Is it logically justifiable to believe in something without any assurance that the object of that faith has a basis in truth? More specifically, can Protestantism’s faith in the Bible as the sole fountain and foundation of truth, be justified in light of its inherent contradictions? I think not.
Protestants are not the first people to believe in a groundless system of faith. Mankind has a long history of believing strongly in ideas despite the obvious contradictions staring them in the face.
For a thousand years or more, from the time of Aristotle until the Enlightenment, people believed, because Aristotle said it was so, that the Universe was made up, fundamentally, of the “Elements” Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Through the techniques of logic taught by Aristotle, it was deduced that everything in the Universe was made up of differing concentrations of these four elements.
To our modern ears, this four-element paradigm sounds ridiculous, but to the Greeks of Aristotle’s time and to the entire western world for hundreds of generations, this was unshakable “truth”.
People believed. They believed because they had been taught that it was true, or because, upon a little investigation, they found that Aristotle had asserted it to be true and they believed because of their faith in his infallibility.
But, the belief of thousands of people in the 4-element paradigm didn’t make it true. Truth is completely independent of our belief or failure to believe in it. Our belief in a falsehood (or truth, for that matter) will not make it true and failure to believe in a truth does not make it false.
Some truth can be reliably discovered through testing and verification; the “Scientific Method” we all learned about in school. Using this method, the physical properties of the Universe have been and continue to be investigated and reliably discovered.
Science is quite good at discovering provable truth (or falsehood), but is ill-equipped to deal with those areas where proof or disproof is not possible. For these, faith is required.
Now, I appear to have contradicted myself. How can I have asserted on the one hand that Protestants are not justified in their belief in the Bible based solely on their faith and then on the other hand state that some things must be taken on faith?
The answer lies in the difference between how Protestants and Catholics define, “faith”. To a Protestant, “faith” is belief. Nothing else is required to legitimize their paradigm. Their belief in their religious construct validates it. For a Protestant, their belief makes their object of faith correct, real and true.
The result of this logical inconsistency is that not only is what everyone believes true, but each man can believe a different “truth” and there is no way (and in many cases no desire) to dispute it. So long as that man believes it, for him at least, it is “true”. The result of this philosophy has been, first the Protestant Revolt (“Reformation” to Protestants) of Martin Luther and his followers and then, all subsequent schisms from his ideas which have split the Christian Church into so many denominations in the last four centuries. All because there is no definitive, authoritative definition of truth.
This obviously begs the question, “How do you accurately discover truth?” For a Catholic, the object of belief must be true before it is believed to be so. But, how do you determine what is true before you believe in it? This boils down to a question of authority and strikes at the largest and most fundamental difference between Protestants and Catholics.
For Protestants, the final authority is the Bible, usually the “Authorized” King James Version or one of its variants, as interpreted by the reader for himself through the exercise of his faith. The problem for the Protestant is that the Bible upon which his faith is founded and from where he derives his faith is also being interpreted by that same faith to state that the Bible is the source for the faith in the first place. The truth contained in and the veracity of the Bible are dependent on one’s belief in it and one’s belief is dependent on the truth contained in and the veracity of the Bible.
Any freshman logic student will tell you, circular arguments of this kind do not provide definitive answers. The tenants contained in the KJV could be true or false and this type of logic would still hold up.
So, by what authority do Protestants make the claim that their version of the Christian faith is the true and correct one if the faith alone argument fails?
The answer appears to be one that the Protestants themselves have problems with and which will also not stand up to logical scrutiny. Essentially, they believe what they do because Martin Luther and other founding Protestants like Calvin, Wycliffe, etc. said that that is the way it should be.
Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest in late 15th century Germany who protested certain practices of the Catholic Church which he considered egregious, by nailing 95 theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany, thereby sparking off the Protestant Reformation (or Revolt, if you’re of the Catholic persuasion). He later went on to edit the Bible, leaving out several books and parts of books, and editing the text of others so that the Bible was now in accord with what Luther thought Christianity should teach.
But, Protestants don’t like it when it is suggested that a mere man could in some way dictate what we are to believe. I have often herd Protestants say that there is only one mediator, Christ and that they need no man to come between them and Christ. This is the argument they use against the validity of the Catholic priesthood in general and especially against the Papacy.
Protestants claim that the Scriptures are unchanging and would agree that no one should rewrite any part of the Bible, regardless of what their faith led them to believe. Many denominations require that their adherents use only the King James version of the bible stating that it is the only true translation. Protestants would immediately reject the idea of the Catholic Church or an individual Catholic priest editing the Bible as sacrilege.
Yet, that is exactly what happened. Protestants have allowed Martin Luther, who broke his priestly vows, to guide their path and determine the tenants of their faith by editing the Bible which they claim as the foundation of their faith. Luther had no authority to make changes to the scriptures, either granted to him by the Catholic Church or (by Protestant standards) by his faith in their erroneous content. But he did so anyway.
So, from where do Catholics derive their faith?
