Capital Punishment

The issue of Capital Punishment seems to be of relatively recent origin. One doesn’t need to spend much time studying civilizations of the past to realize that for most of human history, capital punishment was the norm around the world. The controversy seems to have begun in earnest in the aftermath of the Second World War. In the post-war world, dictators such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and others, were associated with it, and thus it took on a stigma which had not existed previously.

The arguments both for and against the legal execution of convicted criminals often starts with a comparison of empirical data, with one side claiming that sufficient studies exist to prove the deterrent effect of execution, while the other side produces other studies claiming just the opposite. My purpose in writing today is not to promote one view or the other. What fascinates me is not WHAT one believes, but WHY do many people have the opinion that they do, in particular, on this issue.

I don’t know how many times I have heard the following accusation leveled against a proponent of capital punishment: “You just want revenge!”. Initially, it comes across as a powerful rebuttal, and it often puts the other person on the defensive, forcing him to justify his opinion without sounding cruel or heartless.

OK, let’s pause here and think clearly about just what has been said.  The accusation: “You just want revenge”, would naturally lead one to believe that this person advocates the opposite of revenge. Right?

Wrong! The opposite of revenge is forgiveness or pardon, yet nobody is proposing that we forgive, or pardon murderers, rapists, and the like. Instead, the alternative punishment of a life in prison is typically proposed. So, if the word “revenge” is appropriate, then they too want revenge (punishment), just not that kind of revenge (punishment). At this point, the conversation often shifts from deciding the best punishment and justice for the victim, to deciding which of the debaters has the moral high ground.

We have on one side, people who are the “law and order” types. They see themselves as staunch protectors of society, and view execution (even if they don’t really like it) as something that the criminal has brought down upon himself. They think of themselves as voices for the victim as opposed to those who care more about the perpetrator.

On the other side are the “reform, not punishment” types. They advocate efforts to reform the law-breakers and see punishment as a last resort, with life imprisonment reserved for the most extreme of cases. They think of themselves as tolerant, enlightened, and modern, as opposed to  their “primitive and old fashioned” opponents.

So there you have it! A discussions that began debating the best form of punishment, the best justice for the victim, has become a platform for how the participants wish to be seen by the general public.

Now, before I finish, I want to add just one piece of historical trivia that bears heavily upon this topic. In ancient Rome, it was capital punishment, not imprisonment, that was considered the kinder, more merciful punishment, and life in prison was considered cruel and harsh.

This makes me wonder: if we could place ourselves back in time, back to ancient Rome, how many of us would change our minds; with those advocating for capital punishment (the harsher punishment) in our time, advocating for a life in jail (the harsher punishment) back in ancient Rome, and those who want compassion advocating for execution back in ancient Rome?

How often are our opinions based, not upon what is just or logical, but upon how that opinion will affect our image in the minds of others?

It’s something to think about.