The Death Penalty: Humane or Horrendous?
An essay on the capital punishment,
Introduction
"Karla Tucker was calm, composed and contrite. Wearing a prison-issue white shirt and pants and white running shoes, the 38-year-old pickax murderer expressed love to her family, sought forgiveness from the survivors of her victims and said she hoped she would see them later in heaven."(1) The AP -reporter (2) Michael Graczik was one of the witnesses to the death of Mrs Tucker, the first woman to be executed in the state of Texas since Chipita Rodriguez was hanged in 1863. He continues his report:
"She already had been strapped to the gurney, leather belts pulled snug across her chest, body, legs and arms. Her long curly hair trailed behind her on the white sheets. And two needles – one in each arm just inside the elbow – were carrying a saline solution." (3)
At 6:45 on February 3, 1998 Karla Fay Tucker was declared dead by the local physician Daryl Wells. Justice had been accomplished. A murderer had paid for her guilt 14 years after the horrible pickaxe murder. Mr Tony Thornton, the husband of one of the victims, pronounced with relief that his wife Deborah had at last found peace. These feelings were not shared by the victim’s brother, Mr Ron Carlson, who opposes the death penalty. Outside the building where the death chamber is situated, two different groups received the announcement of the execution. Those who applauded and those whose eyes were filled with tears. Supporters and opponents of the death penalty.
The death penalty is just and humane
How can there be so different reactions to the execution of Karla Fay Tucker, a pickaxe murderer? There are arguments for and there are arguments against capital punishment. These arguments are of different types; some are religious, others emotional, judicial or prevention.
To start with the religious argument, we should be aware that this is not to be neglected in the American society. The impact from conservative Christians is important and many people try to find answers to all questions in the Bible. The truth is that the Bible favours the death penalty, not only for murder but also for several other crimes. So if religion means anything and if the Bible is still valid, the death penalty has to be maintained.
The emotional argument is that the victims and their family have a right to vengeance. That is exactly what Mr Tony Thornton expressed. Why should he be denied the ultimate suffering of a criminal monster that in cold blood had battered his beloved wife to death with an axe? It is easy to understand that his long suffering and mourning need to be released by the murderer’s execution. When he expressed that his dead wife finally had found peace, it also meant that he himself had got it.
The death penalty also expresses that justice must be done. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. (4) If Carla Tucker killed a human being, justice means that she, in turn, must be killed by humans.
An even stronger argument is the necessity of preventing other cruelties from being committed. Society has to act with fervour against any horrendous act whatsoever. Only the death penalty shows how terrible a homicide is. If we do not answer with fervour to the most bestial crimes, how will youngsters ever learn good behaviour and be prevented from becoming brutal beasts? The fact that an executed criminal will never be able to reproduce his terror is enough to defend the capital punishment.
On April 21, 1868, in opposition to a bill banning capital punishment, John Stuart Mill convinced the British Parliament that the death penalty is far more humane than lifetime prison. "As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) has remarked, the most that human laws can do to anyone in the matter of death is to hasten it." (5) Was he not right? Is it not true that the death penalty in point of fact is a very humane punishment?
The death penalty is horrendous
No, John Stuart Mill was not right about human capital punishment. In reality, the death penalty is horrendous and I will now show why.
Let me return to the Bible. What those conservative Christians, supporting the state’s killing of people, have forgotten when they quote the Bible is that there is more to find in it. They do not even read the whole passages. While quoting "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" they stop reading just before this comment of Jesus: "But what I tell you is this: Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left." (6) So it is not only that the Bible interpreted by Jesus is against the death penalty, it is also evident that vengeance is opposite to true Christian faith.
Not even the judicial argument can be supported. Why so? Is it not the legislatures’ purpose to decide about laws and punishments? It certainly is. However, it is a fact that the poor and racial minorities are over-represented among the executed. Worse, innocents are sometimes sentenced to death. As long as errors like that can happen, there is no justice in taking a man’s or a woman’s life. An erroneous prison punishment can be rectified. An executed innocent can never get his life back. Death is definitive. Killing can never be just!
To those who maintain the deterrence argument while defending the death penalty, it is important to show that there are no facts supporting the belief that the ultimate punishment should scare anybody not to commit a crime. On the contrary, the statistics show that severe crimes, even murders, are even more frequent in states where the death penalty is practised. (7) It seems that, instead of preventing from killing, the pure fact that society itself kills human beings contributes to a dangerous devaluation of human valour. The effect is that more serious crimes are committed. (8), (9)
Personal conclusion
By starting my main section with a few arguments in favour of the death penalty and then trying to give some counter-arguments, I have certainly revealed my own position on this topic. It is obvious in my opinion that the capital punishment is unworthy for a modern society where humane values count. The lives of Carla Tucker and other victims of a cruel and barbarian system should have been spared. Capital punishment is against ethics built on the Bible and on humanitarian traditions. It represents no justice and it does not even deter outrage and homicide. By all means, it should be abolished. So, in my opinion John Stuart Mill was entirely wrong when 130 years ago in the British Parliament he opposed the bill banning capital punishment. The death penalty is far from being humane. It is horrendous.
Footnotes
1. Michael Graczik. "I am going to be face to face with Jesus now." Austin American-Statesman February 4, 1998. ( http://www.Austin360.com/news/features/karla/98feb/xwitness.htm)
2. Associated Press.
3. Graczik 4 feb, 1998.
4. The Bible, Matthew 5:48.
5. Internet, http://ethics.acusd.edu/Mill.html, 07-02-1998.
6. The Bible, Matthew 5:49.
7. Hugo Adam Bedau, The Case Against The Death Penalty, Internet, http://ethics.acusd.edu/Bedeau.html, 07-02-1998 (Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University).
8. Internet, http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dppapers/mike.deterence,
9. Internet, http://www.essential.org/dpic/deter.html .