For Catholics, what they believe is founded both on the Bible (in its entirety, not the truncated version used by Protestants) and on the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Tradition (capital “T”) was handed down to us, through the priesthood, from the Apostles. The Apostles were the original receivers of the words of Christ, were there to ask Christ questions, received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and were the ones upon whom Christ’s church was founded. Who better to know what Christ intended for his Church than the Twelve? It’s from these original Apostles that the Church gets its Sacred Traditions.
Additionally, Christ gave to Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power and authority to “loose and bind”. These were very specific and well-defined terms with which the Twelve would have been very familiar.
It was the practice in many Middle-eastern kingdoms at the time of Christ that when the king was away for any extended period of time, a trusted servant, or steward, was left in charge of the affairs of the realm (for example, Joseph in Egypt). The king gave to this steward the keys to the treasury and the granary and he was granted the authority to speak for the king and with his authority in the king’s absence. It was the tradition that this steward would wear these keys pinned to the shoulder of his tunic as a symbol that he had been granted the king’s authority. So, when Jesus told Peter that he was being given the keys to the Kingdom, all the apostles understood that Jesus was saying He would soon be leaving for a time and that Peter was to speak for Him and with his authority while He was away.
The terms “binding” and “loosing” referred to very specific legal terms with which the Apostles were also familiar. The power to bind and loose referred to a Rabbi’s authority to make decisions concerning faith and morals. Jesus was granting Peter the authority to determine, in matters of faith and morals, what was right and what was wrong. Because the Church was founded on Peter, by extension, the Catholic Church has the authority to teach what is right and wrong with respect to faith and morals when those teachings are approved by the Pope.
It was through this authority to decide right from wrong that the Bible took its form in the early Christian era in the first place. The Universal Christian Church (the body as a whole) had the authority to choose which few books out of the many circulating among the several Christian churches (individual communities of Christians living in different cities around the world) were to be included in the cannon and which were to be excluded. The Church determined the cannon.
This authority derived from the Pope alone, not the priesthood or the church by itself. Therefore, no priest, individually, (with the sole exception of the Pope) has the authority to bind or loose nor do priests, (again except for the Pope) have the Keys to the Kingdom.
Therefore, Luther, though a priest, did not have any authority to undo the Church’s decision as to which books were to be included in the Cannon, nor did he have any authority to nullify the Church’s teachings on faith and salvation. Luther had arrogated to himself the authority and power that had been granted to Peter and the Church by Jesus himself.
Protestants, therefore, believe in a paradigm that has no logical foundation. They believe what they believe for one reason only, because they believe it. As I stated at the beginning, believe is independent of truth and belief in something does not make it true.
So, why should Protestants believe in the Catholic paradigm? What makes the Catholic faith better than the Protestant faith? To answer this question, we need to look at the basic tenant of Protestant faith.
For a Protestant, to become a Christian and achieve salvation, all that is necessary is that you, “…accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior” and have faith in the Bible. Yes, it’s a little more complicated than that, but that is the basic foundation of Protestantism. Let’s look at these requirements.
To accept Jesus as “Lord” means to accept him as the boss. We are to follow his example and his instructions as recounted in the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Bible is required.
To accept Jesus as Savior also requires faith in the Bible as that is the place where the story of salvation is recounted. At no point is it even hinted at that there might be another source of knowledge about Christ. The personal experiences of those who knew Christ (except those recorded in the Bible) are ignored, despite the fact that the Bible explicitly states that not all the story of Christ was recorded there. Are not all the words of Christ precious? How can man have just decided to disregard some or even most of them by not writing them down?
The answer is, they were and remain precious and they were preserved, just not written down. They were preserved in the Traditions of the Catholic Church. Protestants, however, ignore this reality, just as they have ignored and defamed the authority of the Catholic Church from the beginning.
Jesus did not found his church on a book, but on men, and in a special way, on one man, Peter. There was no way that Jesus could have instructed Peter and the other Apostles to follow the precepts contained in the Bible. The Bible did not exist in Jesus’ time. Clearly, by granting Peter the authority of the Keys and the power to loose and bind, by instructing the Apostles to go forth to all nations and teach about Christ, by promising to send them the Holy Spirit, and finally by promising them that He would be with them even until the end of the world, He was setting up a church that would be self-sustaining and authoritative until He returned.
Jesus’ actions in this regard are not in dispute. They are recorded in the Bible which Protestants hold sacred and inerrant. There is no justification for the Protestant paradigm.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Forgotten Cop
Many have asked me what it is like to be a Correctional Officer. Many of you work in jobs difficult to explain to the uninitiated. This is especially true of Corrections. People see TV shows and movies that show what it is like in prison, but that's entertainment, not reality.
A fellow officer gave me a copy of the essay below. It should give you some idea of what it is like for us day in and day out, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without fail, because when we fail, people get hurt or die. It's that simple.
What would the average citizen say if it were proposed that Police Officers be assigned to a neighborhood which was inhabited by no one but criminals and those Officers would be un¬armed, patrol on foot and be heavily outnumbered?
I wager that the overwhelming public response would be that the Officers would have to be crazy to accept such an assignment. However, as you read this, such a scenario is being played out in all areas of the country.
We are Correctional Officers, not Guards (who are people that watch school crossings). We work at minimum, medium and maximum security Correctional Facilities.
