Skip to comments.If You’re Ever Murdered . . . (Moral Clarity on the Death Penalty)
Posted on 02/21/2012 6:22:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Id like to offer a simple proposal that, if enacted, could generate a great deal of a most precious resource: moral clarity.
It concerns the death penalty.
Opponents of capital punishment argue that the state has no right to take a murderers life. Apparently, one fact that abolitionists forget or overlook is that the state is acting not only on behalf of society, but also on behalf of the murdered person and the murdered persons family.
In order to make this as clear as possible, here is my proposal: Americans should be able to declare what they want the state to do on their behalf if they are murdered. Those who wish the state to keep their murderer alive for all his natural years should wear, let us say, a green bracelet and/or place a green dot on their drivers license or license plate. And those who want their convicted murderer put to death can wear a red bracelet and/or have a red dot on their license. Just as I have a pink donor circle on my drivers license signifying that, in case I die, I wish to provide my organs to help keep some other person alive, so I wish to make it known that if I am murdered, I do not want my murderer kept alive a day longer than legally necessary.
There are a number of reasons for recommending such a policy.
First, as noted, it is clarifying for the individual. It is easier to take a position in the abstract than when it hits home. It is one thing to oppose the death penalty when others are killed, but if you have to decide what happens if it is you who is murdered, the mind focuses with greater clarity. Before deciding which color to choose, let a woman imagine herself raped and then stabbed to death. And let her further imagine that if this happened, she now has some say in determining what will become of the person who did this to her. She is no longer a silent corpse. Her voice will be heard, perhaps even be determinative of his fate.
Likewise, the woman who truly opposes death for any murderer, no matter how heinous and sadistic his actions, will also now have the ability to speak from beyond the grave. No matter how much her family may seek the death penalty, they will have no say. Any woman or man who passionately opposes the death penalty under every conceivable circumstance can now help ensure that at least in his or her own case, a murderers life that might have been taken would now be preserved. There is no more direct way to give abolitionists the right to have a say over the fate of a murderer.
Second, such a choice gives great power to the individual. Abolitionists who live in pro-death-penalty Texas, for example, can now have a say on a matter of enormous moral magnitude. And pro-death-penalty citizens living in states that have either legally or de facto abolished the death penalty regain a sense of power over their lives (or, to be precise, their deaths). The whole American experiment has been predicated on giving individuals as much control over their own lives as possible. But this has been undermined in the last fifty years as the state has gotten ever more powerful. Giving murder victims a say over their murderers fate would be a small but symbolically significant step in Americans reasserting the importance of the individual. It is hard to imagine a more appropriate arena than in determining what happens to the person who murdered you.
As dark as thoughts of ones own murder may be, we all think about it. And I dont think I speak only for myself in saying that I would rest just a tiny bit easier knowing that if I were murdered, my murderer might not be allowed to watch TV, read books, exercise, develop relationships with people inside and outside of prison, surf the Internet, sing, listen to music, have his health-care needs addressed, and be visited by loved ones while I lay in my grave.
And for those opposed to the death penalty, they, too, will be able to rest a bit easier. They will be assured that even men who came to their home, raped all the females in the family, and then set the house on fire with the family inside as happened in Connecticut a few years ago would never be killed by the state.
Third, it would be interesting to see if these color-coded bracelets and licenses had any effect on who gets murdered. Clearly, when the murder is a crime of passion, it is hard to imagine that the would-be murderer would stop himself upon noticing a red bracelet or a red dot on a license plate. But crimes of passion are generally not, in any event, punished by death. On the other hand, in murders that could be capital crimes, it is possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) that a would-be murderer (or, even more likely, his accomplice, if there were one) might just rethink going ahead with the crime.
