To Die For

Capital Punishment is a remarkably unaddressed subject in American discourse today. There are so many things wrong with this policy that I find myself flustered as to where to start.

First, morally. Why do we allow criminals to defend themselves? Why are they protected from unreasonable search? Why are we not allowed to beat or threaten suspects? Because we hold ourselves (the state) to be better than the criminals.

If we go through the charade of jurisprudence, wherein we claim to treat the defendant with utmost deference, how is it that we can then murder the defendant based on the judgment of a handful of citizens?

This is akin to the torture issue; if you are going to execute or torture people, just dispense with the trappings of disinterested justice and stop insulting our intelligence; any state willing to torture or kill prisoners, foreign or domestic, cannot realistically be expected to safeguard any standard of moral conduct.

Second, legally. What legal power gives the state the authority to kill? The state can only kill in its own name when it is either at war or executing a citizen. When we are at war, we kill foreigners. We are usually not justified in doing so, but the point of fact is that foreigners are not protected by our Constitution, though of course they are protected by a morality and humanism that is alien to our "leaders".

But we are protected by the Constitution. When the American government kills an American citizen in a "judicial" process, there is a Rubicon that we dare not ignore. Is death not "cruel and unusual"? Come to think of it, its the most usual thing in the universe, but it's still cruel. Especially when visited upon a healthy citizen by his own government.

The death penalty is nothing more or less than the state saying it is above the law. If murder is against the law, why do we allow the state to commit it? If no person ever has the right to kill, how is it that a judge does? Is a judge not a person?

Third, ethically. When one supports the death penalty, he is saying this, "anyone who kills an innocent person can be killed by me (as represented by the state)." Okay. If you choose to believe that, that's your right, but it's also your ethical responsibility to draw the inference, which is this: "if you (the state) were to ever execute an innocent person, you should be killed in turn."

Right? And since most of America's executions have been carried out before or without DNA evidence, can anyone rationally argue that no innocent person has ever been executed in this country? No. And, since innocent people must have been executed, does not any supporter of the death penalty deserve to die in turn?

The last argument is libertarian in nature. Let me put it briefly and bluntly: If you ever accept living under a government that reserves the right to kill you, you're fucked.