Justice and the Death Penalty

John Allen Muhammad (the D.C. sniper) received the death penalty this week. As in all capital punishment cases, this has led to much discussion this week about the death penalty and its morality.

I'll share with you my feelings on the death penalty, but first let's perform a thought experiment...

Suppose there's a guy named 'Bob', whom you've never met. One day, Bob (for some unknown reason) murders a guy named 'Fred' whom you've also never met. (The fact that Bob and Fred are guys you don't know is important so as to avoid any emotional bias towards either man).

At Bob's trial, let's suppose YOU are called to be an advocate to help decide Bob's fate. Since his guilt is not an issue, it will be your job to suggest to the court a proper sentence for Bob's crime.

Now, let's suppose that either through advanced psychological analysis, or through some psychic or prophetic ability, you KNOW with 100% certainty that the circumstances that led to Bob killing Fred was a one time occurance, and that Bob will never, ever kill anyone else again for the rest of his life.

So, armed with this knowledge, my question to you is:
NOT "Would you advocate that Bob receive the death penalty?", but rather: "Would you advocate that Bob not receive any sentence at all, but instead go free?"

The points you may want to consider in regards to this question are:
1) Fred is dead, and nothing we do to Bob will make Fred come back.
2) Since we know (through our special ability) that Bob will never kill anyone again, there's no danger to other people in letting him go free.
3) Since there's no reason to keep Bob locked up and unable to contribute to society, society would be better served by having Bob remain a free citizen.

The extent to which you might or might not consider letting Bob go free without any sentence of death or jail time at all, is a clear representation of what you feel the purpose of 'sentencing' really is. If you consider the purpose of jail time as a 'protection for society'--namely, you lock up thieves and murderers because you want to protect other citizens from being robbed or killed by them in the future--then, you would have to consider letting Bob go free, because as noted above, Bob will never kill anyone again.

If, however, you thought despite the three facts above that letting Bob go free "isn't fair" in some way, this shows that you view the purpose of court sentences primarily as PUNISHMENT for crimes committed. In other words, putting Bob in jail and keeping Bob outside of normal society is Bob's PUNISHMENT for his crime, rather than providing any protection or other tangible benefit to society. Regardless of whether Bob feels sorry, or if he truly will never do it again, he still needs to accept the sentence of the court as the natural and appropriate consequence for his actions.

That is the key principle of free agency. We are free to choose our own actions, but then we have to accept the consequences of those actions, both in this life and the next. And why can't we conclude that the appropriate and natural consequence of taking someone else's life is the forfeiture of your own?

That in a nutshell is how I feel about the death penalty. Even in a society that values life, we should have the right to enforce this natural law of the universe; that if you kill someone, you must accept responsibility for your action and accept the appropriate punishment, even if your death doesn't provide any tangible benefit to society nor undoes any previous harm.