Here's a bit of good news that touches on the First Precept -- there are signs that support for capital punishment in the United States is, finally, unraveling. The number of executions in the U.S. is falling, and last year New Mexico repealed the death penalty entirely. But the most significant development, long term, may be that the American Law Institute has walked away from capital punishment.
Adam Liptak wrote in the New York Times that the American Law Institute is a group of about 4,000 judges, lawyers and law professors whose work greatly influences how law is shaped and interpreted. About 50 years ago, the Institute developed standards for capital punishment laws and procedures that were held up as models for the states.
However, recently the Institute voted to abandon its standards and its support for capital punishment. In the real world, the system is not fair and does not adequately safeguard against executing innocent people who were wrongly convicted.
Adam Liptak interviewed lawyers and legal scholars who explained that executions would not stop overnight. However, the American Law Institute had provided the only intellectual support of the practice. Without that support, law students from now on will be taught that the death penalty is a practical and moral failure. We can hope this will ripen into repeal of the death penalty a few years from now.
To me, the death penalty is problematic on several levels beyond the moral one. For example, if I were ever called to serve on a jury in a capital case, I would be dismissed as soon as I let the court know I could not impose the death penalty because it violates my religion.
It is widely believed that juries made up of people who favor the death penalty are more likely to find the defendant guilty. I understand some prosecutors will say they are seeking the death penalty at the beginning of a trial as a tool for choosing jurors more likely to convict, and then "change their minds" later. But this also suggests that defendants in capital cases are more likely to be wrongly convicted than those facing only imprisonment.
People still believe capital punishment prevents murders, and a recent, widely publicized study repeated that claim. However, other researchers quickly stepped forward to debunk it. To me, the deterrent argument is ridiculous when you realize that the U.S., one of the few industrialized democracies that continues the practice, has higher homicide rates than most of those other industrialized democracies that stopped executing people years ago.
What this says to me is that American culture favors violence as a "solution," and both the homicide rates and support for executions are symptomatic of that.
The Death Penalty Information Center has tables comparing homicide rates by state that show which states have the death penalty and which don't. On these tables I see no correlation whatsoever between homicide rates and capital punishment laws. I say the deterrence argument is delusional -- people see it when they want to see it.
That is good news. Thanks! It never ceases to amaze me how we can teach school children that America is the wisest and most just nation on Earth, when so many other countries abolished this barbaric practice years ago.
I continue to find myself seeing different sides to executions. While I do prefer to avoid executing people, having them locked up for life creates a burden on society (prisons are over populated, under staffed, and cost tax payers a lot) for people who will likely never contribute anything back to society. I also don’t think life in imprisonment is any more humane than a execution.
Ideally, I would like to see better rehabilitation, but some people cannot be helped (it’s a rarity, but the bigger issue is none get any form of help), and trying to contain these people while constantly putting innocent people in potential harm doesn’t look like a great solution. Many criminals who get released become repeat offenders. Various statistics have found this to be true. Locking them only accomplishes a temporary solution. Without changing the person (through rehabilitation), we are only asking for more crime.
So while I would like to completely avoid executions, I do sometimes feel they are an acceptable practice.
Kendall — regarding a burden to society — it’s also the case that capital cases are horrifically expensive:
Think of all the new prisons states could build with that money! (I’m joking, mostly)
I would like to see better rehabilitation, but some people cannot be helped
Who’s to say who can be helped? Judgments may vary. Do you know the story of Frankie Parker?
I thought of mentioning the cost of executions, but was trying to keep the post concise. Their costs have likely been inflated in an effort to ensure courts don’t overuse the death penalty (not a bad thing). There’s also several offices and signatures needed and the process takes many years in most cases (which your linked article shows as well), which also inflates the cost. The long process also helps ensure legal personnel and law enforcement have more time to discover if the person was found guilty falsely, which has happened a number of times. So, I’m certainly not saying they shouldn’t take their time.
I certainly wouldn’t want the job of declaring who can be helped and who is beyond help, but hopefully no one person would have that power. Though, like our jury setup, a group could come to consensus, using some process to decide this. I wouldn’t use randomly selected citizens though, but rather a panel of experts of academic areas like psychology, sociology, criminal justice, medicine, etc. It would be similar when a psychiatrist gives testimony in court as to whether or not a defendant is mentally capable of standing trial or has the mental facilities to understand the acts they committed.
I hadn’t heard about Frankie Parker, it happened back when I didn’t pay much attention to the news. While I do feel OK with some people being executed, I do not feel that all were beyond help, probably not even half if I were to take a guess. I have seen similar cases to Parker’s where the person truly had changed after the crime (and not just because they were facing death) and could become a productive and law abiding citizen. Unfortunately, it’s hard to find a defensible approach to determine the “good” from the “bad.” Which I’m sure was in part was what you’re getting at when saying, “Judgments may vary.” Our legal system simply does what it can.
Isn’t the notion that simply dispensing with someone’s physical body somehow “solves the problem” rather problematic, from a Buddhist perspective?
Barbara, I’m in the same boat as you. Very often, Christian clergy aren’t even allowed on juries. We’re just too much trouble, apparently.