Legal murder: the deterrent argument
Obviously
encouraging deterrence is not the only justification for punishment in
general. Criminals are incarcerated primarily on the basis of a social
contract. If one cannot abide by the rules, one must re-locate oneself
in areas where the rules do not apply. If such a place does not exist,
then the transgressor must be kept away. That’s what jails are for. The
period of incarceration is determined after considering the nature of
the transgression. It is assumed that some appropriate time in the
cooler will sober up the individual sufficiently to warrant release.
Warning signs
Punishment, however, is not only for wrongdoer but for the potential
wrongdoer. This is why we often see warning signs where citizens are
informed about the possible consequences of particular transgressions.
In the case of the death penalty, it is assumed that a general
understanding that taking a life might cost you your own would make the
potential murderer think twice before burying the hatchet for all time,
so to speak.
Is that how it works, though?
Most murders are crimes of passion, spur-of-the-moment executions. In
such cases where split-second decisions are made to murder someone, the
murderer cannot have the time or the inclination to reflect on possible
consequences. Indeed, in some instances, the murderer has already
justified the act, especially when murder is committed in a fit of
jealousy or out of political conviction, and most importantly is ready
to face the death penalty. The existence of capital punishment,
therefore, will not deter such people from committing murder.
Death penalty
In the case of premeditated murder, the transgressor is probably very
much aware of what awaits him/her in the event of being caught, charged
and found guilty. Once they’ve decided to act, all they are concerned is
about being effective in the execution of plan and in getting away. They
are undeterred.
There is another aspect that rebels against the deterrent argument:
squeamishness. If the death penalty is a mechanism which serves to deter
people from committing murder, then the most logical thing is the lay it
all before the public in ways that are so repulsive and are aimed at
manufacturing fear. Put simply, if deterrence is the issue, then public
executions are a must. In the times of vast strides in communications
technology, public executions can be complemented by complementary
publicity in all media, print and electronic.
Photo essays
Potential Murderer A, the argument implies, would be less likely to
kill Victim P if Convicted Murderer X is hanged at, say, Galle Face
Green and the entire proceedings shown live on television and commented
on via radio with live video streaming being made available online.
There can also be a before and after, to make sure that the point is
driven home. Newspapers can publish photo essays, along with quotes from
the closest family members of the executed. There could be before, while
and after photos, carried without any editing. If it’s a hanging and the
hanged urinated, that too should be captured and passed around (the
picture that is). What his/her face looked like before must be
juxtaposed with his/her death face. The ‘before’ element of the story
can include periodical interviews of the convicted, can enumerate on the
things that led to that terrible moment and carry quotes from the
murderer too.
The people (each and every one of them a potential murderer) must be
told what it was like for the prisoner, knowing the date and time of his
death as well the method of execution, and what he/she felt about this.
The murderers ‘every moment’ of incarceration must be recorded: the joys
and sorrows, the anxieties and justifications, the fears, the remorse
(if any) etc.
The point is that each and every one of us is a potential murderer.
If we are to stop ourselves and if staying the blow is contingent on
being fully conscious about the extremities of the consequences, then
the more we know, the better. We need to know of all the horrors that
the man or woman who is to be executed must necessarily suffer from the
moment the judge reads out the sentence to the point where he/she is
executed. If we are too squeamish, then we can’t use the deterrent
argument when justifying capital punishment.
There are two things I know for sure: a) the vast majority (all
potential murderers, let me repeat) would rather not see an execution
and b) the relevant authorities are equally averse to showing. Thus,
over and above the questions regarding capital punishment deterring
would-be murderers, most nations that sanction the barbarity seem
strangely averse to going the whole hog in using the act to plant
deterring seeds in the minds of the general public. Deterrence is a nice
thought, but is irrelevant to the issue at hand. At best, it stops with
the rhetoric.
www.malindawords.blogspot.com ([email protected]) |