Tuesday, April 12, 2005
About the Death Penalty
Public support for the death penalty for deliberate, premeditated murder seems to be declining. New York State, which reinstituted the death penalty in 1995 after George Pataki replaced Mario Cuomo as Governor, is now considering whether to keep. A court has ruled that the present law in the State is unconstitutional. Hence, at present the State has no death penalty. Because of many accounts of convictions being overturned, the public is less likely to punish politicians who vote to replace the death penalty with life without parole.
The previous paragraph is a summary of an account I read in the paper recently. I am reminded of a point in one of the debates between candidate George H. W. Bush and candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. Both men were campaigning for the Presidency. Dukakis was known to be opposed to capital punishment. Mr. Bush posed to him this question: If your wife or daughter were brutally murdered, would you want the murderer put to death?
I’ve thought about how I now wish Mr. Dukakis had answered that question, or how I might answer it myself. Like Mr. Dukakis, I also am opposed to capital punishment.
The question and its answer have no logical relation to that public policy should be regarding capital punishment for murderers. Mr. Bush asked the question simply to try to embarrass Mr. Dukakis and to illustrate to the voters his unfitness to be President. If Mr. Dukakis answered, “I’d like to strangle the bastard with my bare hands,” he would have made points with some voters, while others would have been turned off by his insincerity regarding capital punishment. If he answered, “I would let the police and the justice system take care of him,” the public would have been convinced that Mr. Dukakis was an uncaring wimp, who wouldn’t even express an honest feeling of outrage and grief at the loss of his wife or daughter.
Either answer would lose Mr. Dukakis support.
In my case, an honest answer would be: “I would be very angry and grief-stricken and shocked. My first reaction would be to get hold of the murderer and kill him, preferably in a manner that would inflict a lot of pain and suffering. After a while I would calm down somewhat and be willing to let the police and the courts determine his fate.
“However, my response to this question should not be a basis for determining public policy. There are many things to consider in setting down a policy for the treatment of murderers. Satisfying the desire of friends and relatives of the victim for revenge should not be one of them.”
Then I would recount what I think are factors that should determine the sentencing and treatment of murderers, such as protecting the public from future acts of violence, setting an example to deter others from committing murder, possible rehabilitation of the convict, and the actual cost of executing a person as compared with the cost of a life sentence. Part of the cost of an execution is the cost of the legal appeals of the sentence, cost of investigation after the fact to make sure that the verdict is both just and factually correct, and the effect on public morality of highly publicized executions.
Dukakis was in a tight spot. He answer didn’t serve him well.
The previous paragraph is a summary of an account I read in the paper recently. I am reminded of a point in one of the debates between candidate George H. W. Bush and candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. Both men were campaigning for the Presidency. Dukakis was known to be opposed to capital punishment. Mr. Bush posed to him this question: If your wife or daughter were brutally murdered, would you want the murderer put to death?
I’ve thought about how I now wish Mr. Dukakis had answered that question, or how I might answer it myself. Like Mr. Dukakis, I also am opposed to capital punishment.
The question and its answer have no logical relation to that public policy should be regarding capital punishment for murderers. Mr. Bush asked the question simply to try to embarrass Mr. Dukakis and to illustrate to the voters his unfitness to be President. If Mr. Dukakis answered, “I’d like to strangle the bastard with my bare hands,” he would have made points with some voters, while others would have been turned off by his insincerity regarding capital punishment. If he answered, “I would let the police and the justice system take care of him,” the public would have been convinced that Mr. Dukakis was an uncaring wimp, who wouldn’t even express an honest feeling of outrage and grief at the loss of his wife or daughter.
Either answer would lose Mr. Dukakis support.
In my case, an honest answer would be: “I would be very angry and grief-stricken and shocked. My first reaction would be to get hold of the murderer and kill him, preferably in a manner that would inflict a lot of pain and suffering. After a while I would calm down somewhat and be willing to let the police and the courts determine his fate.
“However, my response to this question should not be a basis for determining public policy. There are many things to consider in setting down a policy for the treatment of murderers. Satisfying the desire of friends and relatives of the victim for revenge should not be one of them.”
Then I would recount what I think are factors that should determine the sentencing and treatment of murderers, such as protecting the public from future acts of violence, setting an example to deter others from committing murder, possible rehabilitation of the convict, and the actual cost of executing a person as compared with the cost of a life sentence. Part of the cost of an execution is the cost of the legal appeals of the sentence, cost of investigation after the fact to make sure that the verdict is both just and factually correct, and the effect on public morality of highly publicized executions.
Dukakis was in a tight spot. He answer didn’t serve him well.
