|
|
Select the essay:
Now that we've executed the 1000th murderer since 1976, during which time 600,000 murders have been committed, according to the Justice Department, a few comments on the subject are in order.
I support capital punishment out of respect for human life. Sounds kind of weird, doesn't it?
Yet that's the very reason it was instituted: "Whosoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For [here's the reason] in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6).
If man didn't bear God's image, it would be no big deal to take his life, as famous social Darwinists, who don't have their own system of morality, hold. As the famous atheist evolutionist Robert Ingersoll, who believed that nothing was inherently immoral, wrote: "Morality is born of the instinct of self-preservation. Murder will be regarded as a bad thing as long as the majority object to be murdered."
And it would be just as bad to take the life of an animal as a human, as PETA holds. But if we respect the divine image in human life, we must appreciate the foundation of the death penalty-respect for human life.
Many say it's not a deterrent, and I agree, the way we practice it. Out of every 1000 murders in Texas, let's say that 600 of the perpetrators are apprehended, 200 reject a plea bargain and go to trial, 100 are found guilty, and 20 are actually sentenced to death.
After all the appeals, 14-24 years later, 5 of them are actually executed. By then, the victim's family and the witnesses are dead, and the witnesses, judge and jury are all in nursing homes. Nobody remembers who the perpetrator was. Nope, not much deterrence.
But what if the punishment was much closer to the crime? Solomon said, "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil" (Eccl. 8:11).
You don't have to believe the Bible to believe this. When you're on a trip and see warnings to reduce speed in a construction area, what does every single driver do when they see a patrolman parked on the shoulder with the engine running?
Even dim morons slow down, don't they? They know if they blow on through the area at high speed, the punishment will be swift and sure! There is a deterrent value to speedy punishment! The same thing is true of capital punishment. If carried out swiftly, the deterrent value will return.
When I lived in Washington State, one murderer in 1981, Mitchell Rupe, shot mother and daughter bank employees to death in front of many witnesses. He was caught, found guilty, and duly sentenced to death by hanging.
Rupe then used his commissary privileges to buy Twinkies and soon raised his weight to 400 pounds, at which point his lawyer successfully argued that hanging such an obese man would result in his decapitation, which was surely cruel and unusual punishment. The Twinkie Defense worked, and decades later, Rupe was still alive, and the state was stymied!
I couldn't resist, and wrote the local liberal rag, and suggested the following $25 solution: "Out of respect for human life, particularly that of Mitchell Rupe's victims, and because our criminal justice system seems to be outwitted by Rupe's weight-gaining ploy, I submit the following economical solution for hanging obese death-row inmates."
"Instead of having Rupe stand on the trapdoor underneath the large eyebolt in the ceiling, simply let him stand beside the trap door with the noose around his neck. Have the rope go up over a large pulley attached to the eyebolt, then down to a 250-pound weight (sand would do nicely) resting on the trap door. The executioner could open the trapdoor as before, and regardless of Rupe's weight, he would be hung as a 250-pound man. Same executioner, same rope, same eyebolt, same trapdoor, same price, except for the $25 pulley. I imagine we could even find a citizen to supply that to the state."
Of course, Seattle Pravda wouldn't publish that one, and the resulting delay in his execution hasn't resulted in much deterrence to others. On the other hand, it shows no more respect for the life of that mother and daughter than if they had been feral cats.
I'm betting my solution would fly in Amarillo. Every physicist at Pantex would vouch for the mechanics of it. The Twinkie Defense wouldn't get far in Texas.
When I retired and came back to the Panhandle, all my friends teased, "How come you're leaving God's Country and moving back to Satan's Sandbox?"
For one reason among many, it's so nice to be back where common sense still exists.
P.S. Rupe finally died in early February 2006, after a quarter century in prison--from liver disease. (1) Ingersoll, Robert, Works, VII, p. 211.
Why Have Penitentiaries Anyway?
