May 07, 2004

On a recent early Saturday morning, I was doing what I usually do most early Saturday mornings, which was having a little quiet time, enjoying a cup of coffee, while the rest of the family slept late. While sitting there, I decided to turn on the TV and see what the Revisionist Channel (a.k.a., the History Channel) had to offer. I have mixed feelings about the History Channel because they so often give biased presentations of history, rather than having just the facts given, or giving varying angles and perspectives on a particular historical event. (I will say that the one show they have that never lets me down is ‘Mail Call.’ Gotta’ love R. Lee Ermy!) Never the less, I sometimes enjoy what the History Channel has to offer and figured I’d see what was showing early in the morning.

The History Channel was running a show about the history of executions. The show was focused on the methods used to execute criminals, and how those methods changed over the centuries. The show talked not just about the methods, such as beheading, hanging, electrocution, gas, etc., but also the public display of executions. At one point, the show got into the effect executions had on the general public.

This naturally (or perhaps not so much naturally, as it was planned) led to the discussion of whether or not the death penalty did anything to deter people from killing. One ‘expert’ made what was a completely idiotic statement. The ‘expert’ said, “There is no evidence that the death penalty has prevented even one murder.” This was said as if he was on solid ground in refuting the use of executions for punishing murderers. It was the comment of a non-thinking simpleton who was so arrogant that he never considered having to face anyone questioning his position. And the History Channel obliged him by not providing an opposing view.

Well here’s one fellow who not only opposes the view of this pathetic excuse for an ‘expert,’ but is about to knock his socks off with a rebuttal.

Point One: The ‘expert’ claimed a negative, which is hard to prove. I’m sure in his thinking, it would be hard to disprove. If the death penalty truly deterred someone from killing, how would we know, unless the individual decided to broadcast the fact? Announcing they were deterred by fear of the death penalty from committing a murder would likely bring trouble on the deterred killer, and they obviously wouldn’t have wanted the attention, or they most likely would have gone ahead and killed the person they were ‘deterred’ from killing. The ‘expert’s position is illogical.

Point Two: If I was to follow through with this ‘expert’s logic, then laws against rape, theft, embezzlement, speeding, and practically every other crime is a useless deterrent, as those crimes continue to take place even though we have laws against them. How many people have come forward and declared they were deterred from committing these other crimes because of the punishment for committing them? If the ‘expert’s’ goal was to denounce the legitimacy of using the death penalty based on its deterrent capabilities, then we could denounce the legitimacy of practically all laws, because based on his standard, they don’t deter people from continuing to commit acts society finds unacceptable.

Point Three: The establishment of punishments for committing crimes is just that: a punishment for behaving in a manner that society has deemed unacceptable. The act of deterring crime is not the primary purpose of creating and enforcing rules for punishing lawbreakers. At most, the idea of people avoiding breaking the law so as to not face punishment (deterrence) is a minor benefit, but is still only effective if people know that the laws will be enforced, and the punishment will be carried out. But this is not the point of establishing laws. Laws are to show people the boundaries that society has said they cannot cross without suffering negative repercussions for their actions.

Point Four: Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. We have a criminal class that is cycled through our prison system and back out into society. This is how the ‘three strikes you’re out’ laws came into being. People who establish a trend of criminal behavior end up spending their lives in jail rather than on the street destroying innocent lives. This being the case, why should we have murderers repeatedly put back out on the street to kill again, several times, before they would be permanently locked away? The average time in prison for convicted killers not given the death penalty is seven years. Doesn’t sound right to me. The recidivism rate of executed killers is 0%. That’s a statistic law abiding citizens can live with (pun intended).

The death penalty is constitutional and should be used more aggressively. It is a just punishment for someone who has unjustly taken the life of another. It is not about being a deterrent to prevent killing, but about meting out justice on an appropriate scale. The question in the title of this article, ‘does the death penalty prevent crime,’ has a simple answer: who cares? That isn’t the purpose of the death penalty. The death penalty does what it is suppose to, which is dole out justice in direct proportion to the crime. A side benefit is that those killers don’t get another chance to take another innocent life.

I’m sure the PC crowd at the History Channel would disagree, but then we don’t know for sure since they won’t allow honest debate on their interpretation of history.

Jeff Adams