the crime of the perpetrator. Whether one is poor or rich, educated or uneducated, we must all be held responsible for our actions towards our fellow men, without exception.

Heritage and environment has a part in forming man. But that which affects just as much is what is in the heart of man – his being, identity and character. Every person has a certain measure of personal freedom, will, conscience, and ability to form decisions. All of this makes us individuals who finally are responsible for the choices we make in life and the deeds we perform.

The laws in every country have their foundation in this fact that every individual has a moral responsibility for his own life, how he lives.

But if it is not so that the single individual has a real responsibility for his own actions, it will be unjust to judge a person to something that doesn’t even resemble a punishment. And this would, in the long run, lead to the abolishment of a punishing constitutional state. Unfortunately there are forces that want to influence the direction towards that by taking away most of the personal responsibility from the criminals.

Media are often happy to help. When they deliver "feel-sorry-for" stories about the tragic adolescence of the criminals it is easy for our feelings to get the best of us. It does not always have to be wrong, but as a rule the justice that is seen in the law has to be unmoved by this, because facing justice and the law, a crime always has to have a sanction. But justice is not without feelings, justice is there for all the crime victims, in their names and presence. A law that is founded on justice will therefore, despite all, preach that we are moral beings with responsibility for our actions against our fellow men. It is also our personal responsibility that makes us human. Without responsibility we become like animals, without a trace of morals.

Extenuating circumstances are certainly an important ingredient in the legal system, but the principle may not be abused. It has fateful consequences if a signal is sent out into society that everyone who has had a difficult childhood will receive special treatment by the courts. Then the legal system will begin to shake in its foundation.

Reason 2: They say: "Violent criminals and murderers are mentally ill, and such people are not to be punished but cared for."

Some claim that the more heinous the crime, the more mentally ill the perpetrator. This is right from one aspect. Every criminal act is more or less sick. But of course, freedom from responsibility is not the consequence of this. Despite the sickness of, for example, serial murder, murder with robbery, the assault of women, rape and pederasty, there is in many perpetrators still the own independent choice, and awareness and realization of the fact that the act is crazy, evil and offensive. Such perpetrators should first and foremost be punished.

Criminals are far from always severely mentally ill. Many have made conscious decisions to enter the path of criminality. Others have been lured into the path of crime. Others live normal lives and deviate from time to time to commit crimes. And some just enjoy hurting other people. Especially in our time it happens to be in fashion within criminal policy to call several of these peoples sick with the purpose to remove their responsibility. It is not always wrong, some violent criminals and murderers are severely mentally retarded or insane. But it should not be difficult, not even for a layman, to see that the "illness-no-responsibility" philosophy has been misused several times.

There really isn’t anyone who is completely mentally healthy. The "illness-no-responsibility" theory should therefore not be driven to the border of absurdity. Even if there are disturbances in the life of the soul – which we all have more or less – most of us are still able to take a moral responsibility for the acts we commit. As long as a person is able to separate good from evil, he has a responsibility for his own life. No disturbances of the soul should be considered to prevent that this person is held responsible for his acts. If anyone, "serious mentally retarded" or not, is aware of what he is doing when he commits a crime, and if there is an intention present, then such a person should be punished for his acts according to the law.

It is only when it has been clearly demonstrated that the prosecuted were insane at the time of the crime, that personal responsibility for the heinous crime were impossible, that the prosecuted did not understood that the crime were wrong and illegal, then the death penalty shall be excluded.(10),(11)

THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS OR LOVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY

It is correct that the capital punishment does not preach forgiveness or love for the violent criminal or the murderer. For him the death penalty becomes the holy angel carrying the sword of righteousness in his hand and the message of just retribution (even if death sometimes is experienced as liberation for the death sentenced criminal.)

Neither is any law of a country totally founded on mercy/amnesty and love, but more or less on justice. If it were the opposite it would, in the long run, mean a total freedom from punishment for all crimes.

An uncharitable act may not mean, before the state governed by law, that the criminal receives forgiveness as his "reward." Because then we no longer have a state governed by law, but something that more resembles priests (judges) who in the church (the court of law) give their church members (criminals) forgiveness for their sins (liberation). This may take place in a church, but not in the court of law.

But it is not difficult to hear the sound of love also resounding from the death penalty. But then we need to, once again, take our gaze away from the criminal and instead let the gaze of compassion rest upon the victim of crime. Then we may ask: If the victims could be resurrected for just one moment, would they be able to see the execution of their murderers, carried out by the constitutional state, as a declaration of love towards them?

We believe that most of them could. How are we to find out the view of the dead? It is easy. We will receive a trustworthy answer if we ask ourselves, because it is among us that we find the victims of tomorrow.

