I will start my version of a Pro Life defense by responding to this recent editorial by Jonah Goldberg: “Death penalty foes won’t take a stand in Colorado.” It was in Aurora, Colorado that James Holmes shot and killed 12 people (wounding many more) during a midnight showing of Batman: The Dark Knight Rises.
Within the following quoted material, I offer some bracketed comments.
QUOTE [I only quote the last portion of Goldberg’s essay, since that’s where he discusses the death penalty]:
These are good questions. But you know what debate seems conspicuously absent? Should we execute James Holmes?
[Perhaps this debate will take place when (if?) Colorado decides to seek the death penalty in this case.]
Death penalty opponents are fairly mercenary [yeah, Goldberg really wrote “mercenary,” which is borderline demagogic, though “calculating” would have been more appropriate] about when to express their outrage. When questions of guilt can be muddied in the media; when the facts are old and hard to look up; when the witnesses are dead; when statistics can be deployed to buttress the charge of institutional racism: These are just a few of the times when opponents loudly insist the death penalty must go. [If “these are just a few,” that must mean there are many more times when perhaps opponents are more upfront in their condemnation.]
But when the murderer is white or racist or his crimes so incomprehensibly ugly, the anti-death-penalty crowd stays silent. [Always? That’s quite a claim.] It's the smart play. If your long-term goal is to abolish the death penalty, you want to pick your cases carefully. [Of course you do, since your goal is to at least move those whom are rabidly pro-death-penalty to reconsider their position.]
[Goldberg is guilty of trying to group all opponents of the death penalty into a “crowd.” As you’ll see in my following comments, I will echo views which can be reasonably expected to be shared (at least in part) by many who absolutely oppose the death penalty.]
But the simple fact is, if the death penalty is always wrong, it's wrong in the politically inconvenient cases too. [I agree.]
The standards of newspaper writing and civic discourse require that we call Holmes the "alleged" culprit in this horrific slaughter. That's fine, but if the facts are what we've been told they are, then we know this man is guilty and the jury will not have a hard time saying so. [If I were to be on that jury and the death penalty was on the table, I would vote “not guilty.”]
We don't know whether he's mentally ill, but odds are he isn't. [The one possibility that Goldberg doesn’t mention: Was Holmes under some kind of mind control, not only when he (allegedly) did the deed but during the preceding time when he bought his guns and body armor, and booby trapped his apartment?]
Indeed, criminologists and psychiatrists will tell you that most mass murderers aren't insane. But the public debate is already caught up in a familiar tautology. [Goldberg’s next three sentences would be irrelevant if Holmes was acting under mind control.] What Holmes did was an act of madness, therefore he must be a madman. And if he's a madman, we can't execute him because he's not responsible for his actions. And if he's not responsible, then "society" must be. [Perhaps he and “society” are co-responsible, especially if part of that society (e.g., the CIA) had anything to do with the mind control possibility mentioned above.]
And we can't execute a man for society's sins. So: Cue the debate about guns, and funding for mental health, and the popular culture. [As for “funding for mental health,” the more important issue is: What are we going to do to make this country a better place in which to live so as to better nurture, on a broad scale, mental health?]
Well, I say enough. I favor the death penalty. I don't support killing insane or mentally disabled people who are truly not responsible for their actions, but I don't believe that committing an "act of madness" necessarily makes you a madman. But committing an act of wanton evil makes you an evil man. [Or it makes evil those who programmed someone to act under mind control.]
Evil and madness are not synonyms. Societies that cannot distinguish between the two are destined to get more of both.
If the death penalty is always wrong, let us have an argument about James Holmes, a man many Americans are aware of, informed about and interested in. [I’m about to give “us” that argument.] Let us hear why the inequities of the criminal justice system require his life be spared. Fight the death penalty battle on this battlefield. [No, Mr. Goldberg, not on “this battlefield,” for I believe the best arguments in this case have nothing to do with even mentioning the “inequities of the criminal justice system.”]
That won't happen. It won't happen in part because nobody on the Sunday talk shows wants to debate the death penalty when the case for it is strong. They like cases that "raise troubling questions about the legitimacy of the death penalty," not cases that affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty. [There are no cases that affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty, but (believe me) those “Sunday talk shows” wouldn’t dare have someone like me speaking my piece.]
But it also won't happen because death penalty opponents understand that when the murderer is unsympathetic, the wise course is to hold your tongue until the climate improves. [I disagree. I would never hold my tongue, instead preferring to try to educate my audience no matter how much (at least, initially) they might disagree with me. Who knows? The shock might help wake them up.]
It remains an open question whether Colorado will seek the death penalty. Prosecutors know that doing so would add years and millions of dollars in extra costs because opponents have so gummed up the legal works. [Those “opponents” didn’t gum up the works by themselves; they had plenty of help from lawmakers whom passed the enabling statutes.] That way they can complain about the outrageous costs of a mechanism they themselves have worked to make prohibitively expensive.
