Sometimes barbarism is the more enlightened approach: the death penalty

Awful truth #16: The death penalty is the morally appropriate punishment for certain crimes. 

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment.  A society which takes justice seriously must consider this penalty for certain crimes.  Jurisdictions that take this punishment off the table because they fancy themselves compassionate and enlightened do not take justice seriously.  A telling example is the mass murderer in Norway who killed seventy-seven people.  Not only did he not face the death penalty, but he resides in the cushiest jail cell (a suite really) I’ve ever seen.  What an emasculating embarrassment to their society and an affront to the victim’s family’s, let alone to the concept of justice itself.   

There are those who offer specious arguments in opposition to the death penalty.  Many of the same people who champion assisted suicide also claim lethal injection is an inhumane method for carrying out a death sentence—this is done out of pathological contrarianism rather than moral enlightenment.  The solution is simple: use the same drug for both.  They also claim the death penalty does not deter crime.  Deterrence is irrelevant.  It’s an apt punishment; any deterrent effect is a bonus.  They also dangle the ruse of life without parole as a substitute for the death penalty, but the inmate is subsequently allowed parole hearings in which the victim’s family must relive the nightmare again and again.  They then clamor to release sick or elderly lifers.  “Prisons aren’t rest homes or skilled nursing facilities,” they say.  Do not buy the lie that life without parole is a substitute for the death penalty, since those who say this don’t actually believe in life without parole as a sentence.  If you don’t mean for life without parole to mean life without parole, then stop saying it. 

Certain crimes warrant the death penalty: premeditated murder, rape, child molestation, and acid attacks.  The latter crime is intended by the perpetrator to be a fate worse than death.  The morally appropriate punishment for these crimes is death.    

But there is a legitimate argument against imposing the death penalty: the risk of an innocent person being executed.  It is imperative that a judicial system assure a fair trial and include robust checks and balances.  This is especially true for cases that might result in the death penalty.  Even after accepting the moral appropriateness of the ultimate penalty, a society must then decide if it has sufficient confidence in its justice system to include this as a punishment.  This is indeed the rub.

Would I impose the death penalty for the aforementioned crimes if I was certain of a person’s guilt?  Yes.  More importantly, I’d be willing to carry out the punishment myself.