The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Capital Punishment

For the purposes of this article, I will define “Murder” as the deliberate unlawful taking of a human life, while “Killing” is the unintentional lawful taking of a human life. Those who murder should be apprehended, tried, and, if convicted, should serve significant prison sentences. Those who kill can do so in a justified or unjustified manner. A justified killing is when you kill another to protect the lives and limbs of you and your family, stop the commission of a violent crime in progress, or when in the armed forces under fire by enemy combatants. Unjustified killing is when you end the life of another through accident or negligence. Unjustified killers should also be apprehended, tried, and, if convicted, should serve an appropriate sentence for their acts, while justified killers should face no legal consequences.

I do not believe that capital punishment is appropriate for those who kill. The question to be answered is whether capital punishment is an appropriate sentence for those who murder. I do believe that capital punishment may be an appropriate sentence for those who murder, but only in limited and extraordinary situations. These limited and extraordinary circumstances will be defined later in this article. Until then, my reasoning is as follows.

Those who utilize the Bible to argue against capital punishment often do not have extensive knowledge about what the Bible says about capital punishment or only choose those parts of the Bible that would disallow capital punishment. They also conveniently ignore those parts of the Bible that support capital punishment. Given that the Bible can be interpreted in both ways regarding capital punishment, I will not be utilizing the Bible for this observation. However, “That shall not kill”, the sixth of the Ten Commandments, would seem to rule out capital punishment. The best explanation for this commandment is given by Dennis Prager in his video: Do Not Murder.

The argument against capital punishment is that you could possibly execute an innocent person. In the criminal justice system, it is always possible that you can convict an innocent person. Nothing is certain in life (except death and taxes), and mistakes can be made. This is why the criminal justice system has many protections for the accused, appeals upon conviction, and reviews by higher courts about the propriety of the criminal proceedings against the defendant. Hopefully, this significantly reduces the possibility of a false convection. Despite all these safeguards, it is possible to convict and punish an innocent person. Those who would argue against capital punishment argue that the death penalty should never be utilized because you could possibly execute an innocent person. This is a good argument, but it would be alleviated if you only imposed capital punishment in the limited and extraordinary circumstances that I have defined later in this observation. Therefore, I find this argument insufficient in my utilization of capital punishment. I also find this argument unjust for the victims, their families, friends, and neighbors, as well as society as a whole.

Albert Camus (November 7, 1913 – January 4, 1960) was a French philosopher, author, dramatist, journalist, world federalist, and political activist. He was the recipient of the 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature at the age of 44, the second-youngest recipient in history. In one of his stories, he wrote about a man who went to witness the public execution, by guillotine, of a man who had murdered a husband and wife and their two children in their farmhouse. The man came back from the execution shaken by the brutality of the execution, was sickened, and never spoke of it again. He also became an opponent of the death penalty based on this experience (this event was said to have occurred to Camus’s father).

The problem with this story is that it only focused on the brutality of the execution and not the brutality of the murders of the husband and wife and their two children. If that man had also seen the open coffins of the four people murdered at the same time as the execution of the murderer, would he have come away with a different opinion about the death penalty? This raises the question of proper justice to fit the crime. All murders and executions are brutal, but is justice for the victims, their families, and society being served by the execution?

Camus was quite familiar with unjustified executions, as he lived in France and Algiers prior to World War II, France for a few years during World War II, and again in France and Algiers after World War II, in which he knew of and bore witness of many unjustified executions by the Germans, French, and Algerians. For a brief period after World War II, he supported executions of those who engaged in barbaric acts against civilians during World War II. However, he renounced his support and reasserted his opposition to all death penalties when the French government began to execute those he thought were undeserving of execution. Camus’s dilemma was one of the circumstances in which the death penalty was justice or of vengeance, and how to constrain executions to only those circumstances where it is justice. Thus, Camus opted to oppose all executions, as he thought that any constraints were not practicable, would be disregarded by mob passions, or that governments would violate these constraints when it suited their purposes.

The crafting and administration of justice is a human endeavor and, as such, is subject to human failure. Consequently, it is possible for an innocent person to be convicted and imprisoned or executed. To minimize this possibility, in America, we have instituted a system of justice that respects the rights of the accused in the arrest or indictment and the trial of a person, presided over by an impartial judge at all stages of the process who is responsible for ensuring that the law is properly, equally, and fairly applied. Prior to and during the trial of a defendant, the prosecutor is constrained to the facts, admissible evidence, and the boundaries of the law of the case, while the accused has a defense attorney who vigorously defends them to an impartial jury of their peers that can dispassionately rule on the merits of the case and the law. We have also instituted an appeals process so that in the event of an error in the process, the conviction may be overturned when the process is found to have erred. Finally, there is the possibility of the President or Governor of a State pardoning a guilty person or commuting a sentence if they believe an injustice has occurred.

While passions on all sides may reign (especially in the case of a capital crime), the justice process has been instituted to differentiate between justice and vengeance, with justice as the objective while passion is tempered to achieve justice. Although not perfect, as perfection is not possible in all human endeavors, it is highly unlikely that a person who has been convicted of a capital crime and has undergone all the processes to determine their guilt and fairness of the process is innocent of the capital crime. The only question is, then, what is the proper sentence to be imposed to achieve justice? A Justice that is appropriate for the guilty person and the victim(s) of the capital crime, and justice for the victim(s) family, friends, neighbors, and society. Upon a finding of guilt, justice requires that the punishment be based on the crime. Forgiveness can mitigate justice in the sentencing if there is an extenuating circumstance in which to forgive. But murderers must be punished in some appropriate manner. I would suggest that capital punishment is appropriate under the following circumstances:

• A person or persons who engages in Crimes against Humanity.
• A person or persons who murders three or more persons in a single criminal act (A Mass Murderer).
• A person or persons who murders two or more persons in multiple criminal acts (A Serial Murderer).
• A person or persons who murders one or more persons in a single criminal act after committing acts of torture or rape upon their victim(s).
• A person or persons who engages in a political assassination.
• A person or persons who murders one or more civil servants (police, firefighter, social worker, etc.) engaged in the lawful performance of their civil service duties.
• A person or person who causes the death of one or more persons during a mob riot but not during a peaceful civil disobedience protest.

I would also note that society is not taking the life of a murderer but that the murderer has forfeited their own life by committing the heinous acts that led to the imposition of capital punishment. Even if a capital punishment murderer has had an epiphany and is fully repentant and reformed, they must be executed as they have to accept full responsibility for their previous actions that resulted in their capital punishment and to provide Justice to the victims, their families, and society as a whole.

No Law is perfect as it deals with imperfect human interactions. My goal is to make the law better, more consistent, and understandable by all so it may be administered equally and justly. It is also easier to instruct our children and fellow citizens as to which murders you will be sentenced to death if you commit them.