We are empowered by the State to enforce its Penal Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Department of Correctional Services.
In short, we are Policemen.
Our beat is totally inhabited by convicted felons who, by definition, are people who tend to break laws, rules and regulations.
We are outnumbered by as many as 250 to 1 at various times of our workday and, contrary to popular belief, we work without a sidearm.
In short, our necks are on the line every minute of every day.
A Correctional Facility is a very misunderstood environment. The average person has very little knowledge of its workings.
Society sends its criminals to Correctional Facilities and, as time passes, each criminal's crime fades from memory until the collective prison population becomes a horde of bad people being warehoused away from decent society in a place where they can cause no further harm.
There is also the notion that prison inmates cease to be a problem when they are incarcerated.
Correctional Facilities are full of violence perpetrated by the prison population against the prison population and facility staff. Felonies are committed daily but are rarely reported. They are called "unusual incidents" and rarely result in criminal prosecution.
Discipline is handled internally and, as a rule, the public is rarely informed of these crimes.
In the course of maintaining order in these facilities, many Officers have endured the humiliation of having urine and feces thrown at them.
Uncounted Correctional Officers have been kicked, bitten, stabbed and slashed with home¬made weapons; taken hostage; murdered; and even raped in the line of duty, all while being legally mandated to maintain their professional composure and refraining from any retaliation which could be the basis for dismissal from service.
In addition to these obvious dangers, Correctional Officers face hidden dangers in the form of AIDS, tuberculosis or hepatitis B and C.
Courts are now imposing longer sentences and the prison population is increasing far beyond the system's designated capacity.
As the public demands more police on the street, governments everywhere are cutting police in prison where violence reins supreme, jeopardizing all those working behind prison walls.
Although you will never see us on "911" or "Top Cops" we are Law Enforcement Profes¬sionals.
We are the "FORGOTTEN COP," hidden from public view, doing a dangerous beat, hoping someday to receive the respect and approval from the public whom "WE SILENTLY SERVE."
A fellow officer gave me a copy of the essay below. It should give you some idea of what it is like for us day in and day out, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without fail, because when we fail, people get hurt or die. It's that simple.
The Forgotten Cop
What would the average citizen say if it were proposed that Police Officers be assigned to a neighborhood which was inhabited by no one but criminals and those Officers would be un¬armed, patrol on foot and be heavily outnumbered?
I wager that the overwhelming public response would be that the Officers would have to be crazy to accept such an assignment. However, as you read this, such a scenario is being played out in all areas of the country.
We are Correctional Officers, not Guards (who are people that watch school crossings). We work at minimum, medium and maximum security Correctional Facilities.
We are empowered by the State to enforce its Penal Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Department of Correctional Services.
In short, we are Policemen.
Our beat is totally inhabited by convicted felons who, by definition, are people who tend to break laws, rules and regulations.
We are outnumbered by as many as 250 to 1 at various times of our workday and, contrary to popular belief, we work without a sidearm.
In short, our necks are on the line every minute of every day.
A Correctional Facility is a very misunderstood environment. The average person has very little knowledge of its workings.
Society sends its criminals to Correctional Facilities and, as time passes, each criminal's crime fades from memory until the collective prison population becomes a horde of bad people being warehoused away from decent society in a place where they can cause no further harm.
There is also the notion that prison inmates cease to be a problem when they are incarcerated.
Correctional Facilities are full of violence perpetrated by the prison population against the prison population and facility staff. Felonies are committed daily but are rarely reported. They are called "unusual incidents" and rarely result in criminal prosecution.
Discipline is handled internally and, as a rule, the public is rarely informed of these crimes.
In the course of maintaining order in these facilities, many Officers have endured the humiliation of having urine and feces thrown at them.
Uncounted Correctional Officers have been kicked, bitten, stabbed and slashed with home¬made weapons; taken hostage; murdered; and even raped in the line of duty, all while being legally mandated to maintain their professional composure and refraining from any retaliation which could be the basis for dismissal from service.
In addition to these obvious dangers, Correctional Officers face hidden dangers in the form of AIDS, tuberculosis or hepatitis B and C.
Courts are now imposing longer sentences and the prison population is increasing far beyond the system's designated capacity.
As the public demands more police on the street, governments everywhere are cutting police in prison where violence reins supreme, jeopardizing all those working behind prison walls.
Although you will never see us on "911" or "Top Cops" we are Law Enforcement Profes¬sionals.
We are the "FORGOTTEN COP," hidden from public view, doing a dangerous beat, hoping someday to receive the respect and approval from the public whom "WE SILENTLY SERVE."
-- Author Unknown
From Where do Our Freedoms Come?
Some would have you believe that the freedoms we enjoy (and so often take for granted) come from our elected representatives in Congress writing and enacting just and wise laws for us to follow. Others say that our freedoms stem from our teachers who guide us wisely when we are young to know the freedoms we have inherited and teach us how to properly exercise them. Others say that our freedoms come from the courts that protect the free by making sure that our laws are applied justly. All of these notions are wrong. These are all people exercising freedoms they already possess through the efforts of the guarantors of our freedom.
