Baker, pope revive death penalty debate
Pope Francis has just come out against the death penalty, not just most of the time, but in every possible circumstance. Meanwhile, Gov. Charlie Baker announced recently his plan to reinstate the death penalty in the commonwealth, at least for cop killers.
Once again, everyone has to decide where they stand on this knotty issue.
Before turning to my views, let me kill off one argument that never stands up to scrutiny — the economic argument. It asks why we should pay for imprisoning terrible criminals when we can just execute them. This misses the point. As a society, we don’t kill people to save money. End of story.
Another argument that fails is the challenge to the method of execution. Proponents note that this or that combination of drugs doesn’t always work and, therefore, we should just do away with the whole thing. Setting aside the fact that some of the effective combinations are now made unavailable by these very same people, the fact remains that there are many ways to put someone to death that are effective and painless. This is a sham argument that depends on squeamishness rather than any moral calculus.
There are only two types of arguments that really hold water. One is the basic morality of the death penalty itself. According to the pope, it can never be justified. Period. He has his own theological arguments, but he exemplifies a legitimate point of view — it is inherent in a moral society that it never intentionally puts a human to death. This view is shared by many people, although articulated in different ways. And it is wrong.
One of the hallmarks of a civilized society is that it holds to certain core values. When those core values are profoundly violated, it must act; otherwise, it betrays itself. There can, of course, be discussion about which values are central, or how profound a violation triggers the ultimate response, but their existence and this requirement to defend them seems, to me, incontestable.
I don’t need to go right to Hitler to make my point. The man who rapes and murders a mother in front of a child and then kills that child is beyond the pale. The people who plotted to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are the same. In essence, to preserve the integrity of our society, there are times when we have to say that we cannot live under the same sky as some evildoers.
The argument that is more troublesome to me is that we can be wrong. The judicial system is fallible. So we will make mistakes. And we often do so in a way that is biased against minorities and the poor. I get that. Even if we put in strong protections, and we should, they will still fail now and then.
But, as a society, I do not think we can be paralyzed by the fear of error. We must do the best we can.