I used to spend extensive time in my Law and Ethics class discussing capital punishment. This is an important issue to me; I spent years working on a death penalty appeal for a man who spent 21 years on death row before being released. Growing up, I was vaguely in favor of the death penalty. It seemed to me that are some crimes that are so terrible, some criminals who are so evil, that jail is insufficient.
That all changed my senior year of college. I took a class with Senator Terry Sanford, a former U.S. Senator, Governor of North Carolina, and President of Duke University. Senator Sanford took our class on a tour of the highest security prison in the state of North Carolina. Part of the tour was the death chamber. I will never forget how it chilled me to the bone to think that the warden who was running our tour would take actions to kill another human being in that room. In the abstract, capital punishment can seem reasonable to many; but for me, in the actual death chamber, it seems morally repulsive for any of us to choose to take another person’s life. It seemed we are no better than the criminals if we use capital punishment.
Then I went to law school, and through my studies there and as a lawyer, I became convinced of an indisputable reality: the flaws in our criminal justice system make it impossible to effectively use capital punishment. While reasonable people can disagree on the morality of capital punishment (indeed, I have wavered over the years and when faced with certain horrible crimes), the facts show that our system is flawed; we have likely executed several innocent people and others may be sitting on death row today. For me, the (not so low) chance that we execute one innocent person is enough to require that we eliminate capital punishment altogether. So, I ultimately oppose the death penalty on due process grounds. My favorite articulation of this argument came from Judge Rakoff in Quinones. It is worth a read; basically Judge Rakoff reasons that because execution means by definition that the defendant runs out of chances to prove his innocence, and given the high likelihood of error in our system, we are denying the defendant due process by executing him.
This is all fascinating stuff to the law and ethics people in the world, but I began to have doubts that it was relevant in a business school. So I cut the topic out of my syllabus. Interestingly enough, I have had several former students write me to say how meaningful those discussions were for them; so maybe there is room for this topic in the “general interest” column. But the newest set of arguments against the death penalty actually cue up a fascinating business ethics dilemma.
As described in this bone-chilling article about the execution of Dennis McGuire in Ohio last week, the latest war in capital punishment has to do with the method of execution. Basically, over the years most states have moved to lethal injection as the method of execution. This process requires the defendant to receive several injections of drugs meant to first anesthetize him, then to paralyze the muscles and the heart. Kentucky’s three drug protocol was upheld by the Supreme Court a few years ago, despite concerns about whether it could be administered incorrectly and result in a painful death. (The process used in Kentucky is not approved by vets for putting down animals, by the way.) Most states bought their lethal injection drugs from European companies; many of those companies, faced with the ethical dilemma of their drugs being used for capital punishment, decided to refuse to sell them to the states. So now many states are facing a shortage of the drugs, and are getting creative. That is how Dennis McGuire ended up receiving a new cocktail of lethal injection drugs, which apparently resulted in “struggling, his stomach heaving, a fist clenching.”
In addition to raising serious issues about the measure of our morality, the issue of lethal injection drugs is a great example of how ethical decisions arise in a business setting. The executives at pharmaceutical companies are neither lawyers nor ethicists; they are business people who are now faced with decisions with great moral consequences. How do they make the decision whether to sell the drugs to the state? If the executives have varied views on capital punishment, how do they make a choice as an organization? Do they research the likelihood of pain and suffering when their drugs are used in this way?
For me, I always end up in the same place; we cannot do capital punishment well, so we should not do it at all. For me, the measure of a person is how we treat our worst enemies. If we knowingly inflict pain and torture on another, we are no better than the bad guys. And no one can figure out a way to use capital punishment without pain. Worse yet, because of flaws in our justice system, it is really difficult to be sure that the defendant actually committed the crime. My view pains me when I read of a terrible crime committed by a monster-like person. I want to punish that person; I see the injustice in the victim(s) losing their life while a criminal lives on. But I cannot live with being just as guilty as that criminal.
4 Comments
Chen Shi posted on January 26, 2014 at 1:36 pm
It is sad to realize how many people being treated with death penalty are actually innocent. Yes, the system is flawed, and the only way to possess a chance of fixing our mistakes is to not implement capital punishment. In addition, the statistics show that sometimes a state without death penalty has even lower crime rates than those which have death penalty. However, I think morality is a force to regularize people and prevent people from doing bad or doing harm, with the presence of severe consequences, such as death. Almost everyone treasures his or her own life, regardless of how they neglect others’. Death penalty serves as a powerful weapon, stirring fear (of losing their own life), within those people who are planning a murder, or who are sober in the process of criminal activities. To me, capital punishment is more a method to prevent crimes, than a way to punish criminals.
