Life, Death, Justice and the Meaning of Words
by George de Poor Handlery | View comments |
Print This Post
Is a life sentence in lieu of death an honest equivalent once “life” in practice means fifteen years, or reaching an age at which jail becomes unpleasant?
The ethical legitimacy of capital punishment is an emotional issue separating political camps and also nations. Both sides have good points, so the positions taken do not necessarily separate the idiots from the brainy, the blood-thirsty from the civilized or the resolute from the softie. While in individual instances these labels fit and as their mud sticks, they are habitually slung. This is the juncture when the keyboard tempts one to add to a debate in which nearly all has already been said. However, doing so would distract from a related issue that surfaced through recent news.
Let us begin by recalling an aspect of the argument. It is not the main canon in favor of the eradication of the death penalty but certainly a large torpedo fired in its support. The abolitionists like to claim that capital punishment has an equally severe but humanitarian alternative: a life sentence. The practical implementation of capital punishment has produced a number of tragic embarrassments. And that was not only because the measure has an inherently dangerous inadequacy. However, as shall be argued later, abuses also occur in the application of life sentences.
News that has received only inadequate analytic coverage provoked this essay. In the forefront stand two cases that are before a parole board, both of which became the subject of a request for clemency. In both instances the fates of condemned (Communist) terrorists are at issue.
Here the background: In the 1960s in West Germany it became clear to radical leftists that they could not take power by becoming a majority in free elections. A response might have been to adjust their platform to rally a majority. Instead, the revealing reaction was the APO, the Extra Parliamentary Opposition. Later, a step implied by the APO’s name was taken. The arrogant Leninist élite founded the RAF, the Red Army Fraction. The RAF carried the APO’s street violence to its logical, terrorist conclusion. The system the radical Left could not overthrow with ballots was to be destroyed by a political gang using other means. That was terrorism designed to strike the nerve-centers of a feebled democracy. The collapse of the edifice, once deprived of its supporting beams, was expected to follow.
Accordingly, in the Seventies blood flew in the streets and dramatic assassinations, kidnappings and plane-hijackings challenged democracy. Ultimately the “Bonny and Clyde” of German politics were apprehended. After exploiting the instruments that a democracy gave them to conduct their defense and to rally their prominent arm-chair supporters, the RAF’s surviving leaders landed in jail.
Here the narrative needs an addition. One of the RAF’s chiefs, a Monica Mohnhaupt, was released in 1977. Thankful for the lenience she went immediately underground. With the goal to extort the release of incarcerated terrorists, Mohnhaupt reorganized the RAF to practice violence on an elevated level. She led the ensuing actions of the RAF’s “war” and frequently acted as its executioner-in-chief. Finally, however, in 1982 the RAF’s struggle ended when she got caught. As a consequence, in 1985 Mohnhaupt, now 57, got five life sentences and an additional fifteen years. Christian Klar, an accomplice, also received five life sentences and will become eligible for parole in 2009. The number of years in jail get us to a new chapter of the story whose conclusion might already have occurred to the reader.
By some ways of thinking Mohnhaupt and Klar have suffered enough. Moreover, as a letter (Spiegel, 6/07) puts it, “Can a human being that has taken life atone? Thinking the Christian way we [emphasis added] must be able to forgive . . .” The prisoners as well as a vocal minority are now active to achieve two goals.
One of these is to reduce the punitive consequences of nine assassinations to a single, ho-hum murder. Second, a long stretch behind bars is qualified as inhuman and unusual punishment. By this way of thinking, while originally the sentence might have fit the crime, with the passing of time the judgment became iniquitous. This is the case because the growing present suffering of the convict, whose life lacks fulfillment, outweighs the fading interests of the lost-in-the-forgotten-past victims. Therefore the central issue becomes the burden imposed by the time served and the (partially age related) estimated probability of a relapse. Additionally, but given this standard not surprisingly, it is argued that it is irrelevant for the decision on early release whether the convict (1) shows remorse, (2) apologizes to the victim’s kin, (3) has clearly broken with his past, (4) or cooperates to clear still unsolved homicides. In the RAF case at issue this is crucial, as neither Mohnhaupt nor Klar have done any of the above. In general, the circles inclined to argue in favor of their release, like to claim in another context that prison's purpose is resocialization (and not punishment or revenge). If this standard is applied then M&K have not adjusted to society, its norms, and are therefore not rehabilitated to be returned to it.
