Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 4, 2006 11:59:05 GMT -5
Death penalty opponents speak up
(Editor's note: This weekly series of dialogues moderated by columnist Issac
Bailey is designed to help provide depth and bring a variety of views on
faith and ethics topics to a public forum.)
In light of a Georgetown County jury's recent decision to send Stephen
Stanko to the S.C. death row, discussion group members last week gave
reasons why they were in favor of the death penalty. A quote from Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is in favor of the death penalty, was
also included.
This week we explore the other side. Let's begin with a few facts from the
authors of "Freakonomics."
According to their research, the annual execution rate of prisoners on death
row is 2 % "compared with the 7 % annual chance of dying faced by a member
of the Black Gangster Disciple Nation crack gang. If life on death row is
safer than on the streets, it's hard to believe that the fear of
executions is a driving force in a criminal's calculus.
"Even in a death penalty's advocate's best-case scenario, capital punishment
could explain only one twenty-fifth of the drop in homicides in the 1990s,"
they wrote. "And because the death penalty is rarely given for crimes other
than homicide, its deterrent effect cannot account for a speck of decline in
other violent crimes."
Nile Rauhut, chairman of the Department of Religion and Philosophy at
Coastal Carolina University: In my view there is little doubt that the death
penalty is the just punishment for very heinous crimes. Many well-known
philosophers (Hegel, Kant, etc) have developed convincing arguments in
defense of the death penalty. However, this is just the beginning of the
debate.
The main issue is that it does not seem right in every situation to demand
and enforce what is just.
Let me give you an example. Suppose that a neighbor has borrowed $500 from
me. He promised to pay the money back next week.
Suppose that he comes up with the $500, but suppose also that he has 8
children who would not eat for a week without that money. I have the right
to demand back the money.
But if I am merciful, I will let the money go.
Something very similar is true for the death penalty. We, as a society, have
the right to impose the death penalty on Stephen Stanko. It is just, but is
it the merciful thing to do?
Some might argue that Stanko deserves no mercy, he has after all shown no
mercy to his victims. I agree that it seems impossible to extend mercy to
him. We do not want to do it.
But isn't this the miracle of Christ, that he makes it possible to forgive
even if we do not want to? Those people like Scalia who argue that
Christianity is compatible with the death penalty seem to misunderstand the
spirit of Christianity.
The great majority of Christians in the world are against the death penalty.
The only exception is the U.S., where the majority of Christians are happily
endorsing the death penalty.
But this is so bizarre. Can you really imagine that Jesus would walk up to
Stanko and flip the switch on the electric chair?
John Landrine: What types of crimes are punishable by death? The crime has
to be violent, malicious, usually resulting in someone's death.
Now, think about what kind of person is capable of committing such a crime.
There are really only 3:
someone who has no regard for life or death, is certain they can never be
caught or harmed, or gets some pleasure out of such actions.
How can the threat of the penalty of death affect these people?
The death penalty is an attempt to use logical reasoning to persuade
illogical people.
Therefore, the death penalty is not only illogical, it is stupid.
And because there is not one shred of evidence that the death penalty is a
deterrent in any way shape or form, we have only one answer to why it stays
on the books: man's insatiable desire to see people suffer and die.
This form of entertainment has been a hit since the beginning of time, from
crucifixions to the Roman Coliseum, to public hangings, to the electric
chair. It seeks only to satisfy the morbid desires of the flesh and it is
wrong.
Toni Boutwell: Why do we kill people who kill people to show other people
that killing is wrong?
The convicted could be forced to work on private farms.
They would be paid the same as what the illegal immigrants receive, half of
which would go to the prison for the housing and feeding of the prisoners,
25 % would go to the victims or their relatives.
The other 25 % could go to the prisoner to pay for things like gloves
and equipment for their work.
Those prisoners who cannot or will not work would be the perfect people to
test out the side effects of new medicines.
This would be a true societal benefit. The prison population is a resource
we should look into using instead of complaining about what it costs.
Jim Rogers: Capital punishment is a throwback to the good old days when an
eye for an eye was in vogue. It is inhuman, unkind, expensive,
exhibitionistic, a circus for the media and does not work.
In fact, some of our sociologists and psychologist may tell you that it
encourages some of our borderline murderers because it gives them unmatched
publicity and notoriety.
James Ryan: One of the most profound observations about the death penalty
comes from JRR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
In "The Fellowship of the Ring," Gandalf and Frodo discuss the creature
Gollum, one of the villains, a creature with no redeeming qualities at all.
Gollum deserves death, Frodo says.
Gandalf agrees. Then he says, and I am not quoting word-for-word, many who
live deserve to die, but some who die deserve to live. Can Frodo give them
life? If not, maybe Frodo should not be so quick to deal out death in
judgment.
I learned in my nearly 30 years as a physician that it is horribly easy to
end a human life and impossible to restore it.
