To Protect and to Serve

Frustrated by the brutality of serial murders, many states have resurrected their death penalty statutes, or have enacted newer, more precise legislation that puts particularly heinous criminals at risk of execution. The Left, ever the champion of the undeserving, has, predictably, assailed the death penalty as state-sanctioned murder. A due regard for the gravity of the sentence impels us to examine its moral underpinnings, and derive a valid benefit from an act most distasteful to our Judeo-Christian ethic.

The death penalty has often been accused of diminishing the value of life. That is partially correct. It sends a clear signal that the life of the murderer is diminished, rendered so by his own actions. But it in fact celebrates life, and holds it of ultimate value. If the sacrifice of one life is met by the negation of another, that act equates the two values. Every person has to weigh the value of his own life, and know that it is the equal of every other life around him. That is the death penalty’s subtle calculus.

All punishment is retributive. There is no such thing as pre-emptive or anticipatory justice. Except in cases of crime against property, justice isn’t even restorative. So what is the moral purpose behind apprehending a criminal and exacting recompense for his misdeed? What compels a society to indulge a behavior that, in its citizens, would be criminal?

At its broadest, justice seeks to restore a balance. Property taken without payment, a life taken in cold blood, any injury done one party by another -- all call for another act, this time on behalf of the victim. Only through another wrong can we set things right; only through an appropriate level of ordeal is the action assessed its rightful degree of remorse. The state lends its considerable authority to the redress of these grievances, rightly considering that pursual of legal equity is its obligation under social contract.

If citizens were fined $1,000 for overtime parking, but got a $5 ticket for rape, what message would that send about the value of women in that society? If petty theft was a felony but treason a misdemeanor, how reliable would that government be? If one could kill a fellow human being and get an 8-year sentence, what would that say about the value of innocent life? How well would such a society be protecting its citizens? How well would the books of justice balance?

On the other hand, if certain crimes were of sufficient depravity as to merit a death penalty, and said penalty was exacted immediately, consistently, and unfailingly, a boundary would clearly be drawn. Criminals would violate that boundary only at their own peril. There would be no defense of moral ambiguity, or legal uncertainty. The act receives the punishment. The balance is restored.

Only a life equals a life. But the murderer didn’t create a life. He TOOK one. And only a death equals a death. Only one act can satisfy the demand for retribution; only one payment can redeem that debt. The murderer must himself be forfeit.

There are those who argue that a lifetime behind bars is sufficient punishment, that “life without parole” is moral atonement in kind. Not so. Every moment the killer draws breath, he has been accorded a liberty not granted his victim. Every day the killer lives is a day his victim did not. Every dream that rises with the killer from his bunk in the morning is matched by a dream that died stillborn when the victim was laid to rest in the earth’s cold embrace. No breeze caresses him. No child’s laughter penetrates that utter stillness, that utter darkness, that utter solitude.

The killer still has life. Albeit a diminished one, but one of infinitely greater dimension than the 6-foot by 3-foot slice of fecund darkness that is the permanent resting place of the dead. Where there’s life, there’s hope. There’s hope that a busy society will forget the slab of chiseled granite that is the only mortal remnant of a good man or a loving woman. There’s hope that the killer can strike an alliance with corrupt people whose influence outweighs their merit. There's hope that ignorance and moral bankruptcy will free the killer with his offense unredeemed, and his victim unavenged.

The killer does not deserve life. By what measure would he? His potential for good? Certainly possible. But equally great is his potential for additional evil. His actual evil is a matter of record. Whatever monster compelled him to slake its thirst with human blood hasn’t been vanquished by clever legal repartee and judicial writ. His ability to transform the lives of those around him? Again, possible. But there’s no assurance that any such change would be for the better, and considerable reason to believe it wouldn’t. Lacking clairvoyance, we can only cast the future in the mold of the past.

The greatest moral task confronting a civilized people is the judgment of one another. Justice -- indeed civilization itself -- demands that we step forward when called and shoulder that grim burden. But aside from arcane Latin phrases and equally obscure procedures, what form does that judgment take?

In the courtroom, we affirm or deny the defendant’s compatibility with society. It’s like the vote at a country club, where the membership committee drops a black or white ball into a vase, depending on whether the member is to be rejected or welcomed. Only this club is society at large, and rejection means forfeiture of the freedoms its less felonious members enjoy.

When the crime is sufficiently debased, rejection means rejection from the club called Humanity. There are certain characteristics that define us as humans, that elevate us above “nature red in tooth and claw.” Anyone who has ever seen a hockey game knows that civilization is but a thin drape over a feral frame. But every human being also knows that sublimating his primal urges is not only convenient, but the very definition of civilization. Allowing those dogs off the leash, even briefly, rends the cloak of civility and exposes the horror beneath.