And are the relatives of the victims able to see the execution as an act of love towards the dead and themselves? We believe that most of them can.

To all those who can answer "yes" to these questions, the death penalty becomes a powerful testimony of a loving humane civilization. It is a humanism directed towards the crime victims and their relatives and friends (and indirectly at all ordinary citizens). Humanity is something warm, beautiful and loving when it is used in situations where the victim of crime and his relatives are placed in the limelight.

The testimony of the capital punishment is as follows: We loved the victim so much, we valued the victim so much, we respected the victim so much, that he who performed this devilish act had to pay with his own life.

If we look at it this way – which is the natural way – it is not difficult to hear a clear sound of love in the death penalty.

A love that creates lawlessness

As individuals we are allowed to love our enemies. We may love people like Hitler if we choose. But such a love may not be written as law in the code of laws, because then is created a society of chaos and anarchy that no one could endure to live in for very many days.

If any kind of ‘love’ takes the place of justice and gives the murderer a few years in prison with custody and rehabilitation, it is a false love, because it brings injustice and a lack of respect for the victims who have just become ashes in the fire of the cremating ovens.

Sometimes we may hear a touching testimony of the relatives of victims who have forgiven the murderer. Such a spirit of love and forgiveness is something we should all strive after. But not the state governed by law. If the laws are written with a forgiving pen it would soon mean the breakdown of the legal system – the cornerstone of civilization. It would mean, among other things, that the criminal rightly could think: "See how kind the authorities have become, they wish to forgive us all! Now we can put our plans into action without worrying, and begin to rob, rape, defile, batter and kill, and if we are caught we only receive the hug of forgiveness, some care and then we can keep going. Cool!"

The ancient principle that says that he who does evil will be punished and he who does good will be rewarded, is a guarantee for a society where the citizens feel respected and valued. If this principle is broken up, the dam will open for a flood of all kinds of disrespect and lawlessness among people.

The nun and the will

When the death penalty contra forgiveness is brought up, there sometimes are referrals to a nun who in a will is said to have stated that even if she was murdered in the most beastly way, she did not want the perpetrator to be sentenced to death.

But such "wills" can not be considered by the state governed by law if the worst would come to pass, and this for many reasons:

First: If the perpetrator is sentenced to prison he will sooner or later be set free. He may also be pardoned. Or he may escape. In every case he could commit new crimes, maybe even murder. And then, tragically, the good will of the nun would mean a horrible nightmare for other people.

How would the nun feel in heaven if the perpetrator who was set free because of her will became a serial killer?

Second: Justice could never be served if such "wills" were considered legitimate. Because it would mean that some murderers who had the ‘luck’ to kill a person with such a will would escape the death penalty, while others who did not have the same luck would receive the death penalty. The principle of "equality before the law" would then be broken, and the legal system would become arbitrary and unjust.

Third: The human value would be despised using such "wills." If I allow people to take my life without wanting them to receive a just punishment, how high do I value my own life, and the lives of other victims, and how highly do I value Man?

These are some reasons to why such a good will can never be tolerated by the state governed by law. And religious piety, how ever strong, can never be allowed to overrule the laws being used.

But the example of the nun teaches us that there are people who differ from the crowd and they should be respected for their standpoint. The good will of the nun was a protest against the cruelty of the world. She refuses to accept any form of killing. In her naivete, worthy of our admiration, she wishes every person well, even the cruelest. She refuses to adjust to the dark and gloomy reality, but instead she looks to a different world, a world where forgiveness, love and mercy overflows.

These kinds of people are needed on the earth.

Complete forgiveness is not enough

If a person, like the nun, is willing to forgive her future murderer, and if then the relatives and friends of the victim are willing to forgive the murderer. And if the murderer, on top of this, regrets his crime and asks everyone for forgiveness and everyone loves each other, it is all very touching and remarkable and the best thing that could happen. But it is not enough. When a violent crime or murder has been committed there is a lot more at stake. The common sense of justice, morality and righteousness still demands the death penalty. The principle of human value is still working in full force. In a state of great emotion maybe not everyone is able to grasp such things, since forgiveness and love are strong and good forces. But when a heinous crime has been committed it touches all of society since every violent crime in one sense also affects the whole body of society. And the state governed by law has to consider this and the laws that are the foundation of order and stability. Society, law, justice and human value ranks higher than forgiveness, and forgiveness may never be allowed to hinder a death sentence.

To love the criminal but hate the act

Sometimes someone may say: "We are to love the murderer but abhor the crime that he has committed." Someone else may express it in a more academic way: "Society is supposed to react to the act, not the perpetrator."

