Austin Sarat, a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, says in his book, When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition, "For too long, opposition to capital punishment has been rooted in arguments that are either too abstract or too removed from cultural common sense. In the first instance, abolitionists have claimed that capital punishment violates basic rights and the human dignity of those convicted of capital crimes."
By making this argument, foes of the death penalty have had to ally themselves with sadistic murderers like Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Timothy McVeigh. As Sarat observes, "This is hardly a way to move public opinion to reject the death penalty."
Moreover, by arguing that capital punishment does not deter crime, death penalty opponents seem to be going against common sense, which tells us that "if I am afraid to die, then those who are tempted to murder must also be afraid to die through capital punishment."
Religious opponents of capital punishment also attempt to ensure high moral ground by insisting that the executions of murderers is barbaric, uncivilized, and cruel and unusual punishment. Some religious thinkers, though, see the moral issue of capital punishment from a different perspective.
For example, C.S. Lewis, the eminent Christian man of letters, said that it is because we respect the inherent dignity of human beings and the sacredness of human life that we must support capital punishment. There is a big difference, he observed, between charity and effeminate sentimentality and between kindness and generosity, on the one hand, and between weakness and lack of moral courage on the other.
People who make excuses for vicious criminals really are denying that human beings possess the inherent capacity to make choices and judgments. Instead, they are saying human that beings are not qualitatively different from or better than animals, that human beings are victims of their environments, upbringings or biological appetites. They are denying that human beings have the God-given ability to distinguish between right from wrong and act accordingly.
In my view, contrary to death penalty foes who imply they somehow are morally or spiritually superior because they oppose the executions of sadistic murderers, the death penalty is justified on moral grounds. When, for example, someone has raped and murdered a child, that person has relinquished his right to live. Capital punishment, in such a case, is an act of justice Ð not revenge Ð and demonstrates that a society and a legal system genuinely are dedicated to preserving and protecting the rights and safety of the people. Charity also must be displayed toward the victims of crimes and their families.
Second, and contrary to what Sarat maintains, the death penalty is justified because it helps deter crimes like premeditated murder. As the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover observed, "The professional law enforcement officer is convinced from experience that the hardened criminal has been and is deterred from killing based on the prospect of the death penalty."
Sgt. Steve Leonard, a veteran law enforcement officer in Mt. Prospect, Ill., supports Hoover's observation, noting that "we have to distinguish between premeditated and nonpremeditated murder. The death penalty may not deter nonpremeditated murder, but it certainly deters premeditated murder. If a woman is thinking of hiring a hit man to murder her husband so she can collect on his life insurance policy, the death penalty will make her think twice before doing anything so drastic."
A 1970-1971 study by the Los Angeles Police Department buttressed the contention that capital punishment deters premeditated murder. Ninety-nine criminals participated in the study, each giving his reason why he committed his crime unarmed or did not use his weapon. The study revealed a 5-to-1 ratio of deterrence over nondeterrence, as reported by the criminals themselves.
If the state has the moral right to authorize its citizens to wage a just war against Adolph Hitler, then the state also has the moral right to authorize the executions of sadistic murderers.
In a conversation with me, the late Vatican scholar Father Malachi Martin, S.J. pointed out that "strict justice" demands that murderers be executed. Punishment, if it is to be just, must fit the crime; that is, be proportionate to the crime committed. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, the only fair and just punishment for premeditated murder is the death penalty.
Haven Bradford Gow is a TV and radio commentator and religion teacher to children at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Greenville, Miss.