The Abyss of the Death Penalty

For years death penalty advocates have insisted that execution has a certain deterrent effect in that those who would be tempted to commit a capital crime might stop and give their intentions a second thought for fear of the consequences. And for years death penalty opponents have questioned the manner by which such conclusions can be reached since we're talking about crimes yet to be committed. Well, now there are apparently economic reports that have been floating around (yes, I said "economic" reports) for the better part of a decade in which it is "proved" that the death penalty, per inmate, prevents anywhere from 3 to 18 future murders. The New York Times article that offered the information was a little short on particulars as to how these findings were determined but did also include others who question such "economic" numbers especially considering that the death penalty itself is not an economic question.

I'm sure there will be others who will jump into the fray and find fault with such reports, including those who work in criminal justice fields and compile data according to their own specific criteria. Whether they can predict probabilities would remain to be seen, but I also wonder if deterrence in and of itself should be the focus of a death penalty-related discourse. I ask because it seems to me that there is a danger in losing ourselves and what constitutes true justice especially when we are talking about terminating a human life. A focus strictly on deterrence as a statistical probability as a means by which to justify the death penalty, I think, is a dangerous and slippery slope from which such a fall may be impossible to recover.

Conservative, evangelical Christians seem to have no problem with the death penalty as it is, and those who have suffered at the hands of such condemned persons understandably demand it. The problem as it is between these two groups is that the demand for the death penalty falls under different standards of measure though I would hope that justice served would be our ultimate goal. Evangelicals can easily point to the Bible in which the death penalty and its conditions are spelled out clearly as a matter of justice and social order; if one takes a life, one's life is required. This in its truest sense is just, as it is written. Victims can easily embrace such a notion based on a strict sense of justice, but there is more emotion involved than there is rational, unencumbered logic. And for these, there is another consideration: once a person is arrested and charged - still yet
lacking a fair and impartial trial - that person is guilty in the minds of such victims as well as the community and nothing less than death will be good or "just" enough.

The question that we must necessarily ask, however, is this: does man have the capacity to administer true justice, free from passion and free from a desire for the condemned to "suffer"; and if we do not, does it matter? Is it enough that the death penalty is spelled out in Scripture, giving us permission to excuse ourselves because "it's in the Bible" and we are therefore obeying the Lord? In trying to determine what is just, we must always bear in mind that once the execution takes place, "oops" will be too little too late. Mistakes cannot be made. Our seemingly endless appeals process may seem overbearing at times; especially for those crying for "closure", but this is an issue that requires our full attention especially when we finally render that ultimate decision.

What is bothersome about the New York Times article is the seeming attempt - by economic data - to use the death penalty not as a measure and matter of justice itself but rather as a means by which to prevent future crimes via mathematical deductions of probability. Do we really want to go there? I freely admit that I'm torn on this issue primarily because I cannot remove my emotions from my thoughts. Whenever I read of an innocent child who has been abused, molested, tortured, and then killed, it is virtually impossible for me to find any level of compassion for the accused. What's worse is that I fall into the same trap as most others: once a photograph of the accused is published, that person becomes instantly associated with the crime and just looks as guilty as the verdict we desire. My compassion for the victim - I am a parent myself - overwhelms all my senses, and I am hardly capable of passion-free, rational thought. I also cannot honestly say that any desire for "justice" even exists, let alone crosses my mind. For what that poor child suffered, I want someone to pay dearly.

For the sake of law and order, however, deterrence must necessarily be considered in terms of appropriate punishment that fits the crime. It is a by-product of the criminal justice system in that others can see that "this is what happens" if one breaks this law or that one. We could only begin to imagine what our society might look like if there were no consequences for violating the law. It would be a free-for-all on the streets, and vigilante justice would run rampant because there are enough law-abiding citizens who insist upon order. By this same reasoning, it could well be said that harsh sentences would help to maintain that order by suggesting that others would not want to "do the time" and would thus refrain from breaking the law. To suggest, however, that there is a number that can be assigned by which the deterrent effect may be measured is risky.

Criminologists will likely take exception to economic data that attempts to predict probability. Christians should likewise take exception to such data-collection efforts that may serve to do no more than to appease an otherwise guilty conscience. It is not unlike the torture question by which illegal means to extract information is employed in an effort to avoid possible future attacks. Both are likely, but there is no certain thing we can do to stop a man’s evil heart. It is what it is and we are stuck to deal with it the best way we know how, but I don’t think we should rush to execution on the mathematical probability of what may happen sometime in the future. Once we do, there can be no turning back. Into the abyss we will slide, condemned as we so easily condemn.