My position on the death penalty is simple: The State should not murder people. The government should be the ultimate role model for its citizens. You cannot quell violence with violence; violence breeds violence. We have learned this time and again throughout history. Murdering even a murderer is a subtle, psychological endorsement of murder. It is a justification to the act of murder (and violence)—not a deterrent—which allows the human mind room to create its own rules, its own justification, even if only in the act of passion.
Society as a whole has decided that killing a fellow human being, in any context, is wrong, if not evil, and deserves judgment and suitable punishment. We have created different degrees of killing by which to measure and categorize the act in order to apply the appropriate punishment as justice. But isn’t murder still always murder? Either it is an act of self-defense, an unintended accident (generally a result of negligence) or what we universally regard as murder with intent or malice aforethought. It is this murder of intent that has been dissected and categorized in a puzzling way. Either murder is the most natural act in this world—every other species kills, even themselves when necessary—or it is an act of insanity.
From Webster’s, “Insanity” is defined as: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility.
Either way, does it justify murder as a solution to ending murder? You cannot apply degrees to insanity. And doesn’t insanity deserve treatment and rehabilitation? Isn’t that what we have universally come to believe? Why do we deem some murderers ‘temporarily insane,’ others terminally insane and others simply malicious or evil? And why do we distinguish between the appropriate treatment of this insanity? Why do we deem some murders not insane at all? By a generally universally accepted definition, murder is in itself an act of insanity. Therefore, whether a person plans the murder of many people over many years…Or acts in the moment of so called ‘blind passion,’ this person should be treated to the extent of society until they are cured of this, their mental illness. This may take a day for some or a lifetime for others; indeed, some may never be cured. A murderer may spend the rest of his or her life in prison (or in an insane asylum or rehabilitation clinic) trying to come to terms with their mental defect, but why should the person be killed? I believe that killing some murderers and not others is applying a double standard, which again is something that modern society has generally come to regard as wrong.
According to Amnesty International:
• 59 countries (approximately 67 percent of the global population) still maintain the death penalty in both law and practice.
• 90 countries have abolished it completely.
• 10 retain it, but only for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war).
• 35 countries maintain laws permitting the use of the death penalty for ordinary crimes, but have allowed the death penalty to fall into disuse for at least 10 years.
Of the 59 countries that retain capital punishment most are developing nations and either countries with an Islamic majority, dictatorships or mass poverty and crime. The only two exceptions to this: The United States & Japan. Population wise, the vast majority of that 67% comes from the China, India and the United States.
Generally, the most progressive nations in the world have abolished the death penalty: all of the EU, Australia and Canada to name a few. And these nations have less murder per capita than their counterparts like the United States. Why? Because murder inspires murder. Michael Moore points out in his film Bowling For Columbine the connection, time and time again, between acts of government killing (war and air strikes) and acts of individual homicide (school shootings and domestic violence). The only difference between the government killing an individual who has killed another individual, and the murder that person committed in order to supposedly deserve this punishment, is that the government is supposed to be a body of clear judgment acting for humanity and justice. The government should not be susceptible to human flaws, mental illness and insanity. This is why we have checks and balances.
Sure, the government is the voice and will of the people. And in the US, for example, according to recent Gallup polling approximately 67% of the population supports the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. I wonder if this isn’t because US culture is rooted in a strict religious tradition that justifies eye-for-an-eye retribution, manifest destiny that led to the genocide of an entire people so that we could expand and of course fear, fear that brought us to the new world, fear that drove us across the plains, fear that to this day has allowed the unwarranted invasion and occupation of a country that did us no harm. We have to let go of our fears. We have to apologize for the murder that has resulted from them.
The heart of the US constitution believes that it must grow, change and progress with the evolution of its people and culture while remaining true to the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It also states that it must remain separate from the church. As soon as we as a people rise above the fear of religion, fear of our past, fear of each other, and fear of the change we so desperately need to continue striving for that utopian vision that is at the heart of democracy, then perhaps we can abolish institutions that no longer serve a just and sustainable purpose, but have come to prohibit it.
The voices of leadership, responsibility and, above all, humanity must act as the moral conscious of the people for which they speak. They must ask the important questions that we elect them to ask for us and speak for those in society that would not without them have a voice of influence of any kind—the homeless, immigrants fresh off the boat or across the border, impoverished families, the sick and the elderly, criminals and misfits, vagabonds and missionaries, the middle class and even the rich and anyone in between, and yes, even murderers. We are all links in the chain of humanity, even the dangerously insane. We are only as strong as that weakest link.