I say, let us give Holmes a fair trial. If convicted, execute him swiftly. [How about, “If convicted, execute him with as much deliberate speed as allowed by Colorado law?”] If you disagree, explain why this man deserves to live. [Here, I’ll drop a hint of something I’ll return to below: “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.]
[Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.]
:UNQUOTE: [NOTE: I didn’t revise Goldberg’s sentences, though I introduced breaks in some of his paragraphs for ease of reading.]
A Judaic perspective
Since Jonah describes himself as Jewish, I’ll highlight the example of Israel as one that perhaps he can appreciate. But first I want offer an impression of his essay (above). The man who wrote that might have been “Jewish” – that is, vaguely religious – but he is certainly not a Jew. The difference? Jonah seems to be more of a fierce defender of his tribal identity rather than of the tenets of his faith. The thrust of his essay is polarizing and seeks to inflame rather than invite honest answers to the issues he poses.
The following link to Wikipedia points out that only two executions have taken place in Israel since 1948 – Adolph Eichmann and Meir Tobianski. Meir was shot by a firing squad for treason, an offense for which he was posthumously exonerated!
This link also mentions this: “…in 1954 Israel abolished the penalty during peacetime with the exception of convictions of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the Jewish people.”
[A brief aside: I find it unusual that Israel would cite “crimes against [only] the Jewish people” as being worthy of the death penalty, especially since a sizeable minority of Israel’s citizens aren’t Jewish. I mean, why aren’t “crimes against the Islamic people” covered as well?]
I had no idea that Israel’s rate of execution for capital offenses was so low. Especially in view of the following from this link:
QUOTE:
Only in the case of premeditated murder was there the added stricture of 'Do not accept a ransom for the life of the murderer who deserves to die' (Num 35:31). . . . Traditional wisdom, both in the Jewish and Christian communities, interpreted this [Biblical] verse in Numbers 35:31 to mean that out of the almost twenty cases calling for capital punishment in the Old Testament, every one of them could have the sanction commuted by an appropriate substitute of money or anything that showed the seriousness of the crime, but in the case of what we today call first-degree murder, there was never to be offered or accepted any substitute or bargaining of any kind: the offender had to pay with his or her life.
:UNQUOTE.
Even though, as cited as the last words in the preceding paragraph, “the offender had to pay with his or her life,” that hasn’t been the case in Israel for over 60 years. This is because the rabbinical tradition has come down increasingly strongly in opposition over the years starting at least as early as Maimonides. It seems the idea is to avoid the death penalty unless absolutely sure of guilt – and then the rabbis got more conservative than that! But apparently not conservative enough soon enough to save Meir Tobianski’s life in 1948.
Given that half of Israel’s (two) executions since 1948 were a mistake, I’m surprised Israel doesn’t come right out with an absolute ban on the death penalty under any and all circumstances. “But surely,” you might ask, “didn’t Adolph Eichmann deserve to die?”
I answer that with an emphatic “No! Killing him won’t bring back the dead. And keeping him alive, though in prison for a life sentence, could have yielded certain benefits. The most obvious among these: a prolonged opportunity to obtain detailed information from Eichmann about his deeds and who else was involved. And, hopefully, once he realized he wouldn’t be executed, a chance to learn how someone like him thinks. A more subtle benefit, though perhaps the most profound, Israel could claim:
“‘On the battlefield, we will kill you. As a helpless prisoner of ours, you have only to worry about what God will do to you. And we gratefully leave that in His hands.’”
Of course, sparing Eichmann would have required of Israel a tremendous leap of faith. But perhaps not so at this time. Considering Israel’s long-standing official policy on executions versus the number actually executed, this leap if taken now would be relatively small. And it would serve to contrast that country nobly against its enemies which seem all-to-ready to execute for the smallest of reasons.
Not a bad deal, which I urge Israel to strongly consider.
In a more Christian vein
Here I cite: “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.” That’s a common paraphrasing of this, as quoted from the New International Version (© 1984) of the Bible (Romans 12:19): “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.’”
I like the part about leaving “room for God’s wrath,” which could be a subset of “leave room for God.” But we don’t do that very often, since our overinflated egos and senses of self-righteousness virtually demand that we do God’s work instead of Him – and not leave Him any damn room at all.
Even if James Holmes isn’t under mind control and isn’t insane, if the court finds him guilty it should still not kill him. Yes, put him in prison for life if you wish. And perhaps even parole him if the Colorado governor, who has that authority, happens to be a Christian who comes to believe that Holmes embraces Jesus while incarcerated and becomes saved. Such a governor would have to be very sure and also have a great deal of political courage to free such a man. But isn’t salvation in this life supposed to be more than just a possibility – that it’s supposed to be guaranteed?
Imagine this: Wouldn’t it be something if James Holmes (say, 10 years down the line) were to be pardoned and, in an act of homage, go to the theater he’d shot up in order to see a midnight revival screening of (you guessed it) Batman: The Dark Knight Rises?