Our freedoms come from a long line of people who put their principles before their personal well-being so that present and future generations could live a better life. My freedoms started with God who blessed me with rights when he created me. My rights were then further ensured by 56 men who signed a document that in part affirmed that we have inalienable rights granted to us by our creator, and that those included, but were not limited to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For the record, of those 56 men who pledged to their brothers and their posterity their life, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Eyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
For the last 233 years this type of heroism has been continuously displayed by this country’s protectors of freedom, it’s military. They leave their homes and families for regular duty and for war, sometimes for months or years at a time. They do it for little pay and less recognition. Their families suffer and are often torn apart as a result of their service to us.
I am blessed to have come from a military family. I have ancestors who served in every war this country has been involved in. Three of my four grandparents served in WWII, one of them retiring from the military after serving in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam in both the Navy and the Air Force. Several of my uncles and cousins have served or are serving in the military. My father served 28 years in the USAF with distinction.
I was taught from whence my freedoms come by the word and example of these brave and committed people. They come from brave men and women all over the world standing to in harm’s way, drawing that line in the sand and then placing their lives on that line and stating categorically that here, in this place, is the boundary of freedom. Friends are welcome. Foes cross this line at their extreme peril.
Our freedoms come from a long line of people who put their principles before their personal well-being so that present and future generations could live a better life. My freedoms started with God who blessed me with rights when he created me. My rights were then further ensured by 56 men who signed a document that in part affirmed that we have inalienable rights granted to us by our creator, and that those included, but were not limited to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For the record, of those 56 men who pledged to their brothers and their posterity their life, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Eyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
For the last 233 years this type of heroism has been continuously displayed by this country’s protectors of freedom, it’s military. They leave their homes and families for regular duty and for war, sometimes for months or years at a time. They do it for little pay and less recognition. Their families suffer and are often torn apart as a result of their service to us.
I am blessed to have come from a military family. I have ancestors who served in every war this country has been involved in. Three of my four grandparents served in WWII, one of them retiring from the military after serving in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam in both the Navy and the Air Force. Several of my uncles and cousins have served or are serving in the military. My father served 28 years in the USAF with distinction.
I was taught from whence my freedoms come by the word and example of these brave and committed people. They come from brave men and women all over the world standing to in harm’s way, drawing that line in the sand and then placing their lives on that line and stating categorically that here, in this place, is the boundary of freedom. Friends are welcome. Foes cross this line at their extreme peril.
Capital Punishment -- Why NOT
Many may question why a Correctional Officer is against capital punishment. Here's why I am.
Proponents of the death penalty present six arguments for the application of capital punishment. They are that it (1) reduces recidivism against society, (2) provides a powerful deterrent violent crime, (3) is less expensive than a sentence of Life Without Possibility of Parole (LWOPP), (4) provides for societal retribution against the offender, (5) provides for a proportional societal response to the crime committed, and (6) provides an appropriate eugenic excuse. I believe that none of these arguments can sufficiently justify the use of the death penalty.
Let’s look at each in turn. First, does the death penalty reduce the recidivism rate against society for a given offender? Certainly the executed person will never recidivate against society, but might not LWOPP also reduce this rate to zero? Of course it would. Therefore, prevention of possible future crimes against society is not a justification for the capital punishment.
It could be argued that prisoners often commit crimes against each other while in prison and that LWOPP allows a convict to recidivate against his fellow prisoners, but I argue that society should not be responsible for the violent nature of incarcerated people. The purpose of society imprisoning them is to protect society, not to protect them from each other. The dangers inherent in prison life are part of the punishment of being incarcerated. Though, of course, reasonable precautions should be taken and procedures implemented to protect prisoners from each other, if the fact that prisons are dangerous places were to be allowed an argument against incarcerating criminals, no one would ever go to prison.
Another argument against capital punishment to prevent recidivism is that society is then preemptively punishing someone for crimes they have not yet committed. Society would be stating that it believes the offender WILL commit additional crimes and that he is irredeemable. Therefore, capital punishment is the only option to ensure that those future crimes will never be committed.
Notice, I said, “will commit”, not, “might commit”. The finality of the punishment is such that society had better be sure the offender will recidivate, not just believe it “likely” or “possible”, if it is going to use recidivism as a justification. I can see an argument for using recidivism as a justification for punishments less severe than the death penalty, because the offender can be observed as he serves his sentence and if it should be determined at a later time that the convict no longer posses a danger of recidivism sufficient to require his continued incarceration, he can be released. Not so with the death penalty. It is final, permanent, and irrevocable.
The second major argument for the death penalty is that it provides a powerful deterrent to crimes for which the death penalty is imposed. The concept of deterrence states that a hypothetical “rational criminal” will pause before he commits his criminal act to consider the potential consequences of his actions and those potential consequences, being severe in nature, will make him reconsider his plans and refrain from committing the criminal act in the first place.