But there is no reality in such beautiful phrases. Only safe and secure people in front of their cozy fireplace, far away from cold and hard reality, may say such things. Who could be able to serve such words to the young man standing in the morgue looking at his loved one cut into pieces? Or to the child who has just seen his mother beaten to death? Or to the parents who stands next to the coffin where their child lie, their child who has been raped and murdered?

And it is of course an impossible equation in legal situations. If the principle of "loving the murderer – hating the crime" is to be implemented into the law it would mean, in the long run, that no person under any circumstance could be sentenced to any punishment. The only thing society could do is to sentence the illegal act – how ever that is supposed to happen – but the person is to be loved, forgiven and cared for.

Obviously there is no country in the world that applies this in the legal usage – and it has never happened all through history – but some countries are on a downward slope leading this way. And this journey has to be stopped, because it will end up in a lawless society where it is allowable to commit any evil without expecting a really stiff penalty.

In such a society of terror the demons dance under the cover of love.

FINAL REFLECTIONS OVER THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

When one hears the abolitionists argue one often thinks: What is the real fundamental reason for their resistance? What foundation carries it all? Where is the argument of weight? One searches in vain for the deep intellectual, philosophical, moral, humanistic and existentialistic arguments for why this punishment, that has walked with humanity for all times, just in our time, and especially in Europe, must be considered as so evil, so terribly evil.(12)

And tragically we discover that what the abolitionists shun like the plague is one of the foundational pillars of the death penalty – namely justice. They avoid to speak of justice unless they are forced to. And if they take the word justice in their mouth it is not with joy or enthusiasm.

But who would consider a book on flowers complete if in it there was nothing written about roses? Or a book about a new car being complete if it said nothing about the engine? It is just the same with criminal policy and the capital punishment, you can not speak about it without first and foremost dealing with justice. Justice is the sun around which everything circle and which should have the final say.

conclusion

Taken out of all its contexts the death penalty is something evil. If we are only allowed to see a short picture sequence from an execution and nothing else, we can fairly think that this is something horrible. If the criminal as a person is the only thing in the situation, if everything revolves around the convict and no one else, it is rightly considered crazy to first let the convict suffer the ‘torture’ of waiting for the execution and then inject poison into his healthy body. Then this craziness must be stopped! If we want to we can make the choice to side totally with the criminal and fight for his well-being.

But we can also make another choice.

We can let the cold hard light shine on and reveal all the dark deeds that the criminal has committed, we can focus in on his deliberate acts, we can see his dark eyes and his hand that is lifted in rage, we can hear the victims’ screams of pain and the fear of death, we can allow the relatives of the victim to be in the limelight, we can be affected by their unspeakable pain and we can allow the whole tragic and horrible totality of this event be revealed.

And when this reality in all of its raw brutality affects our minds, then every speech, book and argument against the death penalty becomes null and void, and even more than that; it becomes insulting, it becomes scorning all human dignity and humanity, it seems as a loathsome and incomprehensible irrationality.

We have therefore chosen to fully identify with the victims of crime. We have sided with the light and we want to fight for the weak and afflicted – so that they will see justice and have their human value restored and their dignity respected. And by that choice the capital punishment deserves an obvious place in a humanitarian society.

Brought to a head, the choice is about the eternal struggle between the good and the evil: Are we going to choose to let the good justice win for the innocent by letting those who have done evil sometimes pay with their lives? Or are we going to choose to let the evil injustice win for those who have done evil despite the fact that they have seriously injured or killed innocent persons?

In extreme situations death has to be defended. The soldier, the police officer and we, the ordinary citizens, may in very extreme situations be allowed to use violence, even kill, without being judged by the law. In an evil world unjustified death must sometimes be answered by justified death. Sometimes even nations have to come together to fight the killing by using methods that will also kill. The second world war and the Gulf war in 1991 are examples of that. Unfortunately it is most often not until the frightening reality gets uncomfortably close that some eyes are opened.

We have seen that what legitimizes the capital punishment are central ideas such as justice, human value, solidarity and democracy (chapter 2). When the death penalty is discussed these humane ideas have to be placed in the limelight and be discussed in relation to the victims and their relatives. If this takes place, there is no argument against the death penalty (chapter 3) that can shake the position of the death penalty as a legitimate and civilized method of punishment.

Footnotes:

Footnote 1. These facts are from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1994 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 1995), page 342. The quote is from National Center For Policy Analysis. Back.

Footnote 2. Facts are from: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1994 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, 1995), p.342. The quote is from National Center For Policy Analysis. DPIC. Back.

Footnote 3. In the context the following facts should be mentioned: "For all violent crimes, there are ten times as many black offenders (2,016,939) involved in white victim violent crimes as there are white offenders (210,869) involved in black victim violent crimes, or a 10:1 ratio." (The State of Violent Crime in America, page 12, 1/96, data derived from ‘Criminal Victimization in the U.S., 1993’. Further, that "blacks are nearly three times as likely to murder whites as whites are to murder blacks, or 3:1." (Sourcebook 1994, BJS 1995, table 3.123). Back.

