Since the United States reinstated the death penalty in 1976, there have been 1,000 executions, as of Friday.
And Tuesday, four-time murderer and cofounder of the Los Angeles street gang the Crips, Stanley Williams, will join the ranks of those who have been executed if his appeal for clemency is denied. Clemency requests are what former governor of Texas George W. Bush once called "the most agonizing part of being governor."
Agonizing? It seems Williams was imprisoned and sentenced lawfully. So, what's the issue?
Williams' appeal is on the claim of personal reform. This claim is reviving the debate over the role of rehabilitation in the U.S. penal system.
Naturally, this raises questions. What is the purpose of prison? Is it to rehabilitate or to punish? And what is the purpose of the death penalty? That's a tough one.
Capitol punishment is a touchy subject, but it's one I believe should take a back seat in the rehabilitation debate to a less frequently discussed issue: corporal punishment.
It's no secret the American judicial system is in trouble. Overcrowding and increasingly higher levels of repeat felons have stressed the system to the point that it has become weak and ineffective.
Robert Heinlein, writing in "Starship Troopers" almost 50 years ago, warned readers about the results of a weak and ineffective judicial system - and the picture he paints is remarkably similar to the present. As Heinlein saw it, the core of this judicial weakness was departure from the corporal punishment tradition.
The word corporal comes from the Latin word for the body.
Punishment of the body.
Traditionally speaking, crime resulted in punishment, usually meaning something that caused pain. Crime nowadays results in confinement, usually leading to probation and parole. Bodily punishment, such as flogging, is typically regarded as "cruel and unusual" punishment and has been almost entirely eliminated from our penal code.
Yet, according to Heinlein, punishment must be both cruel - "It should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment" - and unusual - "as to be significant, to deter, to instruct." If it's not, it serves no purpose.
Heinlein further notes, "Pain is the basic mechanism built into us ... which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. ... Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival method?"
An interesting reversal of modern thinking.
But what of this rehabilitation? Heinlein emphasizes the conundrum it creates: Either a criminal can be made well (rehabilitated) or he cannot, and if he is indeed made well, what is to be done if he commits similar acts again? As Heinlein stresses, only we, as a society, would be to blame.
And more to the point, what even constitutes being made well? In Williams' case, the only certainty is his word - the word of a convicted murderer - and the only proof can be a blameless life ... neither of which can be guaranteed.
Beyond all of this, where does justice fit into our judicial system? Justice is a lofty goal. Shouldn't Williams have to answer for those he killed, regardless of whatever reforms he has made? Isn't that the essence of justice - impartiality in the face of the law?
As Heinlein also said, while we should "be benevolent," it must only be "in [our] purpose" that justice be served.
As I questioned before: agonizing? Certainly not. Williams is answering for his crimes.
Our sympathy should be reserved for those who died at his hands.
Write to Andrew at
apbalke@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
