Execution

I have yet to express my thoughts on whether or not the death penalty is a proper punishment.  However, I offer some thoughts for others to consider on the issue.

There are essentially three very distinct aspects of the execution debate, including morality, legality and equality (in the class sense). The legality of execution is debated in light of the 8th Amendment, and strong arguments are made that execution is cruel punishment.  (I would contend, however, that those who wrote the Bill of Rights were not opposed to execution.)  Also, there is a societal problem with punishment in that data does show that specific groups of people are more commonly executed, and this idea runs throughout criminal punishment.  Often, it seems, the morality arguments shape the debate.

Does holding someone in prison for the remainder of their life make the punishment less cruel?  It can certainly be argued that it is less cruel, and it is easy to see why - you are still alive.  Yet, I might suggest that I'd rather die than live out my life in prison.  In my opinion, life in prison would be almost no life at all.  However, there are some examples of people who have done good things while in prison.  Some argued that Tookie Williams became a better person while in prison, and I think of Nelson Mandela as someone who was able to live in prison and arguably became a stronger and more merciful person because of his experience.  I would never compare these two men, and their respective situations of imprisonment are far different.  However, I think they illustrate the other side of my belief that life in prison is really no life at all.

Next, it is essential to consider human dignity.  The abortion-death penalty debate is often waged here, and for good reason.  Many opponents of the death penalty argue that even the worst humans maintain some dignity.  But if they disrespect life enough to kill another, then they lack the human dignity to understand morality and mercy.  The argument that protecting an unborn, untainted life while executing another is hypocritical forgets to consider that one life is yet to have a chance to show their morality, while the other has shown they are so vile that they lack the morality to appreciate another's life.  If a criminal's act of killing another shows their lack of moral responsibility, the execution allows society to make them morally responsible.

In South Dakota's current case, some have asked for a commutation of Page's sentence, including others on this blog.  What interests me in this case is that Page has asked for execution, and has been so inclined that he waived a jury trial, released his attorney, and has not appealed.  Is he somehow saying, "I want to be responsible?"  If this is the case, is it society's role to make him responsible.  Obviously this up to society, and in South Dakota it appears society would make him responsible.  The problem is, does the state then act properly by taking his life, and essentially helping him commit suicide because he wants to be morally responsible?  And if it is deemed proper, then why is no one else allowed the right to have assisted suicide for their own reasons (remember Kevorkian)?

Dr. Schaff said before that Page deserves to die, but we can let him live.  This is certainly merciful and full of merit.  If the Governor, acting for the people, decides we ought to let him live, do we then hope he does something good or becomes a moral person even though he must remain incarcerated?  Or do we spare him to be merciful, because we feel it is right and it allows us to show that we can be merciful?  Are either of these things right?  In many ways execution seems just to me, but mercy is a powerful option.  The question of execution is a tough one.  I agree with those who argue that human dignity is lost when we do not hold those that kill responsible for their lack of morality in the ultimate sense.