First, many who commit crimes that warrant the death penalty are not rational at the time of the commission of the crime sufficient to carefully consider the consequences of their actions. These crimes are commonly known as “crimes of passion” where the offender becomes so emotionally agitated that, though still in control of their ability to distinguish right and wrong, they choose to disregard the dictates of their conscience and act in an irrational manner, allowing heir emotions rather than their reason to dictate their actions. These people do not consider the possible consequence3s of their actions in favor of satisfying their emotional needs. Since deterrence depends fundamentally on a rational consideration of consequences, these, by definition irrational people, are not affected by deterrence.
Second, in order for deterrence to work, it must be swift, sure, and severe enough that if it is considered rationally, it will compel the potential offender to reconsider his planned actions and make a different choice. However, our justice system is anything but swift. This slowness starts the moment the crime is committed, because there is not an instantaneous response to the criminal act. It can take anywhere from several minutes to years before the police show up to arrest an offender after he has committed the crime. Then, once arrested, there are many inherent delays in the system put there to ensure that the innocent are not punished along with the guilty. Finally, once conviction occurs, on average, it takes 13 ½ years to actually carry out the execution. Clearly, the swiftness requirement is not met.
Neither is capital punishment sure. Because the system is set up to protect the innocent, even at the cost of letting some guilty offenders to free, there are many who are not convicted, or punished, or whose sentences are reduced to something less than capital punishment. Even those who are duly convicted and sentenced to be executed have hope, because the appeals process often allows them to reduce their sentence to something less than execution.
I know an inmate in prison now who was on death row for multiple murders and who has told me that he is quite willing to kill again if he feels someone wrongs him. He is now a minimum-custody inmate with unsupervised access to the outside of the institution where he is incarcerated. Stories like this one give potential criminals good reason to hope that even if they were to be caught, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, the sentence would not be carried out. Therefore, the death penalty does not happen with sufficient surety to create the fear of it that is required to deter.
The final condition to be met for deterrence to work, severity, is also not met. Our methods of dealing out death are specifically engineered to not be “cruel and unusual” and therefore engender no fear. The three main methods of execution, electrocution, lethal injection, and inhalation of poison gas, all cause nearly instantaneous death. In the case of lethal injection, the victim is put to sleep before the toxin is introduced, so there is no discomfort at all. Even the other methods, death by firing squad or by hanging, are not deemed unduly painful.
Though the thought of their personal death is distressing to any sane person, people are unfamiliar with the concept of death as punishment in their daily lives. We don’t do public executions in the town square anymore, or in the equivalent modern venue, television. People rarely see death take place any longer except in the easily dismissed fantasy world of the movies or television fiction. We see the after-affects of death, the funeral, the burial, graves, and we certainly have to deal with the lingering effects, the loss, the paperwork, the expense, but rarely does anyone outside the medical profession ever see someone actually expire. The actual process of death, the last spoken words, the fear of imminent death, the physical pain experienced by the dying and related first hand to those left behind are all alien to most people. Therefore, because no one is familiar with death on a personal level, no one is really deterred by the personal fear of death.
Another reason I believe that deterrence is a flawed concept is that in many instances, the offender believes himself justified in his actions. One famous example of this concept is the story told in the movie, “A Time to Kill” where the father of a raped girl killed the rapist. The father was tried and the jury refused to convict despite clear evidence of guilt. Another common example is the situation where a man comes home unexpectedly to find his wife in bed with her lover and then kills one or both of them. The justification I have often heard for this is, “Well, he/she/they deserved it.”
Thinking like this indicates that the offender does not believe he has done anything wrong, so he does not expect any societal retribution at all. There is not deterrent value for any punishment that the offender does not expect to be imposed.
The final reason that deterrence is an illusion is that its validity depends on the offender believing that is capture is assured. Except in the possible case of an insane offender who intentionally commits a criminal act for the express purpose of getting caught, “rational” criminals believe they will be able to elude capture indefinitely, so whatever the consequence, it will not affect their decision-making process.
The third major argument put forth for the death penalty is that it is less expensive to the state, and therefore the tax-payer to execute a prisoner than to lock him up for LWOPP. This is actually not true. Death row inmates spend between 10-15 years on death row (depending on individual state laws these averages vary). During this time they use up resources that inmates with LWOPP do not, like additional Correctional Officers, a beefier physical plant, defense counsel, prosecutorial counsel, court costs, the cost of the execution process itself, etc. Taken together, these costs add up to considerably more than the average cost of keeping an offender locked up for the rest of his life. (You can find statistics supporting this all over the web. Many states publish statistics on their state’s death penalty/LWOPP programs. Please see: http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost for an example of California’s costs.)
The Fourth argument is that the death penalty is justified as societal retribution. Our society says that it will not permit individuals to take their revenge, but that it is permissible for large groups to take revenge in the victim’s name. Presumably this is based on the idea that the group, being detached and more numerous, will be able to make a judgment that is more equitable and avoids the pitfalls of allowing any one individual, with all his flaws and prejudices, to make the decision. In other words, the majority is always right, so we’ll let the group decide for us individuals. (It also has the advantage of spreading out the liability for killing another human being from one person to many, thereby assuaging any personal guilt.) The problem is that groups do not always make ethically justifiable decisions.
Take for instance the Nazis’ campaign to promote the “Master Race” through genocide and how the German people went along. Or, to choose an example closer to home, how about the institution of slavery in this country? This was a practice that was, at best, degrading and, at worst, murderous, on a vast scale. Large numbers of people, a whole society, believed there was nothing wrong with slavery, that in fact, that it was the natural order of things for whites to enslave, abuse, and even murder, blacks. The atrocities do not stop there. There have been wars and invasions of countries for religious reasons. Entire cultures have been wiped out in the New World due to greed and disease. People have been killing each other in the Middle East for centuries, simply because the target didn’t believe as the assailant believed he should. The list goes on and on. Clearly, people cannot be trusted to make the right choice, however you define right and wrong, simply because they are numerous. It is a philosophical truism that might does not make right, whether you are talking about strength of arms or strength in numbers. Society has proven itself a poor judge of when it is or is not appropriate to take the life of a human being, so allowing “society” to determine when retribution is justified seems unwise at best. More likely, it is in itself a criminally negligent act.
The fifth argument is that it provides a proportional response to the offender’s actions. The problem with, “eye-for-an-eye” is that eventually, you run out of eyes. How do you kill someone more than once? How can executing someone like Timothy McVey who killed and injured hundreds, only once, make up for all those deaths he caused? His crime was totally out of proportion to the punishment dealt out to him. Further, in his case, he requested the death penalty. How can giving someone what he requests be considered punishment? (I know, we have to have standards to which everyone is held and we cannot fall into the trap of simply deciding to deal out the opposite punishment from what the criminal requests, but clearly, McVey was spared many years of guilt by his swift execution.)
Additionally, the severity of the crime is always taken into account in capital cases when determining the sentence. This is so that, as much as is possible, sentences are dolled out equitably and fairly. But we must ask ourselves if it is a fair and proportional response to meet out a swift, painless, single, humane death in response to many different severities of capital crimes. Is it fair to treat a McVey the same as someone who commits a single murder in a non-heinous manner?
Finally, there is a “societal eugenics” argument that could be put forth to support the death penalty. Essentially, the death penalty would be used to remove the least desirable elements of society so as to produce a stronger, better society. I mention this only for the sake of completeness as I do not think there are any in this country who would seriously advocate this reason, or if there are, society would not seriously consider this argument. However, as the argument as been used in the past to justify lethal governmental action against its citizens, I think there is a need to refute it.
Quite simply, though there is evidence that predispositions to act in certain ways are passed from generation to generation, heredity in no way pre-determines a person’s actions to the point they are incapable of deciding not to commit an illegal act. No one is compelled to act a certain way by their genes, therefore removing people from the gene pool will not eliminate crime or improve quality of life for future members of society.
So, the death penalty, though it certainly stops all recidivism for the executed person, it is no better at it than LWOPP. It is more expensive than LWOPP, provides no deterrent effect, cannot be justified as a proportional societal response or as societal retribution, and can’t be applied eugenically. I can find no justification for capital punishment over LWOPP.
There is one additional reason not to employ the death penalty. What if the person is innocent? Clearly executing the innocent goes against everything our justice system and societal norms require. The question is, are we willing to allow a few innocent to be executed to be sure we get those that are guilty and if so, how many? I personally think that if even one person is executed erroneously, it is one person too many. Even God, who knows everyone’s heart perfectly, refused to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if even one righteous person could be found within. Surely, that same standard should apply to us mere mortals and since we do not possess god-like wisdom and knowledge, surely we should err on the side of caution and abolish the death penalty.
I would like to leave you with a bit of wisdom from the pen of J. R. R. Tolkien:
“What a pity Bilbo did not stab the vile creature, when he had a chance!”
“Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need.”
“I do not feel any pity for Gollum. He deserves death.”
“Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.”
Capital Punishment – Why NOT
Many people take the death penalty for granted. We have always had the death penalty in this country and we have all grown up hearing things like, “He killed someone. He deserves to die” or, “He got what he deserved.” But can we really justify execution as a form of punishment?Proponents of the death penalty present six arguments for the application of capital punishment. They are that it (1) reduces recidivism against society, (2) provides a powerful deterrent violent crime, (3) is less expensive than a sentence of Life Without Possibility of Parole (LWOPP), (4) provides for societal retribution against the offender, (5) provides for a proportional societal response to the crime committed, and (6) provides an appropriate eugenic excuse. I believe that none of these arguments can sufficiently justify the use of the death penalty.
Let’s look at each in turn. First, does the death penalty reduce the recidivism rate against society for a given offender? Certainly the executed person will never recidivate against society, but might not LWOPP also reduce this rate to zero? Of course it would. Therefore, prevention of possible future crimes against society is not a justification for the capital punishment.
It could be argued that prisoners often commit crimes against each other while in prison and that LWOPP allows a convict to recidivate against his fellow prisoners, but I argue that society should not be responsible for the violent nature of incarcerated people. The purpose of society imprisoning them is to protect society, not to protect them from each other. The dangers inherent in prison life are part of the punishment of being incarcerated. Though, of course, reasonable precautions should be taken and procedures implemented to protect prisoners from each other, if the fact that prisons are dangerous places were to be allowed an argument against incarcerating criminals, no one would ever go to prison.