While this was written a court has decided to free Mohnhaupt on parole. Klar’s request for clemency is before Germany’s President. It is safe prediction that, since Klar will be freed now , he will not have to serve till 2009 when the minimal time required would expire.
The discrepancy between the sentences and the time actually served — even in cases involving terrorism — is not a German problem alone. In Spain an ETA-leader’s case is getting attention: he received a 3,000-year sentence 1987 for 25 murders. For good behavior he was to be released after 18 years — a net savings of 2,982 years. In a new case, a court gave the still-inmate twelve years for issuing new death threats. A recent decision reduced the sentence to three years which means that the man will soon be free.
It is hoped that having shaken your head repeatedly and having lost your patience, you will still be in the mood to follow the writer to a brief conclusion. The hither presentation, regardless of calling attention to a scandal which could happen “anywhere,” was only meant to serve as the foundation for a general observation.
Let it be assumed that replacing capital punishment with life sentences leaves society with a sanction that serves its interests and justice adequately. By implication “adequate” means “equal to” or “higher than.” Additionally, let us ignore arguments that speak for and against capital punishment. According to the proposition, as a sanction a life in jail is to replace the taking of a life. A question arises at this juncture that every individual and also societies and their political classes must answer. Is a life sentence in lieu of death an honest equivalent once “life” in practice means fifteen years or reaching an age at which jail becomes unpleasant?
Not only the concrete cases presented suggest that, when “life” is presented as an alternative, not that is meant what seems to be claimed. Even if the diverse related issues are overlooked, ”life for fifteen-to-twenty years” is misleading and therefore dishonest. Unless, of course, by clarifying their position, the advocates make it clear that they mean not what seems to be implied, namely that “life” is “life time” but that they suggest instead “for a longer time” only. Society has a right and some, albeit not necessarily totally compelling reasons, to approve of long-term incarceration as an alternative to capital punishment. The writer’s complaint against the practice is only that societal consent for the abolishment of capital punishment has been secured by allowing the common man to believe that certain words will mean what they signify in their common sense context.
handlery@sunrise.ch
Read more articles by George de Poor Handlery
Even with life in prison, can inmates and guards be protected entirely from monsters? "If bloodless means are sufficient…" then life is perhaps a better replacement.
Small reductions in sentences ought to be granted to encourage good behavior. Either a standard deduction limit ought to be respected, or a second alternative sentence ought to be given for good behavior.
Some are too dangerous to release back upon society though.
A sharp punishment such as life provides a social stigma against certain crimes. I suspect it also appeases would-be vigilantes seeking justice.
Comment by Frank | February 25, 2007
I'm old enough to remember the violence that the Red Army Faction inflicted upon West Germany, and if anyone ever deserved life sentences it was RAF members. As Mr. Handlery points out, letting such people out undercuts arguments against the death penalty. As a Christian I agree anyone can gain redemption, but some should do it behind bars for the rest of their lives.
Comment by Joe Lammers | February 25, 2007
"Both sides have good points, so the positions taken do not necessarily separate the idiots from the brainy, the blood-thirsty from the civilized or the resolute from the softie."
This is true; however, where one stands on capital punishment *does* separate those who accept the Bible as the basis for our system of jurisprudence from those who do not. Whenever we claim to be more "moral" or "gracious" or "forgiving" or "merciful" than God, we are deluding ourselves. Opponents of capital punishment invariably take the position that it is barbaric and/or that the possibility of killing an individual that is not guilty exists, and hold themselves out to be more merciful at some level, often believing that there is some universal right to life that can never be forfeited except (possibly) in cases of self-defense. Nobody can accuse them of not being well-meaning. However, I can accuse them of rejecting portions of the Bible that they find personally distateful and of elevating their reason to be the supreme law rather than God's written directives.
