By Edwin Cooney
The last time I addressed the topic of capital punishment, I
had two notable responses.
The first response, which favored the continuance of the
death penalty in effect justifying and taking pleasure in Clayton D. Lockett’s
agony, dwelt on the horror of Lockett’s crime experienced by the victims,
living and dead.
The second notable response asserted that I had “elevated
the level of discussion on the topic.” I
tried to do that by asserting that sympathy for the victims of capital murder
is shared alike by the proponents and opponents of legal death; that more than
right or wrong, capital punishment is pointless; and that vanquishing one’s fear
of death is often an admirable quality since it is required by the police,
firefighters, soldiers, explorers and the practitioners of experimental science
as well as by those who would break the law by committing murder. Those guilty
of murder very often see themselves as the victims of outrageous fortune and
are thus beyond the ability to receive the message sent by the perpetuation of
capital punishment that their lives are in peril should they kill to avenge
their social or personal resentments.
I’ve since decided that the insistence on the part of pro
capital punishment advocates that the practice is necessary for the protection
of the good requires a cognitively lethal response.
Capital punishment is an ineffective, pointless, primitive, barbaric,
inhumane act of both deception and evil.
Wrapped in the cloak of sympathy for the victims of crime, capital
murder accomplishes little more than the perpetuation of the horror of murder. The celebration of the horrors of murder to
support capital punishment’s justification is inexcusable. Too many pro death penalty advocates wallow
in the anticipation of a death row inmate’s suffering. An execution in a civilized society should be
an act of sad necessity; instead, it is anticipated with relish by too many
among us.
Far too many proponents of the death penalty found
satisfaction in Lockett’s suffering which translates into the unfortunate
reality that there exists in Christian America a lot of joyous satisfaction in
human and even animal suffering. (Note how many times proponents of capital
punishment try to explain it away by referring to murderers as “animals.”) Even
worse is the self-righteousness of those who approve of capital punishment and
condemn legal abortion. If abortion
isn’t purified by legality, then murder can hardly be so purified or legitimatized
by an act of law. Ultimately, both
capital murder and abortion should be practices of the past. (It should be noted, however, that legal
abortion, squalid as it is, has a socially redeemable purpose which is the
prevention of lifelong disability that might be experienced by the unborn or
the diminishing of financial and emotional hardship on the part of those
already living.)
Here it is pure and simple: life is either sacred or it’s
not. That which is sacred cannot be
subjected to emotionally gratifying thrills of revenge. There is only one legitimate reason for
killing and that is to counteract or prevent murder already in progress. Because they were on the loose and dangerous
to the public at large, Bonnie and Clyde probably got what they deserved.
I have no argument with the contention that people deserve
ironclad protection from the murderous marauders amongst us. However, there exists a fierce argument against
the contention that we who oppose capital murder are somehow numb to the
anguish experienced by the victims of crime or sympathetic with the motives of those
currently on death row. My dreams
weren’t in the least affected by Lockett’s execution, but my conscience is
disturbed (as it should be) when the free society of which I’m a part
deliberately adopts a policy of spite!
Support for the families of victims of crime should be
designed for their emotional, spiritual and financial comfort rather than for encouraging
and justifying their understandably angry sorrow. What percentage of those who insist that they
sympathize with the victims of murder would support a program to provide money
to finance their economic, social and spiritual recovery? Shouldn’t public policy support that which
heals rather than that which appeals to the same troth of resentment from which
the murderer draws his or her energy? That
troth of angry sorrow and resentment feeds the motives and the satisfactions of
both the murderer and the murderer’s murderer!
You will note that in denouncing capital punishment I left
out a traditional argument -- that of its immorality. I did that for two reasons. First, proponents of capital murder already
believe themselves to possess the moral high ground. Second, if Pope John Paul II, whose capacity
for moral thought and behavior was obviously far superior to mine, couldn’t
convince them then, only God Almighty has any kind of a chance to change their
minds. After all, they know how to do
God’s work better than the “Holy Father.” Otherwise, they would have heeded his
moral judgment on capital punishment.
I was sorry to read the other day that President Obama would
be supportive of the death penalty if it were applied more equitably. According to Charles M. Blow in The New York
Times, we’ve executed 15,717 Americans since 1700. The peak year was 1935 when 200 people were
executed. Hanging is the method used the
most followed by electrocution and the firing squad. Hence, President Obama doesn’t seem to object
to the fact that the United States remains one of only nine nations throughout
all humanity that has executed its citizens in the last five years. For the
most part, these countries are the very ones both conservatives and liberals
alike would squirm from being associated with on any other list of
nations. They are Bangladesh, China,
Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen. How’s that for civil company!
Too many proponents of capital punishment or, as I prefer to
call it, legal murder take satisfaction in its existence rather than sorrow. They insist that they despise killers -- but
somewhere I’ve heard the observation that “imitation is the highest form of
flattery!”
Now, what the hell did I do with my brand new set of brass
knuckles?!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment