Posted by
Josh Kon on Monday, August 25, 2008 6:58:09 PM
This may go without saying, but we should never
punish a criminal more harshly than their crime warrants. In fact, we should
not cast aside this Biblical principle of only “an eye for an eye” even if the
punishment can deter others from committing that crime. A punishment must first
and foremost be commensurate with the crime, and thus just. After that, if it
happens to deter as well, then great. But a society should never employ
deterrence alone as a basis for the extent of one’s punishment.
The deterrent effect of the death penalty is
therefore only relevant in response to the notion that, in administering it, we
may put innocents to death. At some point, the debate becomes no longer an
issue of whether the death penalty is a just
dessert for a vile murder. Logical people will grant that. But, they argue,
that we should still discard it from our country’s arsenal of punitive tools,
as our inevitably fallible justice system may spill innocent blood. To that,
one can—and in fact, honesty demands one should—respond by explaining that not
administering the death penalty saves more lives. This is due to none other
than—you guessed it, its deterrent effect.
Obviously less innocent people
die if murderers are deterred from murdering. Indeed, even if one doubts the
overall deterrent effect of state-punishment, one must concede that in regards
to the death-row inmate himself, the sooner he is dead, the less of a chance he
has to kill another inmate, a courageous guard, a vital witness, or an old
enemy. For that reason, if saving innocent lives is where the issue now turns,
we as a nation have a moral obligation to turn to the death penalty.