I have never attempted to argue for or against the death penalty pragmatically. Does it deter? Is it more cost-effective than life incarceration? This is irrelevant to me. I have always held to it as an appropriate form of punishment because the Bible prescribes it. Period.
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 25, 2007
What is the Biblical defense of capital punishment? Not all Christians favour it.
Comment by Frank | February 25, 2007
What no one remembers is that punishment, any punishment, has three objectives: 1) to prevent the guilty from doing it again; 2) to send the message to everyone that society considers such behavior outrageous and will not tolerate it; 3) and for the guilty to provide society with restitution (notice I said society, not the injured party; that’s why criminal cases are called “The Peoplez,/u) vs. John Smith”, for example; and why his punishment is called “his debt to society”).
The guilty should not be released until all three are satisfied. Early release because “He’s s no longer a threat to society” completely undercut the other two.
Comment by sedonaman | February 25, 2007
Nevadamistermom,
"I have never attempted to argue for or against the death penalty pragmatically. Does it deter? Is it more cost-effective than life incarceration? This is irrelevant to me. I have always held to it as an appropriate form of punishment because the Bible prescribes it. Period."
I agree that a moral defense of the death penalty is possible. But surely a biblical prescription alone cannot be decisive. If it could, shouldn't we be stoning Sabbath violators?
Numbers 15:32-36: "While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, 'The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.' And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses."
Comment by Katzen | February 25, 2007
Sedonaman,
You forgot the fourth objective: retribution. This objective is the most important for making the case for the death penalty.
Comment by Katzen | February 25, 2007
The Lord commanded such though not the law.
I don't think even Orthodox Jews use capital punishment.
Comment by Frank | February 25, 2007
I did not say that we were duty bound to execute people for exactly the same reasons as found in the Old Testament. I merely said that if the Bible prescribes it as an allowable form of punishment, then I do not understand the so-called opposition of Bible-believing christians to it, particularly for the most heinous crimes. Again, my point was that when we claim to be more merciful than God or more compassionate or more understanding or more civilized, it reflects that we do not properly understand all aspects of God, including His moral laws and His justice.
Our system of jurisprudence was drawn primarily from Britain, which in turn drew primarily on the Judeo-Christian teachings of the Bible.
As to Frank's question, the Biblical defense of capital punishment, particularly for murder, pre-dates the Law of Moses. It can be found in Genesis 9:6 and dates to the time of Noah: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
My support of the death penalty is primarily when it is a punishment in conjunction with murder, because it involves the shedding of blood and God established the above precedent. I don't claim to understand why it is necessary to shed blood in order to satisfy God's justice. I am merely pointing out that it is clearly more than the cermonial laws of Moses and there is an aspect of it that transcends simply punishment.
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 25, 2007
All of you are missing some salient points:
# 1) You cannot have a JUSTICE system that does not hand out the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. Unfortunatly, we no longer have a system of justice, we have a system of re-socialization, which precludes justice for society and the victim.
#2) Sentences for the worst of offenders were never meant to be anything other than the removal of the offender from society and his punishment. Prison was never meant to be a playground.
#3) The idea that society (or the state) should never be the agent of death for an individual is ludicrous. Why do we have a military, or armed policemen? The recent death of the young supposedly brain-dead woman in Florida (I forget her name) by state-sponsored judicial fiat also puts to shame this argument.
#4) The idea the society must be Christian and "forgive" a death-deserving offender of it's highest laws is an atheistic argument to make Christians feel guilty. We can "forgive" the offender, while at the same time, allowing his punishment to be carried out. Forgiveness implies letting go of the pain the offender has caused me; it in no way implies absolution. Punishment, for the sake of the offender as well as for society, MUST be carried out, and death should be one of those punishments.