Footnote 4. Patrick Langan, statistician at the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the USA has shown that racial discrimination is hardly occurring any more in the American Legal System. (Yet, the survey did not include capital punishment cases.) (No Racism in the Justice System", The Public Interest 117, no. 3, 1994:48-52.) Back.

Footnote 5. Or, as Professor Walter Berns writes: "To execute black murderers or poor murderers because they are murderers is not unjust; to execute them because they are black or poor is unconscionable and unconstitutional." For Capital Punishment, page 187. Back.

Footnote 6. Concerning death sentenced convicts in the USA and their education: "Among inmates under sentence of death on December 31, 2000, for whom information on education was available, three-fourths had either completed high school (38%) or finished 9th, 10th, or 11th grade (38%)…The median level of education was the 11th grade." U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment, 2000. Back.

Footnote 7. Ernest van den Haag (professor of jurisprudence and social science): "From a moral viewpoint, the whole discrimination argument is irrelevant. If the death penalty were distributed equally and un-capriciously and with superhuman perfection to all the guilty, but were morally unjust, it would remain unjust in each case. Contrariwise, if the death penalty is morally just, however discriminatorily applied to only some of the guilty, it remains just in each case in which it is applied to a guilty person." The Death Penalty: A Debate, 1983, page 225. Back.

Footnote 8. Sometimes even abolitionists are forced to admit that there is no proof of the brutalization thesis. After William Bailey and Ruth Peterson had gone through a multitude of investigations (mainly on deterrence) they wrote: "The bulk of evidence does not support the brutalization thesis either. The Death Penalty in America, Hugo Adam Bedau, 1997, page 153. The abolitionist Roger Hood is also critical against the brutalization thesis: "Claims that they (different studies) show a ‘brutalization’ effect have been undermined by criticism of their methodology." The Death Penalty, 1996, page 237 (Also § 287 in his book.) And two lawyers at the American Department of Justice have said this about the brutalization thesis: "The anecdotal and statistical support for such an argument is extremely thin." Stanford Law Review, Nov. 1988, page 156, note 215. Back.

Footnote 9. And not only within the legal system, but also within e.g. bringing up of children. When a child consciously does something bad the parents usually demand some sort of "retribution." This by using chastening or some other way that feels uncomfortable for the child. Man’s inherent sense of justice demands some kind of retribution, and this sense is stronger than a well-meaning but absurd law that is controlled by the values of the "humane criminal policy" which totally eliminates any thought of retribution. Back.

Footnote 10. The Constitution of the United States allows the execution of mentally retarded convicts, but it is viewed as an extenuating circumstance which is to be considered by the jury (Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989). Execution of the insane is against the law in the USA according to the Constitution (Ford v. Wainright, 1986). Back.

Footnote 11. Concerning present criminal custody and philosophy of readjustment, and the importance of human care after a prison sentence, see the appendix. Back.

Footnote 12. Torbjörn Tännsjö, a Swedish professor in practical philosophy, writes openly and honestly: "My conclusion is that there are no bearings or principle reasons against the death penalty. The death penalty is, in itself, not cruel or inhumane. The death penalty is not in an absolute way morally reputable. If it could be proven that the death penalty was truly superior from other forms of punishment when trying to deter from murder, we would have enough reasons to seriously consider if it should not be re-introduced. It would not only save the lives of potential murder victims. It would improve the safety of our own lives and limbs." (Filosofisk Tidskrift, 4-1997, page 39.) But Tännsjö does not believe that the death penalty deters more than other forms of punishment, but that instead it brutalizes society. And to show this he gives an example (page 38); Tännsjö means that if it would be a death sentence on a parking offence it would create the "perfect reason" to shoot the car-park attendant if caught, in order to save one’s own skin so to speak. But Tännsjö’s example does not threaten the death penalty at all. Let’s say that the most severe punishment of the law was a fifteen year prison sentence, and this was imposed on a parking offence as well as murder. Even this would create – according to the reasoning of Tännsjö – a "perfect reason" to shoot the car-park attendant if caught in order to avoid the fifteen years in prison. Tännsjö’s example is therefore not an attack on the death penalty itself, but an attack on the most severe punishment of every country, whatever it may be, and therefore in the long run an attack on any kind of punishment. The fact is that fines for the parking offence and the death penalty for the violent criminal is on the contrary a protection and security for every car-park attendant who is at the mercy of furious and bloodthirsty parking offenders. (see also Chapter 3 Part Two and the answer to point 3.) Back.

To Chapter 4

Menu

© David Anderson 1998, 2002

http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15509119