On capital punishment

The "West Wing" Watcher Series--Volume 1.

In Season 1, Episode 14, entitled, "Take This Sabbath Day," President Bartlett is presented with his first opportunity as president to pardon someone who is about to get executed. All of his staff members think he should pardon the man. They feel that the death penatly is immoral. President Bartlett does not know what to do. He, a strong Catholic man, feels as well that capital punishment is never acceptable. He gets counsel from his old parish priest (played very well by Karl Malden) and from the Pope. We also get opinions from a Rabbi and a Quaker, all saying he should commute his sentence. The President does nothing, and the guy gets whacked, causing much consternation for POTUS.
Capital punishment seems to be one of the favorite issues of liberal minded people. At least, many of them love to hate it. I, an very un-liberal minded person, believe capital punishment is right and necessary. The show posits some of the common arguments against capital punishment to promote its stand. Thomas R. Eddlem, in an older article found here, debunks some of the common myths that formulate the basis for the argument against the death penalty. I would add only a few ideas to the points he makes.
Abolitionists argue that the death penalty is racist, stating that it is used more often against minorities. Eddlem provides some statistics that show this is simply not the case. Even if more minorities were executed than non-minorities, this would not automatically point to racism. Racism is a matter of intent, not outcome. If statistics showed that far more white people than black drink Coca-Cola, would that make Coke a racist company? Is our prison system racist because a majority of people in prison are minorities? Or would these statistics simply reveal that fact that there happens to be more white people drinking Coke, and more minorities in jail? In order to prove racism you have to demonstrate intent. There would have to be evidence that the judges or juries in these cases were motivated by race. Though outcome is connected to intent, it is not solely a result of intent. Statistics can show whatever people want them to show. A cursory and biased reading of statistics regarding executions can be very deceptive. It is not racist to say more murders are committed by black people than any other ethnicity if it is a fact. A fact is a fact, and sometimes it is nothing more than a fact.
Abolitionists state that sometimes innocent people are executed. According the Eddlem, as of 2002, this had never happened. Some people have been sentenced unjustly, but that sentence has never been carried out. It amazes me that abolitionists seem more upset by the possibility of an innocent person executed than by a guilty person set free. I would never want to see an innocent person condemned. Yet, I would much more dislike seeing a guilty person set free. In life we are not always given a perfect choice. Sometimes the less detestable choice is the best choice. The existence of innocent people on death row does not negate the existence of guilty people on death row. A system that fails one time out of a hundred (or in this case, zero times out of 100) is not a worthless system. We can refine the system without scraping it.
Abolitionists state that capital punishment does not deter crime. They might say, "People, like drug dealers, gang members, and serial killers--the ones who commit most of this country's murders--are not going to be swayed by the existence of a death penalty." I have no doubt that our current system does not deter crime. Another abolitionist argument is that the death penalty is administered inconsistently. Is there a chance these are related? I also have no doubt that a system with much more consistency than out system would deter crime. If we executed nearly everyone that committed a murder (outside of the mentally retarded, which is another issue), whether premeditated or not, we would see far less murders. Most people that commit murder are not executed. In their mind they get away with it. Human nature is to do as much as you can without getting caught. If the consequences do not matter to you, then you will keep doing it. Our current system might even embolden murders, as it is so easy to get off with a relatively light sentence. Yet, as Eddlem points out, deterrence is not the primary reason for capital punishment, though it might provide an attractive side benefit. He quotes C.S. Lewis here, and I think it is worth re-quoting:

"[Deterrence] in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. Why, in Heaven's name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? -- unless, of course, I deserve it. . . . If deterrence is all that matters, the execution of an innocent man, provided the public think him guilty, would be fully justified."

Judicial sentences should be to punish the criminal, and nothing more. Anything else would truly be cruel and unusual.
Abolitionists find the death penalty cruel and unusual. I find rape and child molestation to be cruel and unusual. I think that a father who knocks his two year old daughter unconscious, and then leaves her outside to die in the cold, to be cruel and unusual. I think gang member that kill innocent bystanders during a drive by shooting are cruel and unusual. Executing people who have mercilessly taken the life of another human being is the only option a sane society has. We must value human so much that we punish those who callously abuse it. What kind of people are we if we place more worth on the life of a convicted murderer than on the life of an innocent victim?
Abolitionists say that the death penalty encourages vengeance and violates the Christian principle of mercy. I too believe that executing a murderer out of vengeance is wrong. As Eddlem points out, this is why the state must be responsible for it. The movie In the Bedroom is a perfect example of this. If government is not willing or able to execute justice, then it will be left to the hands of the vengeful. To not execute guilty ones will perpetuate the cycle of violence more than anything else. What can a society do when their government will not mercifully administer justice? The Bible does say that, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord."--Romans 12:19. The Bible also says that government is the minister of God, and that they hold not the sword in vain--Romans 13. This does not mean that government is exonerated in everything they do as ministers of God, nor does this mean that government is mandated to administer justice. It means simply that governmental officials have Biblical authority behind their justice. Incidentally (or not), many people in our country find acceptable to "punish" chemical and insurance companies with multi-million dollar lawsuits. I am sure, though, that vengeance plays no role in this.
I wish I had the faith of a Jed Bartlett. I wish I had the insight into the mind of God he and others like him have. I wish I could know, as he does, when to follow what the Bible clearly teaches me, and when to follow what I feel in my heart. I wish I had his faith, so that I could remove the mountains of Scriptural teachings to do what makes me feel better, and what helps me sleep at night. There is so little I know of right and wrong. My tiny mind cannot grasp it. All I can do is be the blind sheep following the archaic commands of an archaic book. I wish I too had to faith to believe that Bible is no longer to be believed.