#5) You cannot have a law without appropriate punishment, else, why the law at all? Note the word appropriate: death for breaking the speed limit is a bit much, but parole for a deviant after 9 or 10 years who viciously removed someone's child from the earth for his own twisted ends or delights is also vastly inapprpriate.
Comment by daverock | February 26, 2007
Nevadamistermom,
You say you don't understand why bible-believing Christians object to the death penalty, since it is clearly permitted by the bible. Well, I still don't understand why bible-believing Christians object to the death penalty for doing work on the Sabbath, since it is not only permitted, but commanded, by the bible.
God's justice, as represented in the bible, is often a very unappealing thing.
daverock,
1. What is the "ultimate crime?" Moreover, what is the "ultimate punishment?" Death, because it's the most feared? Why not torture? Why not a lingering death? Why not kill the murderer in exactly the same barbaric way he killed his victim?
2. True, and while I think we may in some instances coddle inmates, prison is hardly fun.
3. Terri Schiavo was not killed by judicial fiat. She died because her brain was mush, and state law places the decision of whether to continue medical support in the hands of her next of kin. All the court did was to deny a petition to ignore Michael Schiavo's decision. It would have been a judicial fiat that kept her "alive." Re: the military, there is a discernable moral distinction between killing a soldier in combat and killing a prisoner in captivity. I agree that to say the state should "never be the agent of death for an individual" is ridiculous, but no one except a pacifist (I think there are about 5 of these) makes that argument.
4 and 5. Fair enough.
Comment by Katzen | February 26, 2007
Katzen,
"Well, I still don’t understand why bible-believing Christians object to the death penalty for doing work on the Sabbath, since it is not only permitted, but commanded, by the bible."
To be honest, I have had the same questions about portions of the Old Testamament as far back as I can remember. I understand the difference between "ceremonial" laws, such as sacrifices (which were merely symbolic of Jesus Christ and passed away after his death and resurrection), and moral laws (such as the 10 commandments), but still have questions about things such as punishments for breaking the Sabbath. I will attempt to find an answer from a reputable and scholarly source and post it here when I do - as much to satisfy my own questions as yours.
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 27, 2007
While not claiming to be a Bible scholar, I do have some input, Nevada. Quite simply, we are not Jews. America is not a Jewish nation. Katzen is throwing up a red herring.
We are not under mosaic law: "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ… by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:4-7
People are not governed by external rules. After all, what law has ever prevented a lawless man from breaking the law? Jesus' death and resurrection planted the law in our hearts, so we are no longer governed by the external, but by the internal.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 28, 2007
Mountain Man,
I yield to you on Christian theology. But what explains Christian disapproval of homosexuality? I could be wrong, but I believe only the Old Testament contains a prohibition on it.
I certainly did not say America is a Jewish nation, and I don't see where my "red herring" is. Nevadamistermom claimed that explicit biblical approval (in the Old Testament) made the death penalty ok. I pointed out another practice that has explicit biblical approval (in the Old Testament) and wondered why, under Nevada's stated view of biblical moral infalliabity, this second practice was any less ok.
To reiterate, here is the principle we are debating: If the Bible prescribes it, it is appropriate ("I have always held to [the death penalty] as an appropriate form of punishment because the Bible prescribes it. Period."). My example referencing something prescribed by the Bible was on point. You are the one throwing up the red herring.
Comment by Katzen | February 28, 2007
Katzen,
True, you did not say that America is a Jewish nation, but you wanted to know why Christians don't embrace Jewish Laws. Christians are not Jews. That's the answer. The red herring is to suggest that another culture's laws ought to apply.
As you no doubt know, there is a difference between a principle (a murderer deserves to die) and and expression of the principle in law (i.e., automatic appeal, cruel and unusual punishment, 1st degree murder). In Jewish culture, the law demanded certain kinds of punishment. That is them, we are us.