We can’t pretend to always hold every urge in check. Sometimes the drape just falls aside on its own. But we depend on every member of our society to define his own moral boundaries, and contain his behavior within acceptable norms. We back up that often- naive trust with an enforcement structure, but that structure is, by its very nature, reactive. It doesn’t prevent, except by threat of retribution.

Therefore, it is essential that every person recognize his vulnerability and contain himself so that others accord him the same consideration. That principle lies at the core of social contract. Its violation puts the offender beyond the protection of the herd, out on the flickering edge of the campfire. Ultimate betrayal of that principle results in utter banishment from society’s warmth, its light, and its safety.

In the old days, that exile was physical. The felon was escorted to the border and told to look for another social bosom at which to suckle. Violation of exile usually resulted in death. Today, there is no place on earth remote enough to accomplish a physical banishment. Besides, ostracism simply results in one society’s unburdening itself on another, a sort of nefarious exchange program.

So we have adopted a policy of segregation. We remove the offenders from the press of society, and isolate them with others of their breed. But in merely warehousing evil, we shirk one of liberty’s most solemn charges. Man’s relationship to justice is not one-sided. While justice serves man, and often protects him, occasions arise when the master is called to serve the servant. The onus is not an easy one. Justice demands sacrifice. We must deny a portion of our humanity in judging our fellow man. We must act without the emotions that give our lives color, muting, if only temporarily, those chords within that would resonate so loudly as to drown the voice of reason. We must muzzle Mercy and sternly silence Compassion. We must aspire, if only briefly, to the status of angels, peering not just into a man’s mind, but into his soul.

And in the end, we must usurp the prerogative of God, decreeing that a man’s actions merit the forfeiture of his property, his liberty, and even his life. Such momentous acts do not fall within the daily rounds of most men. They demand an introspection with which we are not comfortable or familiar. We need first examine our own motives before we assess those of a defendant. But having done so, we must proceed with a clear conscience to hear the evidence and direct the court.

Far from demeaning the society that practices it, the death penalty is enobling. Such a society recognizes that the highest moral duty a man can perform is to judge his fellow man. And when a transcendent sense of justice calls on men to judge harshly, there are those who will rise to the calling. Not out of anger, not even out of revenge. But out of a sense of duty to other men who cannot speak on their own behalf, their voices silenced by the grave.

“The death penalty has often been accused of diminishing the value of life.” ....
(not directed at you) - and abortion has not? The MSM have this clock that shows how many executions have been done but don’t have a clock on how many innocent children’s lives have been terminated. I guess one is a “medical procedure” and the other is killing a criminal by putting them to sleep.
In case the MSM hasn’t been counting, the number of abortions have been over 40 million ..... (sorry, off my soapbox now) ...

Regards,
Jane

NRLC.ORG has been keeping count:

Abortion in the United States:
Statistics and Trends

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
48,589,993
Total Abortions since 1973

that’s 48 million lives snuffed out in the name of women’s rights.

Wow! Let me guess: English major, primary interest is literature of the romantic period? LOL! Not exactly my style of writing, but to each his own.

Behind the flowery language lies some serious thought, however, which I am basically in agreement with. I do have some reservations about the death penalty, though. They center around how we arrive there with indigent defendants.

Too often, a defendant too poor to afford a decent lawyer and charged with a capital crime, ends up with an overworked and/or inexperienced public defender with a tiny budget available for this defendant, or the judge appoints the courthouse lush to take the case pro bono. The prosecutor may only be concerned with winning; justice is irrelevant. The cops may be lazy. The result is all too predictable. (See John Grisham's lastest (nonfiction) book, An Innocent Man, or take a look at the work of The Innocence Project.)

I believe the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes. Still, there are some cases that cry out for it.

Thanks for the entertaining read.

English major, primary interest is literature of the romantic period?

Close. English/Journalism. No period specialty but an admitted fondness for Fitzgerald and Dickens. And Alexander Pope. Among many, many others.

it’s mind numbing. isn’t it? I think of 48 million souls that did not get a chance. maybe one of those souls would discover the cure for cancer, or HIV. Will we look back at this period and remember a truly astounding, government sanctioned holocaust? The only thing that lessens my outrage is that these 48 million souls will be part of the second resurrection. abortion will not be a constitutional right when our Lord Jesus gets here to sort out things.

Interesting that English people voted in abortion while here it was mandated by our Supreme Court .... where in God’s name does “right to privacy” have anything to do with allowing abortion???? For the lamestream media it’s a ho-hum issue ... the real threat to our society is making sure you don’t hurt or injure or cause unnecessary pain or suffering while executing a criminal but you are allow to slice up a baby prior to ripping it out of its mother’s womb .....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.