| God bless Myra Hindley and God bless Ian Brady,
Even though he’s horrible and she ain’t what you’d call a lady.
– Sex Pistols, "No One Is Innocent"
From a welfare state to society murder / "Bring back the noose" is always heard
Whenever those swine are under attack / But it won’t make you even,
It won’t bring him back.
– Elvis Costello, "Let Him Dangle"
"I believe it’s wrong to kill another human being."
I’m sitting in Tim Hortons, across the table from a friend. It’s the day that 12 further counts of murder have been charged against Robert Pickton, the man now accused of killing 27 women in Vancouver. The Globe and Mail describes his victims as "drug addicts and prostitutes." Bullshit. They were human beings.
But, in fact, it isn’t the latest news about Pickton that we’re discussing. Two weeks ago, I wrote on how the forthcoming release of Karla Homolka would – and should, I added – refocus public debate on how to deal with convicted prisoners who have shown few, if any, signs of remorse or reform, let alone rehabilitation. In short, if all we’ve done is to remove them from society for a few years – an even dozen in Homolka’s case – is it time to rethink the basic assumptions and purpose of the Canadian criminal justice system?
My friend had read the piece and already made a number of more or less valid criticisms. First, she argued, Homolka had served her time and so, presumably, had paid her debt to society. Second, Homolka had committed no criminal offences before her relationship with Paul Bernardo, and that now, free of her former husband’s influence, she was unlikely to re-offend. Third, any number of criminals who claim they’ve been rehabilitated do go on to reoffend so the question of Homolka’s rehabilitation was really neither here nor there.
I’d anticipated these objections in my last column, and so had no particular interest in returning to them now. Instead, our conversation turned to Paul Bernardo himself.
"Go on," I say, "what’s the argument for letting him live? We know he’s never going to express remorse or undergo rehabilitation. Yet still the system says he’ll be released one day. What’s the point?" My friend looks at me. "You know he’ll never be released," she says. "He’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail."
I nod. "Exactly. And so what’s the difference between that and just killing him right now? It’d be a lot cheaper and even more humane. After all, what’s to be gained by keeping him locked up for, say, the next 50 or 60 years? Either way, we’re deciding the conditions and circumstances of his death."
Let me be clear on one point, at least. For as long as what passes for my adult life, I’ve been opposed – sometimes actively – to the notion of capital punishment. I’d listened to and agreed with various arguments as to why it was wrong. As best as I can recall, these include:
· the State has no right to take an individual’s life;
· mistakes can be and have been made – innocent people may be killed as a result;
· the death penalty has no deterrent effect against similar crimes, as is splendidly clear from the case of Texas, where rampant executions have singularly failed to reduce the rate of violent crime;
· no one "deserves" to die, no matter what they’ve done;
· capital punishment degrades a civilized society;
· finally, it’s simply wrong to kill another human being.
Set out like this, who could support the often renewed call for capital punishment? Not me, that’s for sure. Yet none of these objections rests on any obvious or logical base of evidence. Instead, as I’ve increasingly come to fear, they simply bolster a priori "liberal" beliefs on the subject. Indeed, on reflection, I’m easily able to counter each of the above objections, with one important exception:
· assuming "the State" embodies – even if nebulously – the "will of the people," then it clearly does have the right to do as it sees fit and proper – more to the point, the State has on several occasions (e.g. the First and Second World Wars) very much endorsed the taking of human life;
· this is simply an argument for a higher standard of justice, not for a moratorium on executions – in short, let’s come up with a system that makes sure those found guilty really are guilty;
· by the same token, there’s no real convincing evidence that any form of punishment, per se, actually deters potential offenders – as I argued last time, it’s the likelihood of being caught that weighs much more heavily on the criminally disposed;
· I have no idea who "deserves" to die anymore than I do if Wayne Gretzky, Paris Hilton or Donald Trump deserve the amount of money they have – I assume defenders of the latter would argue that it’s the market that determines this outcome, so fine, let’s then establish a "free market" of criminal justice and let the chips fall where they will;
· any TV show involving Jessica Simpson and Nick Whatshisface also degrades a civilized society – that’s the trouble with leaving the market to make qualitative decisions;
· … h’mmm.
It’s this final objection – that it’s wrong to kill another human being – that I find impossible to counter. It’s beyond logical argument, it’s as much a matter of faith as belief in a supreme deity. I may disagree, but I cannot come up with any convincing argument why.
So what? Well, if not in the case of Homolka’s release or the related prospect of Bernardo being returned to society one day, but in the event of Pickton being found guilty of murdering 27 human beings, it’s likely that certain quarters will raise again the idea of capital punishment as a fit and proper response. If so, arguments for and against the notion are likely to be highly emotional.
Those in favour of the death penalty will – and must – play on the public’s fears and disgust. Fair enough: I have no wish to wake up to find Bernardo as my neighbour. Those opposed, however, need to – and must – come up with some solid arguments why the restoration of capital punishment should be resisted. "Killing another human being is wrong" may be unanswerable, but I suspect it won’t be enough.
This is only the first step. It is now time for those opposed to the death penalty – myself included – to propose a better system than the current "catch-and-release" policy that fails to reform the unreformable. |
Copyright ©2005 FFWD. All rights reserved.