In addition, what if we can eliminate the pain when implementing death penalty, and only simple take away the criminals’ lives? Would that make a difference when discussing whether the capital punishment is moral or not?
Shannon Clark posted on January 26, 2014 at 5:42 pm
“For me, the measure of a person is how we treat our worst enemies.” I could not agree more with this statement. We look down on criminals, on members of our society who have committed heinous crimes against humanity. We shun them for their lack of morality and their utter disregard for the feelings of others. And then we do the exact same thing to them. Sure, you could argue that a lethal injection may not be as harsh as the stabbing or gun-shooting that the prisoner committed. But with the uncertainty that’s been popping up with these drugs, whose to say that we aren’t inflicting pain just the same (and I use the phrase “we” here very lightly)?
I for one am strictly against the death penalty. Yet I can see the other side: wanting to punish those who’ve caused so much unjust pain and suffering. But is an eye for an eye really the way to go? If the person on death row didn’t have a right to take a life away, why should we have the right to take theirs? It’s hard to come up with an alternative, of course. I like to think that lifetime incarceration could be the next option, but then I consider how much it costs to keep a prisoner in jail.
This is the struggle, essentially. It’s the battle between morality and the desire for revenge, made even cloudier by business decisions and money. I strongly believe that our system needs to be re-evaluated. And that means that people need to have discussions such as this. Though it is a sensitive and controversial topic, it is often tip-toed around. If we want progress and change, we can’t be afraid to talk about important issues such as these.
Michaela Ragaisis posted on January 27, 2014 at 1:24 pm
In theory, I am pro death penalty. Many say “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” but there some people out there who are complete monsters with no conscious or remorse for their violent and terrible crimes. However, in reality, the death penalty system is not accurate or efficient.
Most people on death row are on it until they die naturally (example: the man who was on death row for 21 years). And, unfortunately, with our justice system being flawed and imperfect, there is a chance of killing an innocent person. While there are monsters out there who deserve the ultimate punishment, taking one innocent life is a risk we should never take.
Also, a lot of people get away with terrible crimes because they have the means to hire the best lawyers, aren’t profiled, or get away on a technicality. Those flaws are what need to be focused on before the death penalty should be considered for use.
I’m from Connecticut and after the Cheshire home invasion, I wanted those men to get the death penalty so badly. They were caught at the scene of the crime, so there was no doubt. However, being sentenced to a lethal injection doesn’t seem like enough for their heinous crime. I think sitting in their prison cell, in complete isolation, is the best punishment for them because they are left with their own thoughts and will spend the rest of their lives being punished for their crimes instead of escaping through death.
I agree with the comment above that it’s a struggle between morality and revenge. While you want someone to be be punished for their brutal crime, their death won’t alleviate the victim’s suffering and may/may not bring people peace. Until the justice system is less flawed, I don’t believe the death penalty should be considered.
Stefania Semenova posted on April 30, 2014 at 7:57 pm
Thank you professor Spooner for a very vivid story of how you reached your conclusion on death penalty. I enjoyed reading this post a lot. Most people view the death punishment as excessive due to pain and sufferings of the convicted and due to the uncertainty that surrounds the actual “guilty” person. What if he is not guilty… Thus, if we could eliminate those two aspects of capital punishment I do think its just and should be practiced.
On the other hand I agree with Michaela as “complete isolation” seems far worse of the punishment in my opinion. Maybe the courts should review it and come up with a silent punishing cell that would affect human’s desire to socialize and drive them crazy (although they are already crazy since they committed or presumably committed a crime).
With that said I think something should be done. I would not want any of the rapist, and murderers walking out of the prison eventually and starting a new life because in my opinion it is very unlikely that they will not commit a crime again.
In conclusion, my solution is “death penalty” for those who certainly committed an outrageous crime (for example, a case in which there is evidence such as a video tape that can prove with certainty that the person is guilty) or a silent cell that will drive them crazy till they die.
After I wrote this comment I reread it and thought that I might need to visit a death chamber myself to change my opinion. Like most of us do…