Another argument against capital punishment to prevent recidivism is that society is then preemptively punishing someone for crimes they have not yet committed. Society would be stating that it believes the offender WILL commit additional crimes and that he is irredeemable. Therefore, capital punishment is the only option to ensure that those future crimes will never be committed.
Notice, I said, “will commit”, not, “might commit”. The finality of the punishment is such that society had better be sure the offender will recidivate, not just believe it “likely” or “possible”, if it is going to use recidivism as a justification. I can see an argument for using recidivism as a justification for punishments less severe than the death penalty, because the offender can be observed as he serves his sentence and if it should be determined at a later time that the convict no longer posses a danger of recidivism sufficient to require his continued incarceration, he can be released. Not so with the death penalty. It is final, permanent, and irrevocable.
The second major argument for the death penalty is that it provides a powerful deterrent to crimes for which the death penalty is imposed. The concept of deterrence states that a hypothetical “rational criminal” will pause before he commits his criminal act to consider the potential consequences of his actions and those potential consequences, being severe in nature, will make him reconsider his plans and refrain from committing the criminal act in the first place.
First, many who commit crimes that warrant the death penalty are not rational at the time of the commission of the crime sufficient to carefully consider the consequences of their actions. These crimes are commonly known as “crimes of passion” where the offender becomes so emotionally agitated that, though still in control of their ability to distinguish right and wrong, they choose to disregard the dictates of their conscience and act in an irrational manner, allowing heir emotions rather than their reason to dictate their actions. These people do not consider the possible consequence3s of their actions in favor of satisfying their emotional needs. Since deterrence depends fundamentally on a rational consideration of consequences, these, by definition irrational people, are not affected by deterrence.
Second, in order for deterrence to work, it must be swift, sure, and severe enough that if it is considered rationally, it will compel the potential offender to reconsider his planned actions and make a different choice. However, our justice system is anything but swift. This slowness starts the moment the crime is committed, because there is not an instantaneous response to the criminal act. It can take anywhere from several minutes to years before the police show up to arrest an offender after he has committed the crime. Then, once arrested, there are many inherent delays in the system put there to ensure that the innocent are not punished along with the guilty. Finally, once conviction occurs, on average, it takes 13 ½ years to actually carry out the execution. Clearly, the swiftness requirement is not met.
Neither is capital punishment sure. Because the system is set up to protect the innocent, even at the cost of letting some guilty offenders to free, there are many who are not convicted, or punished, or whose sentences are reduced to something less than capital punishment. Even those who are duly convicted and sentenced to be executed have hope, because the appeals process often allows them to reduce their sentence to something less than execution.
I know an inmate in prison now who was on death row for multiple murders and who has told me that he is quite willing to kill again if he feels someone wrongs him. He is now a minimum-custody inmate with unsupervised access to the outside of the institution where he is incarcerated. Stories like this one give potential criminals good reason to hope that even if they were to be caught, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, the sentence would not be carried out. Therefore, the death penalty does not happen with sufficient surety to create the fear of it that is required to deter.
The final condition to be met for deterrence to work, severity, is also not met. Our methods of dealing out death are specifically engineered to not be “cruel and unusual” and therefore engender no fear. The three main methods of execution, electrocution, lethal injection, and inhalation of poison gas, all cause nearly instantaneous death. In the case of lethal injection, the victim is put to sleep before the toxin is introduced, so there is no discomfort at all. Even the other methods, death by firing squad or by hanging, are not deemed unduly painful.
Though the thought of their personal death is distressing to any sane person, people are unfamiliar with the concept of death as punishment in their daily lives. We don’t do public executions in the town square anymore, or in the equivalent modern venue, television. People rarely see death take place any longer except in the easily dismissed fantasy world of the movies or television fiction. We see the after-affects of death, the funeral, the burial, graves, and we certainly have to deal with the lingering effects, the loss, the paperwork, the expense, but rarely does anyone outside the medical profession ever see someone actually expire. The actual process of death, the last spoken words, the fear of imminent death, the physical pain experienced by the dying and related first hand to those left behind are all alien to most people. Therefore, because no one is familiar with death on a personal level, no one is really deterred by the personal fear of death.
Another reason I believe that deterrence is a flawed concept is that in many instances, the offender believes himself justified in his actions. One famous example of this concept is the story told in the movie, “A Time to Kill” where the father of a raped girl killed the rapist. The father was tried and the jury refused to convict despite clear evidence of guilt. Another common example is the situation where a man comes home unexpectedly to find his wife in bed with her lover and then kills one or both of them. The justification I have often heard for this is, “Well, he/she/they deserved it.”
Thinking like this indicates that the offender does not believe he has done anything wrong, so he does not expect any societal retribution at all. There is not deterrent value for any punishment that the offender does not expect to be imposed.
The final reason that deterrence is an illusion is that its validity depends on the offender believing that is capture is assured. Except in the possible case of an insane offender who intentionally commits a criminal act for the express purpose of getting caught, “rational” criminals believe they will be able to elude capture indefinitely, so whatever the consequence, it will not affect their decision-making process.