It is perfectly to accept the principle without accepting its expression in the laws of an ancient culture. So if the Bible says that certain kinds of evildoers should be put to death, and I believe the Bible, then the principle is mine to accept.
Same with homosexuality. It is worth mentioning, however, that Both Jesus and Paul the Apostle condemned sexual immorality, and Paul specifically condemned homosexual relations. A Greek word study would be profitable.
I'd be happy to explore this in further detail if you're interested. Perhaps outside of this forum. I've found you to be eminently reasonable and a thinking person in other posts on IC.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 1, 2007
Mountain Man,
I think I am beginning to understand. Is there some doctrine in Christianity which distinguishes between portions of the Old Testament binding on Christians and portions not binding on Christians? I recall from my own religious education that something like 613 commandments in the Old Testament apply to Jews, but only the famous 10 apply to gentiles.
I still think, though, that my point about a moral practice needing more than just biblical prescription stands. There are indeed things clearly prescribed in the Bible that very few, if any, of us would condone. If certain prescriptions in the Bible are irrelevant to Christianity, that would affect my understanding of Nevadmistermom's support for the death penalty for murder and not for Sabbath stick-collectors, but it would not affect my point about the inadequacy of a mere prescription in the Bible.
Perhaps Christianity has already done the dirty work for us, and filtered all immoral prescriptions in the Bible, and what Nevadamistermom meant to say was that a practice is moral if it is prescribed in the Bible, and that prescription is valid under Christian doctrine.
Comment by Katzen | March 1, 2007
Katzen,
I think I answered your question. The prescriptions of ancient Mosaic law do not apply to anyone except those who lived in ancient Israel.
But the principles (i.e., murder is wrong, theft is wrong, adultery is wrong) are valid for today, because moral principles cannot change. The laws of our land prescribe the penalty for our society. Our laws and constitution grant authority to the government to execute criminals.
Even though the O.T. seems to be full of rules and judgments, we still find hints of something else. For example, Jeremiah 31:33 says, "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."
I wouldn't say that any part of the Bible is irrelevant for Christians. Some of it is boring, other parts are puzzling, and still others are elegant and amazing. I would not let the limits of my understanding define for me what is acceptable, egregious, delightful, or worthy of dismissal.
There is a thread of thought throughout the Bible that illustrates a deeper theme than simply what a person should or should not do. According to the Bible, it is nonsense to those who do not believe, but it is God's power to save for those with faith.
Sorry, I don't intend to bog you down with a theological dissertation. But I think that you are suggesting a dichotomy where none exists.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 2, 2007
“So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ… by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” Romans 7:4-7
Yes, but Matthew 5:18 states the following:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
How do Bible literalists recognize these seemingly contradictory statements? I'm not at all trying to disprove your point, since, as far as I can see, neither verse overrides the other. I'm genuinely curious.
Comment by pterygotus | March 9, 2007
pterygotus,
Again, I am no Bible scholar, this is one man's opinion. I'll try to avoid the wierd "christianese" language.
I don't think I see that the first passage saying the law will pass away. It simply says that those who are included in the Body of Christ are dead to the law. The law is still there, which is what the second passage confirms.
Basically, a law describes right and wrong. Breaking the law means punishment. Nobody is perfect, so nobody can obey every law. Therefore, one cannot please God by following all the rules, or by doing the best you can, or by trying hard.
In God's economy, breaking His law means a single punishment: death. So if I die, the law has been satisfied. And of course, if someone else volunteers to take my punishment, the law is also satisfied.
The Bible teaches that the death of Christ fulfilled the law. He died to put the judgment against us upon himself. The resurrection brings us life through him. That's that "born again" thing, if you can stand the cliche. Because our life is now derived from Jesus, we are therefore dead to the condemnation of the law.
Did that explain it? Thing is, this all requires faith in certain propositions, and faith can be hard to come by in these cynical times.
All I'm doing is answering your question, not trying to convert you. I'm guessing that you probably have other examples of seeming contradictions. That's fine, I'll do my best to explain.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 13, 2007