The Death Penalty

We, humans, seem to have natural, internal, paradoxical feelings on the death penalty. The logic for supporting the death penalty is simple and two-fold. It first deters people from killing (fairly well criticized position) and also appears to appeal to our baser instincts (kill and be killed, it’s a “fair” penalty for horrible murder, etc). The opponents of the death penalty seem to appeal to our more progressive instincts (right to live, sanctity human life, etc). There are cases that I have observed-thanks to a recent documentary on IFC, that even people such as clergy, who form emotional bonds with those being sent to their death, can support this punishment as valid and just. So what does this say about the death penalty to me? I see it as a beautiful looking glass into human moral evolution.

I am a believer of moral empiricism and relativism. There is no universal “right” or “wrong”, as such things are the result of generations of conditioning that certain actions, beliefs, and values have a better effect on the promulgation, progression, and protection of society. An example that comes to mind is “exposing” children in Classical Greece. The unwanted child was simply left in the woods or country. There was no connection to this act and the eventual death that ensued. Exposing was perfectly natural and acceptable. In historical texts and stories, western historians rarely (i have never seen this happen) speak of exposing in a negative light. Commonly, it is justified with something similar to: this was what this culture saw as correct, just, and moral, and it also prevented a population problem (to an extent) while also making sure that the upcoming society was made of viable, mostly male specimens. If we are to believe that such an act in universally wrong, then there is no reason why it is not acceptable for historians to chastise the backwards, crude, and morally corrupt people of Classical Greece. We do not see this, because humans most basic survival instincts understand the necessity of change in the face of morally loquacious situations where “accepted norms” may not give an answer. Also, I find it contradictory for a society so focused on universals to accept this phenomenon of child exposure because “it’s not us, it’s them“. Them are people too, just like us, the era, geographical location, nor religion would have an affect on universal moral norms, right?

Back to the death penalty. This is a striking, modern example of what I just described above. If the death penalty contradicts a number of commonly accepted moral norms (often seen, or prescribed as universal), then why do lawmakers who work in this system, get a pass to suddenly make a morally empirical argument that bypasses accepted universals and appeal to the more baser level, our pure drive to survive as a society most efficiently. Heinous crimes undermine the very foundations of society. It throws power, structure, services, safety, and social connections into chaos. Without these things, we cannot advance, have the structure and amenities of a society, nor be provided for. Also, we do not wish to revert back to individual families surviving day to day with no beneficial structure overhead. Because things like murder hack at the very basis of society, we allow ourselves to ignore the idealistic, theoretical, feel-good universals that we pretend govern us, and instead proponents attach themselves to a deeper instinct that simply says “murder threatens my society, this person murders, this person threatens my society, therefore the best (permanent, final, no worries, etc) solution is to kill that person as well.”

This odd, human paradox is found in the constant fight between those fighting to protect a set of ethereal rights, and those who latch onto a basic human fear of those things that pose the greatest threat to the framework of society. Now are any of them right? For multiple reasons either side could come out as superior in the fight. Those wishing to kill murderers may be unjustified in their desire because our society is so complex or has enough safeguards in place, that a murderer living does not pose the threat one wishes to feel they pose. On the same token, those supporting universal moral rights that disagree with the death penalty may be ignoring some basic part of society that rightfully calls murderers an extreme threat, and allowing their continued presence could very well bring us down in the long run. I have no clue what the answer to these questions are.

- W. Thomas Webb

“All say, ‘How hard it is that we have to die’ – a strange complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live.” – Mark Twain