STORIES
|
THE DEATH PENALTY: SHOULD WE USE IT OR NOT?
A Florida State grad says "YES"
By Brandon Hornsby
American justice warrants the death penalty. Such justice treats criminals as responsible members of a moral society, a society in which the innocent life of our fellow man is sacrosanct. Indeed, our neighbors' lives are so sacred that we are willing to hold the most grievous murderers accountable with their lives. In such instances, morality demands that we elevate the victim's life above the murderer's by exacting the ultimate punishment: the forfeiture of the right to live.
While the true justification for capital punishment begins and ends with America's moral code and the sanctity of human life, it is the unrivaled freedom that Americans enjoy, combined with our desire to obtain justice and protect society, that publicly legitimizes the modern use of the death penalty.
At the societal level, the death penalty is necessary to counterbalance the potential abuse of American freedom. As a political society, Americans have always regarded freedom, along with equality, as the highest of our political values. Freedom shapes almost every aspect of our lives.
Although justice weeps when it happens, it is the very freedom we covet that makes murderous acts of depravity and inhumanity so prevalent in America. For instance, we live in a society with virtually unfettered access to guns. Time and again the abuse of this particular freedom results in murder.
Is it surprising that the death penalty stands as the ultimate check against those who would most abuse our freedom? No. Our forefathers gave their lives to secure its blessings. Inherent in their sacrifice is the symbolic statement that the value of human life and dignity is found within the condemnation of crime and atrocity.
In terms of justice, the death penalty is particularly appropriate where other sanctions would only minimize the killer's blameworthiness. U. S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart captured this sentiment in Gregg v. Georgia:
"When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they 'deserve,' then there are sown the seeds of anarchy, of self-help, vigilante justice and lynch law . . . . 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 death penalty also provides unique protection for our society. With this in mind, one must concede that the legitimate research in this area is, on balance, inconclusive. This is not surprising.
In the context of deterrence, it is often impossible to prove a negative with any degree of certainty. In other words, while society may know who is not deterred by the death penalty, it is virtually impossible to quantify the number of lives saved.
Moreover, it is undisputed that the death penalty is a perfect deterrent for the killer. Accordingly, even if the death penalty protects us only by eliminating those individuals who have demonstrated a propensity for taking innocent life, its value is more than legitimized.
Response from Orloff:
Mr. Hornsby discusses his enthusiasm for the death penalty via several well-known arguments: 1) morality; 2) punishment; 3) deterrence; and 4) incapacitation.
Morality: Mr. Hornsby accurately points out that we live in a society in which "the innocent life of our fellow man is sacrosanct." This is exactly why it appalls me to think of the innocent man on death row awaiting execution. While Mr. Hornsby believes that capital punishment is justified by "America's moral code," the death penalty weakens the moral fiber of our society. State-sanctioned killing does the exact opposite of putting an end to violence: it perpetuates it.
Punishment: The alternative to the death penalty-life imprisonment without the possibility of parole - is the "other sanction" which "minimizes blameworthiness" to which Mr. Hornsby refers. I've spoken with clients who would actually rather die than spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Deterrence: Many of our clients don't even know New York has the death penalty. Oftentimes it is when the police are interrogating clients about a crime and threaten them with "the chair" (never mind that New York uses lethal injection) that they learn capital punishment is back.
Incapacitation: Putting someone who is convicted
of murder in prison for the rest of his life is a sure-fire way to protect
society. You don't have to kill them (what Mr. Hornsby euphemistically refers
to as "eliminating" them).