Samuel G. Dawson
Most people realize that the court and penal systems in North America are seriously broken and must be fixed, yet contemplating doing away with penitentiaries sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
Barely 200 years ago, an experiment began which has cost us untold billions of dollars. Just last year, this experiment resulted in 1.4 million adults incarcerated in federal and state penitentiaries (a figure which has quadrupled since 1980) at a cost of nearly $40,000 each.
As Alan Eisner pointed out in a recent Washington Post article, 2.2 million people are engaged in catching criminals and putting and keeping them behind bars, and "corrections" has become one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy, employing more people than the combined work forces of General Motors, Ford, and Wal-Mart, the three biggest corporate employers in the country. In many "prison town" counties, the No. 1 employer is the Department of Corrections.
This is a staggering expense of more than $50 billion, an amount that increases by additional billions for each year of the past 25 years of explosive prison growth.
As the prison population ages, the taxpayer is paying for medical procedures inmates can't afford, and the victims of these criminals receive no compensation at all.
Few realize that the first penitentiary in the world was founded in Philadelphia in 1792. Jails had always existed for the purpose of holding the accused until trial, after which the guilty would pay a fine, make restitution to the victim, be banished, be executed, etc. However, the concept of warehousing criminals to cause them to repent was entirely new.
Imagine a criminal justice system where penitentiaries didn't even exist, but where a person paid for his crimes rather than having society pay to keep him incarcerated.
One such nation existed. If you stole someone's property, say a sheep, and were caught with the animal in your possession, you repaid the victim with two sheep, but you didn't go to a penitentiary. The victim also got a financial settlement, satisfying the desire for victim restitution in our time.
If you sold the stolen sheep, thereby being more involved in the crime, you paid the victim four sheep.
If you committed a capital crime, (murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.) you paid with your life, but you didn't go to a penitentiary. Such facilities didn't exist in this nation. They were not needed.
Such a system would completely do away with our newest growth industry, penitentiaries, and restore the victim of crime financially.
I'm not going to tell you where I got the idea for this system, but it's from a reliable source. Of course, it will never happen here because a powerful lobby has grown up around the prison system that will fight hard to protect the status quo. Correction officers have formed powerful labor unions, and their financial contributions to our politicians will easily outweigh the will of the people.
I know, I know. I'm such a young man to be so cynical.
An Eye for an Eye--We Should Be so Lucky!
Samuel G. Dawson
You may remember that I'm the guy who supports capital punishment out of respect for life (Genesis 9:6). Saddam Hussein has received a death sentence, and the Vatican feels obligated to announce that this is a "throwback to 'an eye for an eye' vengeance."
I know the Vatican thinks we can't understand the Bible for ourselves; my problem is that I know you can, and that in this case, the Vatican does not. If you accept the Vatican's assertion, I suggest you read Deuteronomy 19:21. You'll find that the "eye for an eye" rule had nothing whatever to do with personal vengeance, but was a restriction to the judges of Israel to keep them from "overdoing" justice, like giving the death penalty for knocking someone's tooth or eye out.
This principle was inaugurated in the same passage which commanded capital punishment to Israel in Exodus 21. The death penalty was reserved for someone who took someone else's life.
The Vatican should hold God and his law in higher esteem than to assert that capital punishment is a throwback to barbarism.
© 2005-2006 by Samuel G. Dawson. Originally published in Amarillo Globe News, Amarillo, Texas. These articles may be freely reproduced only in their entirety, including the following paragraph.
[Samuel G. Dawson is the author of several books on the way of Christ without nondenominationalism, including Fellowship: With God and His People: The Way of Christ Without Denominationalism and Denominational Doctrines: Explained, Examined, Exposed; along with Christians, Churches & Controversy: How to Navigate Personal & Doctrinal Differences. His respect for how many New Testament subjects reflect a basis in the Old Testament has given him insight for writing Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: The Uniform Teaching of Moses, Jesus, and Paul, The Teaching of Jesus: A Faithful Rabbi Urgently Warns Rebellious Israel and How to Study the Bible: A Practical Guide for Independent Study. All these materials are available at www.gospelthemes.com.]