I recently attended a law career panel for my Introduction to Law class. I expected to hear about the different professions that I, an undergraduate hoping to attend law school, might be interested in pursuing. Instead of leaving with career advice, however, I ended up with a reminder of my moral dilemma concerning the ethics of the death penalty — a sentence that some of the judges at the panel had themselves imposed.
Of all the controversial policy issues, the death penalty is the one I find myself struggling with the most. On the one hand, I believe in the idea of justice. A criminal who has committed a capital crime of the most heinous kind deserves the worst penalty possible. Perhaps the only closure available to the victim’s family is for the criminal to be executed.
I also wrestle with two other justifications for the death penalty. Firstly, prisoners talk. What if the murderer, who is incarcerated for life, educates other criminals about committing murder? Not everyone in prison is there forever. After learning a few things from experienced murderers, maybe the criminal in prison for drug trafficking has a few arguments to settle and will use his new knowledge when he is out of prison in a couple of years.
Secondly, what if the sentence is reduced or the sentence originally issued was life with parole? A person who committed a murder at the age of 20 could theoretically be out of prison by the time he is 60, which is an age, at least to me, that he could still be a significant danger to society. Does society really want these criminals back on the streets? Can someone who committed capital murder ever be trusted to conform to society’s standards? Are criminals guaranteed to “learn their lesson” behind bars and to become “changed people” after they leave the confines of prison?
But on the other hand, does executing a murderer compensate for the life of the victim? One of the judges at the panel said that the first time he upheld a death sentence, he felt obligated to witness the execution. After watching it, he is now firmly against the death penalty. He commented on how the victim’s family was there, cheering when the execution was about to take place, almost as if they were cheerleaders in a locker room.
I’ve never lost a family member to a heinous crime so I cannot pretend to know what it feels like, but does watching the criminal die really give the victim’s family closure or make up for the life lost? Can one life ever be equal to another? Furthermore, what about the judges and the juries who sentence people to die, will they ever be forgiven in the eyes of God? Will their moral complexion ever be the same again? Even worse, what if they make an irreversible mistake?
There is also an economic burden on the state when the death penalty is imposed. Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty in most states is actually more expensive than a life sentence without parole because of added court costs for the state.
As a Catholic, I am conflicted by the church’s position concerning the death penalty. Obviously, the church does not condone it. To them, and to me, life is incredibly sacred, which is why the church is against both the death penalty and abortion. As a pro-life citizen myself, I obviously understand their argument. But the criminals sentenced to death have been found to commit the worst crimes imaginable and in doing so, have clearly lost their innocence. Perhaps that is what can be said to differentiate the death penalty from abortion.
Trying to take a stand on such a controversial and complex issue is something I have extreme difficulty with, and as a person with an opinion on almost everything, it is surprising that I sway back and forth on this issue. However, after considering the two very compelling sides of the argument, to me, the death penalty, when reserved for the most heinous cases, can be justified. As a Connecticut resident, I can’t help but be reminded as I write this blog of the brutal murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. The first defendant in the case was just tried in my home state. Compared to most states, Connecticut rarely issues the death penalty. But for a crime such as these three murders, there seems to be no punishment too harsh for the accused — and jurors did, in fact, sentence one of the defendants to death earlier this month. The second defendant will be tried next year.
Even though I continue to waver, the idea of justice for the victim seems to be something I cannot simply ignore. That, coupled with the influence murderers might have on other criminals while in prison and the fact that there is a chance that these murderers might re-enter society, seems to persuade me to support the death penalty despite the question — is there ever really a good enough reason for the state to end someone’s life?
Anna Schroeder, a sophomore at Rice University, is an intern in the editorial department at the Baker Institute. She is majoring in mathematical economic analysis and Spanish.