The death penalty

A few days ago a friend asked me whether I thought the death penalty was a necessary element in social justice systems. I guess the topic came up due to the sudden spate of death sentences in the US recently, including the 1000th execution since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1977. Got me thinking, it did....I knew that I didnt really like the idea of death sentences. But I wasn't sure I had more than a sentimental basis for saying so. Most arguments people tend to give against having the death penalty never seemed perfectly valid to me - the most common amongst them of course being, "Society didn't give you life, so how can it take your life away from you, damn it!!" Many a vehement opposer have I come across! And of course equally passionate people propounding the opposite view as well. After all, they say, if you break a law of society, commit a crime of utter bestiality, don't you lose the right to live? Doesn't an act such as taking someone's life forfeit your own right to life? Seems pretty reasonable.....And then of course, as these people then go on to point out, would we really feel safe if such elements in our society were not exterminated? For the safety of our children, our families, our loved ones, isn't it just better to remove such elements from society altogether? For the benefit of a complete society, is it not better to eliminate certain extremely detrimental parts, than run the risk of such people creating mayhem? Sounds bloodthirsty, but seems kind of practical.....

Except, I don't think so. It would be practical to eliminate a small section of society that was detrimental to the whole, yes - but only if fundamentally there was no other way out. And this, I think, is the crux of my argument against the death penalty - it assumes that there are certain human beings in society who are beyond recovery, who are beyond all morality - and so it would be better if these people were dead rather than alive. And I dont think so. In fact, I totally disagree - I dont think any human being, whatever conditions he might have grown up in, however heinous his crimes, is beyond redemption - and repentance. In fact it seems to me to be highly insulting to the human spirit to deem it incapable of rising out of even utter depths that it might have sunk to. Time and again we've seen individuals who, through sheer force of will, and caring rehabilitation, have broken free, purged themselves of their sins, and turned to lives of morality and righteousness. So fundamentally assuming there are certain people beyond recovery is being quite unjust to them! This really is the only objection i see to having the death penalty as part of our judicial system - it's not about one's right to life, as many argue - after all, being a part of society, one could say, one has to follow its rules, and if one doesn't - especially if one takes other lives - society probably is justified in punishing you as it will. And it's not clear that "an eye for an eye" policy is one that cannot be used - there is no fundamental reason why one shouldn't have a judicial system based on such a policy. In fact, we have had societies in the past based on such systems that have functioned quite well for ages. So its really not about your right to life - but about your innate capability to rise above your sins and be able to contribute positively to society. Society may be justified, in certain cases, in taking your right to life away - but it can never prove that you are incapable of ever contributing positively to your community - and that is the inherent flaw in the death penalty.

Having said that, of course, the immediate question that arises is - how then does one deal with these people? If they ARE indeed capable of intrinsic change, how does one bring about that change? What do we do with people who show no remorse, who believe firmly that what they did was right, and couldn't care two hoots about society? Good question - and I'm not sure I have the answer. I can say a few things, however - one, the current system of justice is never going to be able to do that. Two, this is linked strongly to the structure and basis of society as a whole - and a change in thinking is required if we want such a system to work. What we have currently is a society that is almost completely reactive - people do things, and then society reacts to that, often violently, with a vengeance. What we really need is a proactive society, where the emphasis is on building values, and not on dealing with cases where values are not upheld. The focus needs to be on building a humanitarian society, with a moral base - not economic or political, as it is today. And coupled with that, we need a judicial system that is less retributive, and more restorative. Breaking social laws must of course have some consequences - but the purpose of imposing those consequences must not be to punish the offender for what he did, but to effect a change of heart and attitude. Curtailment of freedom, I think is necessary (so as to ensure that at least during the process of transformation, the person does not harm society further, and to keep him in an atmosphere conducive to moral change) - and so we must have some form of prisons - but the purpose of curtailing the freedom, again, is to ensure that those years spent away from the rest of society are used not to break his spirit, but to rebuild it. A judicial system built on this basis is the only one I can see as being truly moral and beneficial to society.

Ultimately we are all human, and are all subject to the erosive effects of time - who can say how the sands of time will mould our beings, our beliefs, our attitudes.....Let us not be presumptuous enough to believe that we can predict how people will turn out - let's just do our bit, to the degree we can, to ensure they turn out right!