Are you for or against the death penalty?
I have never liked that question because it demands an absolute binary answer.
It is either a yes or a no, with nothing in between. There is no room for an explanation because none is asked for.
It is a question that intentionally excludes the possibility of nuance.
If I am in no mood to argue, I will say I am against the death penalty.
If I am in the mood for it, I will tell them what I really think about it.
And what I really think is the death penalty should be reserved for only the most heinous of crimes committed by the most irredeemable of offenders. So yes, it should be retained. But in a limited fashion.
An example of such an offender is a serial killer. Those who have killed many and whose nature is such that they take deep pleasure in the pain, harm, violence and death they inflict upon others. Those that are so set in their murderous, evil and vile ways that there is no hope of reform. Those so immune to conventional punishment such that it cannot achieve any of the purposes of sentencing: rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community.
I imagine the present death penalty offences be replaced with prison sentences for first-time offenders. The second time would give the judge discretion in applying the death penalty. The third time would be still the judge’s discretion but it would weigh in favour of death.
What I described above would apply to the present death penalty offences such as murder, abetment of suicide of a child or insane person, attempted murder while under a life sentence, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, hostage taking resulting in death, rape resulting in death, and gang robbery with murder.
All that follows next is within the context of my serial killer example.
I think life is sacred and precious. We only get one chance at this thing called Life. We are under a duty not to cause harm to each other. So any member of the community that disagrees with this and acts on it to the physical detriment or death of someone else whilst taking pleasure in it must be excised from the community.
A fundamental precondition to society is that we do not intentionally harm each other even if we want to. We can think it all we like but so long as we do not act on it or have others act on it, we are alright. Ish.
I am aware of the possibility of error, of the conviction of an innocent man. I am also mindful that a person can make such a grave and serious error out of passion, recklessness or thoughtlessness and has some hope of reform.
For that reason the element of repetition or the great possibility of it by the offender is important. Killing a person once can be a mistake, but not several, one after the other, over a period of time.
That is why the element of irredeemability by the offender is crucial. If they toy with their kill or have some ritual to their killing then it’s likely they are irredeemable. And are likely to repeat it.
But if there is a possibility of reform, even an ambiguous one, it should be explored before considering the death sentence. Or if there is potential for them to be useful for the benefit of mankind i.e., be of medical use. But once they have served their use, they should be executed.
I do not agree with the State spending precious resources to keep such offenders alive. The State should not have to spend money on maintaining someone who has no hope for reform and is a danger to society.
To keep them alive simply as a demonstration of our humanitarian values ignores the financial commitment to such an empty gesture and the incongruity and irony of keeping alive someone that delights in the killing of others.
A State’s record of its policies and initiatives should be considered instead of its attitude to one issue before coming to judgment about its values.
I prefer asking, What do you think of the death penalty? That question allows for the nuances of one’s view about the issue to arise. It avoids pushing one into a corner and having to explain our way out of it.