The third major argument put forth for the death penalty is that it is less expensive to the state, and therefore the tax-payer to execute a prisoner than to lock him up for LWOPP. This is actually not true. Death row inmates spend between 10-15 years on death row (depending on individual state laws these averages vary). During this time they use up resources that inmates with LWOPP do not, like additional Correctional Officers, a beefier physical plant, defense counsel, prosecutorial counsel, court costs, the cost of the execution process itself, etc. Taken together, these costs add up to considerably more than the average cost of keeping an offender locked up for the rest of his life. (You can find statistics supporting this all over the web. Many states publish statistics on their state’s death penalty/LWOPP programs. Please see: http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost for an example of California’s costs.)
The Fourth argument is that the death penalty is justified as societal retribution. Our society says that it will not permit individuals to take their revenge, but that it is permissible for large groups to take revenge in the victim’s name. Presumably this is based on the idea that the group, being detached and more numerous, will be able to make a judgment that is more equitable and avoids the pitfalls of allowing any one individual, with all his flaws and prejudices, to make the decision. In other words, the majority is always right, so we’ll let the group decide for us individuals. (It also has the advantage of spreading out the liability for killing another human being from one person to many, thereby assuaging any personal guilt.) The problem is that groups do not always make ethically justifiable decisions.
Take for instance the Nazis’ campaign to promote the “Master Race” through genocide and how the German people went along. Or, to choose an example closer to home, how about the institution of slavery in this country? This was a practice that was, at best, degrading and, at worst, murderous, on a vast scale. Large numbers of people, a whole society, believed there was nothing wrong with slavery, that in fact, that it was the natural order of things for whites to enslave, abuse, and even murder, blacks. The atrocities do not stop there. There have been wars and invasions of countries for religious reasons. Entire cultures have been wiped out in the New World due to greed and disease. People have been killing each other in the Middle East for centuries, simply because the target didn’t believe as the assailant believed he should. The list goes on and on. Clearly, people cannot be trusted to make the right choice, however you define right and wrong, simply because they are numerous. It is a philosophical truism that might does not make right, whether you are talking about strength of arms or strength in numbers. Society has proven itself a poor judge of when it is or is not appropriate to take the life of a human being, so allowing “society” to determine when retribution is justified seems unwise at best. More likely, it is in itself a criminally negligent act.
The fifth argument is that it provides a proportional response to the offender’s actions. The problem with, “eye-for-an-eye” is that eventually, you run out of eyes. How do you kill someone more than once? How can executing someone like Timothy McVey who killed and injured hundreds, only once, make up for all those deaths he caused? His crime was totally out of proportion to the punishment dealt out to him. Further, in his case, he requested the death penalty. How can giving someone what he requests be considered punishment? (I know, we have to have standards to which everyone is held and we cannot fall into the trap of simply deciding to deal out the opposite punishment from what the criminal requests, but clearly, McVey was spared many years of guilt by his swift execution.)
Additionally, the severity of the crime is always taken into account in capital cases when determining the sentence. This is so that, as much as is possible, sentences are dolled out equitably and fairly. But we must ask ourselves if it is a fair and proportional response to meet out a swift, painless, single, humane death in response to many different severities of capital crimes. Is it fair to treat a McVey the same as someone who commits a single murder in a non-heinous manner?
Finally, there is a “societal eugenics” argument that could be put forth to support the death penalty. Essentially, the death penalty would be used to remove the least desirable elements of society so as to produce a stronger, better society. I mention this only for the sake of completeness as I do not think there are any in this country who would seriously advocate this reason, or if there are, society would not seriously consider this argument. However, as the argument as been used in the past to justify lethal governmental action against its citizens, I think there is a need to refute it.
Quite simply, though there is evidence that predispositions to act in certain ways are passed from generation to generation, heredity in no way pre-determines a person’s actions to the point they are incapable of deciding not to commit an illegal act. No one is compelled to act a certain way by their genes, therefore removing people from the gene pool will not eliminate crime or improve quality of life for future members of society.
So, the death penalty, though it certainly stops all recidivism for the executed person, it is no better at it than LWOPP. It is more expensive than LWOPP, provides no deterrent effect, cannot be justified as a proportional societal response or as societal retribution, and can’t be applied eugenically. I can find no justification for capital punishment over LWOPP.
There is one additional reason not to employ the death penalty. What if the person is innocent? Clearly executing the innocent goes against everything our justice system and societal norms require. The question is, are we willing to allow a few innocent to be executed to be sure we get those that are guilty and if so, how many? I personally think that if even one person is executed erroneously, it is one person too many. Even God, who knows everyone’s heart perfectly, refused to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if even one righteous person could be found within. Surely, that same standard should apply to us mere mortals and since we do not possess god-like wisdom and knowledge, surely we should err on the side of caution and abolish the death penalty.
I would like to leave you with a bit of wisdom from the pen of J. R. R. Tolkien:
“What a pity Bilbo did not stab the vile creature, when he had a chance!”
“Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need.”
“I do not feel any pity for Gollum. He deserves death.”
“Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.”
Frodo remembering his conversation with Gandalf in
The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers, pg. 221
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