Fourth, choosing which color bracelet or dot would not only forces people to confront their own consciences, it would undoubtedly engender deep discussions with others. To cite but one example, it can surely help singles who are dating. If youre against the death penalty, and your date drives up with a red bracelet and/or dot on his license plate, youll either have a far deeper discussion than you would otherwise have had at dinner, or youll spare yourself the time and effort of a date that will probably lead nowhere.
These are some of the arguments for the plan. I cant think of one good argument against it unless youre an abolitionist who is fearful of seeing red.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist
Still, Dennis Prager is great on clarifying these types of issues, though. I need to remember to check him out more often.
So owhat's the problem? Citizen A is opposed to the DP and is murdered by this man. convicited, he is given life in prison for this crime.
But he is also convicted for killing Citizen B, an ardent DP supporter. He receives the death penalty, and is put to death.
Both victims should be satisfied if thye knew the outcome. Citizen had no responsibility for the DP being administered, so his conscience would be clear. It is nothing to him that the criminal died for killing someone else.
Very practical idea, but moral clarity it ain’t.
Here is moral clarity: If you kill someone or attempt to kill someone you forfeit your rights including the right to life. Why should someone get a lesser sentence for attempted murder? Their intention was to murder but they just weren’t successful at it. The reason there is so much evil in the world is because society allows it.
But if a person goes on a shooting spree in a mall and kills multiple people in the same crime, isn’t there usually just one trial, with “multiple counts”? I don’t think they give separate punishments for the different counts. Just totally an academic exercise of course as (unfortunately) Prager’s idea would never be tried.
I have no idea how I will feel or what I will be thinking after I’ve been murdered.
Can I have a black dot for “Torture the b@st@rd slowly to death” or a violet dot for “Take him to the hospital, pith him like a frog, and salvage his tissues and organs?”
i like it... and an outwardly display will allow murderers to choose their victims accordingly...
i see violent crime rates plummeting.
Couldn’t agree more. Leaving justice to the victim is about as unclear a moral solution as I’ve ever heard.
Why is the argument framed through the feelings of the victim? The argument should be framed through the feelings of possible potential victims. Nothing can be done to bring back the victim of a murderer but the death penalty certainly ends the threat that he/she poses to potential victims.
Any thoughts I have about violence, up to and including death, are totally centered around my and my loved ones surviving.
As an old Boy Scout I still believe in being prepared, and as a Marine combat vet I still believe in being the first with the most.
I usually like Pragers articles, this one seems stupid to me...
Liberals can never actually imagine themselves as a murder victim since they are trying to help the underprivileged.
It would still be a dispassionate mental exercise to them.
>> I need to remember to check him out more often <<
I don’t think you should, because he recently came out as a strong Romney supporter.
There are many victims of a murder. Depending on you view of the afterlife, the victim is no longer suffering. The loved ones are though, especially if they are also financially hurt too. They are victims too.
Therefore, justice would dictate that they have some say in the disposition of the convicted murderer. It could bring some satisfaction and healing to them. It also offers some empowerment to them.
There is no question of their guilt and aside from their confessions there was ample evidence to prove them guilty beyond any doubt. Their crime was heinous and premeditated and met every criteria for receiving the death penalty as set by law. Yet these guys will spend years living it up at our expense before any justice will be served.
You DO realize that "I don't agree" is neither a moral or legal argument and, indeed, is no argument at all?
It’s not a model of model clarity because its outcome depends not on the act or nonact itself but on the situation (or the people assessing the situation) surrounding the act. How people feel individually about a morally questionable act may fit into the democratic mindset, but it has nothing to do with ethics. Situational ethics is not ethics at all; it’s an escape from ethics. Is it right to cheat on a test if you’ve just GOT to pass this test? No. If murder’s wrong, and the punishment deemed by the state/competent authority—after careful, thoughtful review and consideration—is execution, execution is moral, in the same way that killing an enemy combatant or someone trying to kill you is moral. There are rules about these things that have been discussed and agreed on for milennia. And this particular solution has never, to my knowledge, come up. So, yes, it’s interesting but not moral.