Right Here, Right Now | An Eye for an Eye
by A. E. O'Neill
[Originally published November 8, 2002 at ignorance.tv]
Sniper suspects John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo were charged on Wednesday with three counts each of capital murder by the state of Virginia, bringing to an end the brief question of which state would have the honor. The two are accused of killing twelve and injuring five in the east coast Sniper shooting spree and reports have been pouring in from police departments nationwide, linking the pair to unsolved murders across the US.
Now that a guilty verdict seems both applicable and inevitable, the decision to try the pair in Virginia is not surprising. The state of Virginia carries out more executions annually than any other state besides Texas. Maryland, where the majority of the Sniper shootings took place, forbids capital punishment in cases where the defendant was under 18 at the time the crime was committed. The District of Columbia, where the two also stand accused, doesn't have the death penalty at all and, under and Federal Law, prosecutors would have to prove that the two conspired to extort money in addition to murder, in order to seek the death penalty in a case against them. Virginia has no such restrictions.
This case has brought the death penalty to the forefront of public debate, prompting us to ask ourselves, what should a civilized society do with people like Muhammed and Malvo, once they're convicted?
Facts: According to Amnesty International, Thirty-eight of the 50 states currently allow the death penalty. Just because it's interesting, two of those states, Idaho and Utah, still employ a firing squad for the occasion. Capital cases are the most expensive of all criminal cases; in fact, the annual cost of keeping an inmate on death row is around double that of keeping non-death sentenced inmates.
The most passionate arguments against capital punishment are based on the Christian doctrine of mercy and forgiveness. The Pope, speaking as always on behalf of the Catholic Church, recently denounced capital punishment, and the few governments under which it's practiced, saying, "The dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform." With all due respect, it's easy to talk about modern society protecting itself when you live in the Vatican and can't even eat your papal breakfast without the kind of security entourage you might encounter if President Bush were literally made of eggshells.
As steeped in hypocrisy as this Christian ideology can be, he has a point; in modern society, we have a responsibility to each other, to create the kind of society we want to live in. There is no doubt that we need to develop better policies of protecting ourselves; among other things, we must endeavor to eliminate racism from law enforcement and strive to rehabilitate prisoners, rather than merely punishing and unleashing them back into society, more antisocial and bitter than before.
Steadily increasing crime rates, with an emphasis on violent crimes, and the steady increase of death penalty cases each year since it was reinstated in 1977 indicate that the threat of death - or, for that matter, plain old incarceration, being stripped of your rights, freedom, dignity and property -- isn't doing a whole lot to discourage criminals these days.
There is no question that the institutions responsible for making life and death decisions for us seem, by design, to invite corruption and abuse. However, I can find fewer faults with the practice of executing convicted murderers than with most other standard policies of the judicial system. Compassionate citizens cannot ensure a civilized society. In order to create a society where the things we value can flourish, we must be able to protect the innocent, and we must have extreme methods of enforcing those laws.
Once in a while we encounter a criminal who is utterly unrepentant and seemingly beyond reform - a danger to the population at large. What then? What do we do with the few citizens who have absolutely no regard for the lives of others? To live under the constant threat of death or victimization, in this society, is to be deprived of the "right to life" and, if our laws did not provide this solution, I know that we would soon be living in anarchy. When these people crossed our paths, depriving us of life, limb or loved one, we would suddenly find nothing wrong with the idea of "justice" used as a euphemism for "revenge."
There's still the question of cost. Well, how about we do away with the lengthy Death Row waiting period, in cases where guilt is no longer in question? Just hand the accused over to their victims' friends and family and let them decide his fate. In fact, if they're not squeamish, let them carry it out — and let them decide whether to call it justice or revenge.
The most compelling arguments for capital punishment are almost always based upon the idea that we make certain sacrifices to live how we choose to live. "An eye for an eye" or a life for a life will certainly not "make anything right," but it is better than the alternative. Besides, revenge has a long and distinguished place in human history — among other things, it was the very foundation of the first set of human laws ever written.