What do Murderers Deserve?

In a responsible society, the death penalty has its virtues

A Texas woman, Karla Faye Tucker, murdered two people with a pickax, was said to have repented in prison, and was put to death. A Montana man, Theodore Kaczynski, murdered three people with mail bombs, did not repent, and struck a bargain with the Justice Department: He pleaded guilty and will not be executed. (He also attempted to murder others and succeeded in wounding some, myself included.) Why did we execute the penitent and spare the impenitent? However we answer this question, we surely have a duty to ask it.

And we ask it—I do, anyway—with a sinking feeling, because in modern America, moral upside-downness is a specialty of the house. To eliminate race prejudice we discriminate by race. We promote the cultural assimilation of immigrant children by denying them schooling in English. We throw honest citizens in jail for child abuse, relying on testimony so phony any child could see through it. We make a point of admiring manly women and womanly men. None of which has anything to do with capital punishment directly, but it all obliges us to approach any question about morality in modern America in the larger context of this country's desperate confusion about elementary distinctions.

Why execute murderers? To deter? To avenge? Supporters of the death penalty often give the first answer, opponents the second. But neither can be the whole truth. If our main goal were deterring crime, we would insist on public executions—which are not on the political agenda, and not an item that many Americans are interested in promoting. If our main goal were vengeance, we would allow the grieving parties to decide the murderer's fate; if the victim had no family or friends to feel vengeful on his behalf, we would call the whole thing off.

In fact, we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher Robert Nisbet wrote: “Until a catharsis has been effected through trial, through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and, above all, contaminated.”

When a murder takes place, the community is obliged to clear its throat and step up to the microphone. Every murder demands a communal response. Among possible responses, the death penalty is uniquely powerful because it is permanent. An execution forces the community to assume forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech that allows no waffling or equivocation.

Of course, we could make the same point less emphatically, by locking up murderers for life. The question then becomes: Is the death penalty overdoing it?

1/23/2020 4:05:56 AM

what is the selection's thesis/claim? It's an argument based on the Ethos. Rate your selection's effectiveness/persuasiveness on a scale 1-10. I'm giving it a 10 because it's a very strong argument case. Rate the credibility(ethos) of this piece. What contributed to/detracted from the credibility? The credibility score for me is a 10, My reason for that is when they started talking about religion in the case and stating that forgiveness is not an option when you murder someone and it is an option. Who is the audience in this piece? How do you know this/Why do think this? The jury and the people in the courtroom is the audience. I know this for a fact because 2 people is being tried for murder. I think this because when you have a case like this you have an audience to observe the people and the case. And what of audience are you? I'm a Pathos audience, why I said that because I strong opinions about some things that was said about this case that I didn't like. Has the piece altered or affected your stance on the death penalty? Why or why not? Yes the piece has altered affected my stance the way I feel about death penalty. Why it affected because they said that forgiveness is not an option and it is because God forgives us for our sins and the bible states that thou shall not kill. Yes the strategy was very effective. Yes to see other views and opinions on death penalties. No I think the argument had everything it needed, it had strong point and views about the case.

Facebook Instagram Twitter