(source: Myrtle Beach Sun News)
(Editor's note: This weekly series of dialogues moderated by columnist Issac
Bailey is designed to help provide depth and bring a variety of views on
faith and ethics topics to a public forum.)
In light of a Georgetown County jury's recent decision to send Stephen
Stanko to the S.C. death row, discussion group members last week gave
reasons why they were in favor of the death penalty. A quote from Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is in favor of the death penalty, was
also included.
This week we explore the other side. Let's begin with a few facts from the
authors of "Freakonomics."
According to their research, the annual execution rate of prisoners on death
row is 2 % "compared with the 7 % annual chance of dying faced by a member
of the Black Gangster Disciple Nation crack gang. If life on death row is
safer than on the streets, it's hard to believe that the fear of
executions is a driving force in a criminal's calculus.
"Even in a death penalty's advocate's best-case scenario, capital punishment
could explain only one twenty-fifth of the drop in homicides in the 1990s,"
they wrote. "And because the death penalty is rarely given for crimes other
than homicide, its deterrent effect cannot account for a speck of decline in
other violent crimes."
Nile Rauhut, chairman of the Department of Religion and Philosophy at
Coastal Carolina University: In my view there is little doubt that the death
penalty is the just punishment for very heinous crimes. Many well-known
philosophers (Hegel, Kant, etc) have developed convincing arguments in
defense of the death penalty. However, this is just the beginning of the
debate.
The main issue is that it does not seem right in every situation to demand
and enforce what is just.
Let me give you an example. Suppose that a neighbor has borrowed $500 from
me. He promised to pay the money back next week.
Suppose that he comes up with the $500, but suppose also that he has 8
children who would not eat for a week without that money. I have the right
to demand back the money.
But if I am merciful, I will let the money go.
Something very similar is true for the death penalty. We, as a society, have
the right to impose the death penalty on Stephen Stanko. It is just, but is
it the merciful thing to do?
Some might argue that Stanko deserves no mercy, he has after all shown no
mercy to his victims. I agree that it seems impossible to extend mercy to
him. We do not want to do it.
But isn't this the miracle of Christ, that he makes it possible to forgive
even if we do not want to? Those people like Scalia who argue that
Christianity is compatible with the death penalty seem to misunderstand the
spirit of Christianity.
The great majority of Christians in the world are against the death penalty.
The only exception is the U.S., where the majority of Christians are happily
endorsing the death penalty.
But this is so bizarre. Can you really imagine that Jesus would walk up to
Stanko and flip the switch on the electric chair?
John Landrine: What types of crimes are punishable by death? The crime has
to be violent, malicious, usually resulting in someone's death.
Now, think about what kind of person is capable of committing such a crime.
There are really only 3:
someone who has no regard for life or death, is certain they can never be
caught or harmed, or gets some pleasure out of such actions.
How can the threat of the penalty of death affect these people?
The death penalty is an attempt to use logical reasoning to persuade
illogical people.
Therefore, the death penalty is not only illogical, it is stupid.
And because there is not one shred of evidence that the death penalty is a
deterrent in any way shape or form, we have only one answer to why it stays
on the books: man's insatiable desire to see people suffer and die.
This form of entertainment has been a hit since the beginning of time, from
crucifixions to the Roman Coliseum, to public hangings, to the electric
chair. It seeks only to satisfy the morbid desires of the flesh and it is
wrong.
Toni Boutwell: Why do we kill people who kill people to show other people
that killing is wrong?
The convicted could be forced to work on private farms.
They would be paid the same as what the illegal immigrants receive, half of
which would go to the prison for the housing and feeding of the prisoners,
25 % would go to the victims or their relatives.
The other 25 % could go to the prisoner to pay for things like gloves
and equipment for their work.
Those prisoners who cannot or will not work would be the perfect people to
test out the side effects of new medicines.
This would be a true societal benefit. The prison population is a resource
we should look into using instead of complaining about what it costs.
Jim Rogers: Capital punishment is a throwback to the good old days when an
eye for an eye was in vogue. It is inhuman, unkind, expensive,
exhibitionistic, a circus for the media and does not work.
In fact, some of our sociologists and psychologist may tell you that it
encourages some of our borderline murderers because it gives them unmatched
publicity and notoriety.
James Ryan: One of the most profound observations about the death penalty
comes from JRR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
In "The Fellowship of the Ring," Gandalf and Frodo discuss the creature
Gollum, one of the villains, a creature with no redeeming qualities at all.
Gollum deserves death, Frodo says.
Gandalf agrees. Then he says, and I am not quoting word-for-word, many who
live deserve to die, but some who die deserve to live. Can Frodo give them
life? If not, maybe Frodo should not be so quick to deal out death in
judgment.
I learned in my nearly 30 years as a physician that it is horribly easy to
end a human life and impossible to restore it.
(source: Myrtle Beach Sun News)