In recent weeks we at The Miami Student learned first hand how the death penalty is still part of that exclusive area of wedge issues. Our Jan. 13 editorial, "Kentucky should broaden scope of the death penalty" received torrid response. We invited the most vocal critic of our editorial to express his views in this point-counterpoint debate.
To understand the implications of the death penalty and its inherent flaws we must first come to some understanding of what death is. This task has been attempted by many thinkers over many years, from Plato's Phaedo to the Bible, but pretty much everyone is left with some degree of fear and disagreement. Because of this, I will not even try to address the monumental question but instead acknowledge its difficulty. This being said, the reality of death is one of the most uncertain realities, and in the context of punishment it is basically impossible to discern what is or is not just. And the concept of justice, when applied in our judicial institution, is made more relative and subjective to both its initial foundation in terms of the Constitution and within modern day social context and interpretation.
Even in the Supreme Court there are many times that victim impact statements influence the sentencing of criminals. That is to say, if you kill someone who more people care about, whether it being your intent or not, you will probably face a harsher sentence. And intent is generally a large factor in criminal trials. This may not be fair, but it is how the system works and is a de facto law of crimes against the popular or young. And the problem that arises from this is that when one applies value to life, in the sense of life being deemed priceless or "more valuable," we are left with a bidding war for self-preservation.
Thus, it can be assumed that the ultimate punishment to an individual, given our current and past ideals, would be to then destroy this life, to take that which is most valuable to oneself or society. Yet it is the impossibility more so in the sense of the ascertainment of value to use this as an argument. English philosopher Jeremy Bentham sought to create value and equations to maximize pleasure and pain, to create an equation for the maximized life that is best for all. And, in my humble opinion, he and the utilitarians who followed him failed miserably. One who is to commit such an atrocious act of murder may not value their life at all, as it is clear they do not hold life to be of much importance, given they have no problem taking it from others. So how can those who are pro-death penalty really see taking any life as just? It is only just if we are to believe in an eye for an eye, but in this case we are dealing with a blind man.
The judicial system can't sit down and attempt to evaluate potential death-row inmates in the context of whether or not execution would be the most just. It would be impossible to interview these people and somehow learn their greatest fears, then use these instead as a new form of creative sentencing. In this case we would be seeking to grasp some truth of fear in the context of that which is individually just, and apply some particular sentence in a unique relativist manner catering to each personality and its idiosyncrasies. And in reality, this generally is the intent of both the jury and the family-to fairly evaluate whether or not the punishment matches the crime. Furthermore, we already see the disparity between the executions of minorities and the inherent unequal treatment existing in the eyes of the law. The attempts of the jury and family members of the victims to try to figure out what will be just or make amends leaves us with variables of an infinitely complex order. And chances are the people that have committed acts warranting the death sentence already have problems communicating or showcasing themselves and what they believe to be right or wrong.
Yet, this isn't to say we have nothing to learn from these individuals-instead we have a lesson in negative social reproduction. This is a lesson in how not to raise your children, the child being a product of self, environment and society as a whole. By understanding the results we can see how such insanity came to be and how to stop it. We are creating these individuals just as much as they are creating themselves, for every action has a reaction. Society can project its thoughts and beliefs on the individual and if both do not understand this, both can become the monster. And when you are the monster and see your antithesis as the enemy, how can you not view those who outcast, and outcry against you as the evil. And when this society will sanction death against you, the criminal's ill logic supports death against it, it being the society.
A child represents the most shimmering beacon of hope, a ray of both light and life. One who does not value their own life will inversely value that which we cherish the most. One cannot get into the mind of the individual who'd commit atrocious acts against men, women or children; instead one can only attempt to grasp their warped belief system. And in the sanctioning of legal death, one who flips the switch becomes just as much the monster as one who pulled the trigger. You're just on the "winning" side.
Michael Grepp greppmd@muohio.edu
