Briefing Book – Capital Punishment
In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book,” outlining the issues the candidate will face, and the arguments and positions the candidate takes. It is so everyone on the campaign is literally on “the same page” when it comes to that issue. I’m not running for office, but over the next several weeks, I will be presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”
It was the Presidential election of 1988. George HW Bush, the Vice President for the past eight years under Reagan, was behind in the polls. His opponent, Democratic Governor Michael Dukakis, was smoothly moving to win the Presidency. On October 14ththey held their last Presidential debate at UCLA.
CNN’s Bernard Shaw led off with the first question, asking Dukakis if his wife, Kitty, was raped and murdered, would the Governor then be in favor of an “irrevocable” death penalty. It was a shocking question.
Dukakis answered calmly, citing statistical studies of the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, and stating his continuing opposition to it. It was the beginning of the end of the Dukakis campaign; the American people saw a cold and calculating politician who showed no emotion at the vision of his own wife raped and murdered. Bush then followed up with the racially charged “Willie Horton” television commercial, and ultimately won the Presidency.
It was over thirty years ago, but the issue still continues today. And, just as Governor Dukakis found in the debate, there are two levels to the question of the death penalty.
The first level is evidentiary – does the death penalty work in deterring criminals from committing certain crimes? There are different studies examining states that have removed or reinstated the death penalty to see if there is some impact on crime rates, but none have shown a change. In fact, there is almost no scientific evidence that shows the death penalty deters crime (other than crime committed by the person put to death) and volumes that shows that capital punishment has no impact.
This is difficult for many people to accept. They think in terms of: if I knew I was going to be killed for doing something, I probably wouldn’t do it. That makes common sense, but it is the thought process of someone who is highly unlikely to commit the kind of crime that would result in a death penalty. However, were those folks to be “out of control” angry, would they still have the same thought process? Or would they act, and then regret it later on?
For a drug dealer on the street, carrying loads of drugs or cash, having no protection other than what they can carry, the threat of the death penalty is abstract and far away. The more imminent worry is that some other criminal will kill them for their money or drugs; their risk is right now, not in some court. So legal penalties have little determinative value to them, their own survival is paramount and immediate.
So we know the death penalty doesn’t work as a crime deterrent. We know that the thought process of those willing to commit capital offenses does not include the calculation of legal punishment. And we know that the use of the death penalty is biased, economically and racially.
50% of prisoners now on death row are black, in a nation where blacks represent 12% of the overall population. The most likely death sentence recipient: a black man who killed a white person. And overwhelmingly, poor people get the death penalty, people with means, who can afford effective legal representation, do not.
In recent years we have developed evidence, including DNA, that has exonerated 164 men and women who were facing the death penalty. 164 people who were facing death, and ultimately found to not have committed the crime they were sentenced for. 164 who would have been killed by mistake.
And of course, the actual process of execution is difficult. We try to kill “mercifully,” but our current methods are only merciful to those who must watch, not those who are killed. Killing is ugly whether it’s hanging, or electrocution, shooting, or lethal injection. We place some civil servants, including medical personnel, in the position of taking life rather than saving it. They bear that burden, for all of us.
So from an evidentiary standpoint, the death penalty does not deter crime, if is racially and economically biased, it is irrevocable if a mistake is made, and it forces some of our society to become our “killers.” So why is it still in use, and why is it still politically popular, with 56% of Americans in favor? (October, 2018, Gallup Poll)
The death penalty satisfies an “Old Testament” sense of justice, or revenge: “an eye for an eye.” As stated earlier, it makes “common sense” to those who are the most unlikely to commit a capital crime. To average Americans, it “feels” like the right thing to do, especially with particularly abhorrent forms of murder; the “do unto him what he did unto someone else” view.
But revenge is a poor motive for a society to kill someone. A “New Testament” view, forgiveness of sin, turning the other cheek, or judge not lest you should be judged; all counter the Old Testament Biblical argument. In fact, revenge is one of the actions we hope to make unacceptable in our society; we want to be “better” than that. We want to act from reason, not passion or anger.
And in the same way, our “civilized” society should move away from Government sanctioned murder. In the world today, 104 nations have abolished capital punishment. Another 36 nations have not carried out an execution in the past ten years. That leaves 53 countries that still have and use the death penalty. China with 1000+ executions leads the world, followed by Iran 567+, Saudi Arabia 154+, Iraq 88+, Pakistan 87, and Egypt 44+. The United States with 20 is next in line, putting us in dubious company. (2016, Amnesty International)
Mike Dukakis wasn’t wrong in 1988. Where he made his mistake was in failing to acknowledge the instinctive horror of capital crimes, and the emotional desire for revenge. Abolishing capital punishment won’t happen by ignoring those emotions; they must be acknowledged, and discussed before the “factual” conclusions are drawn. Only then can the United States stop being a “top ten” executor, and join the more civilized world.