At present, though, judging from the bile spewing forth on the web, there mustn’t be very many forgive-and-forget type of Christians out there.
A Buddhist’s point of view
The “Buddhist” I’m referring to here is me. However, take that with a grain of salt since I am a solo practitioner who comes from a “sect” containing exactly one member (me) with no teachers except the book known as the Lotus Sutra. I’m sure, though, that mainstream Buddhists would embrace what I’m about to say.
This link connects to the interesting story of Angulimala, a mass murderer (999 victims) who lived in India during the lifetime of Shakyamuni Buddha:
Named at birth Ahimsaka, he became known as Angulimala (“necklace of fingers”) due to his habit of taking a finger from each of his victims and stringing it on a necklace which he wore around his neck. His goal was to collect 1,000 such fingers. This quote from the link describes what happens after the Buddha converted Angulimala:
QUOTE:
Later, King Pasenadi (the king of Kosala) set out to find and kill Angulimala. He stopped first to pay a visit to the Buddha and his followers at the monastery where they dwelled. He explained to the Buddha his purpose, and the Buddha asked how the king would respond if he were to discover that Angulimala had given up the life of a highwayman and become a monk. The king said that he would salute him and offer to provide for him in his monastic vocation. The Buddha then revealed that Angulimala sat only a few feet away, his hair and beard shaven off, a member of the Buddhist order. The king, astounded, offered to donate robe materials to Angulimala, and then returned to his palace.
[AND]
However a resentful few could not forget that he was responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Unable to win revenge through the law, they took matters into their own hands. With sticks and stones, they attacked him as he walked for alms.
With a bleeding head, torn outer robe and a broken alms bowl, Angulimala managed to return to the monastery. The Buddha encouraged Angulimala to bear his torment with equanimity; he indicated that Angulimala was experiencing the fruits of the karma that would otherwise have condemned him to hell...
:UNQUOTE.
Ironically enough, if someone had managed to kill Angulimala when he had attained the stage of arhat, that person would have committed one of the Five Cardinal Sins of Buddhism – killing an arhat. The penalty for that would be an extremely long stay in the Hell of Incessant Suffering. Buddhists believe that karma will take its course, which is one reason why they don’t believe in capital punishment.
They had it coming to them
Karmically speaking, there is no such thing as an innocent victim. That must mean that all of the people killed by James Holmes had it coming to them. Of course that’s hard to accept in the case of the youngest victim, six years of age. But a Buddhist believes in karma, which means that nothing happens without a reason – even though that reason might have occurred many lifetimes ago. For instance, that six-year-old, in a prior life, might have committed a murder for which she now paid the price. By dying a premature death, a great deal of negative karma can be erased which will allow the person, after being reincarnated, to pursue the path of enlightenment with that much less of a karmic burden.
I would have to conclude that the patrons of that theater must have had really great karma, since only twelve people died. I do not say “only” in any attempt to trivialize this massacre; but when compared to what the death toll could have been had Holmes’ gun not jammed, I’d say the audience got off very lightly.
Practical Reasons for sparing James Holmes
I will leave it to the courts to determine if James Holmes is guilty as charged. If he is found guilty, then we would have much to gain by keeping him incarcerated for life. I am highly suspicious when people urge (as Jonah Goldman has) that Holmes be executed swiftly. That smacks of a desire to hide the evidence. For if Holmes killed all those people while under the influence of a (for example) CIA mind control experiment gone wrong (or gone right, as the case may be), that evidence would vanish upon his death – especially if he were to be cremated (and, I am predicting, that is exactly what will happen).
It is extremely rare to actually capture a mass murderer. I feel we should take full advantage of his captivity to learn as much as we can about why he did what he did, and to see if someone like that can actually be rehabilitated.
As for the Death Penalty in general
I’ll open here by quoting this article by Amnesty International (Friday, June 19, 2009) as linked here:
QUOTE:
Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment. And the few recent studies purporting to prove a deterrent effect, though getting heavy play in the media, have failed to impress the larger scientific community, which has exposed them as flawed and inconsistent.
:UNQUOTE.
Insistence on the death penalty contributes to an increasing level of meanness in our culture. Sure, we’re at war and that helps harden people, but it’s more than that. National politicians routinely and rudely snipe at each other. Anti-Muslim sentiment is rampant. Kids post YouTube videos of beatings that they and their friends participate in. And there’s a marked decline in the appreciation of finesse and subtlety – yielding to the love of brute force and immediate gratification.
I have no problem boldly defending my stand against the death penalty. Even though Jonah Goldberg challenges us with, “If you disagree, explain why this man deserves to live,” I challenge him right back by asking, “And who are you to explain why anyone ‘deserves’ to die?”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party
“We don’t need to concern ourselves with who should die as much as with how we can go about improving the spiritual quality of life for everybody – and I don’t just mean for Americans only.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment