David Brooks is an influential columnist who writes for the New York Times. Each year, he lists his favourite essays. This year's selection can be found in two parts:
here and
here.
Among the many well-written and thought-provoking essays that Brooks has listed this year is an article in the New Yorker about Cameron Willingham, who was executed in Texas in 2004 for burning his three daughters to death by setting fire to his house ("
Trial By Fire"). But as the moving essay poignantly narrates, the prosecution's case was almost certainly flawed, and an innocent person might have been killed by the state.
I am opposed to the death penalty. But I clearly recognise that the case for the other view is very strong too. There are two main justifications for the use of the death penalty in a liberal society:
Deterrence: This rests on the claim that inflicting the ultimate punishment for sufficiently heinous crimes acts as a deterrent for would-be criminals. I am sure there has been much research conducted into the matter, though I am not aware what the consensus/majority view is. But in theory atleast, this is an empirical argument, and can be settled by data. Obviously there is the example of the contrast between Western Europe, which does not impose the death penalty, yet avoids much violent crime; and the US, which executes hundreds of people every year, yet has a much higher violent crime rate. I also think that what matters much more than the degree of the penalty is the certainty that a crime will be prosecuted promptly and justice will be delivered.
Justice: The second reason for instituting the death penalty is that some people simply deserve to die for their crimes. I certainly agree. Terrorists who attack civilians, serial killers, rapists, child molesters all probably deserve to lose their right to live. But just because someone deserves to die does not mean that society should kill them. Gandalf in Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' says, "Many that live deserve death. And some die who deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice...Even the wise cannot see all the ends." (Book 4, Chapter 1). I believe that liberal societies should unilaterally adopt the principle of the state not killing anyone (except in self-defence), deserving or otherwise. I realise that this is a point of principle, and there can be those who believe in other principles.
Opposed to these arguments in favour of the death penalty is the point made about the irreversibility of the punishment. The essay above highlights exactly this issue: despite the realisation that Mr Willingham was wrongly convicted, nothing can be done to bring him back to life. Most people would agree that this is the gravest objection to the use of capital punishment; recent use of DNA evidence in the developed countries has shown that the miscarriage of justice while convicting people occurs far more frequently than is acceptable.
[There is also a more prosaic argument about the use of the death penalty imposing higher cost burdens on policing and prosecuting functions (due to the higher burden of proof required, greater number of appeals, etc). On the other side is the occasionally cited fear, in India atleast, about criminals escaping if they are not promptly hanged. I can only say that it must be a weak state indeed that would not have the confidence in its ability to keep its captives imprisoned indefinitely, if it chose to do so].
Labels: Public Policy
