Capital PunishmentMagaus Thom Potter, 2001 |
25 March 2001
Capital punishment is too much, too late. For a person to find themselves on death row, at least one other person had to be deliberately put to death. With care, we might have prevented that first death. The criminal justice system, however, is a big business, and retribution can feel so good. Changing this environment would require comprehensive changes in American society.
The earliest historical records contain evidence of capital punishment. As social structures came into existence, Natural Law became inconvenient. Under Natural Law, an individual could take retribution into their own hands. With the conditions existing before civilization, survival often meant aggressively protecting the things one loved, such as children and the stores that will ensure survival in times of need. As social structures developed, the good of the whole clan became more important than the good of the individual. Persons who were both courageous and sympathetic would find reproduction rights. The clan preferred these faithful members of society over those who were selfish or cowardly. Society began to develop “codes of ethics” to govern the group. These codes developed into “Laws” as society became more unwieldily and social power became concentrated in a few elders. These written codes, often represented a reform of sorts.
The Code of Hammurabi (1750 BC), and its reflections in the Mosaic Code represent some of the earliest constituted authorities. These documents gave clear direction for “authorities” to judge society. This was an improvement over arbitrary judgments over individuals, declaring something a crime in one place, but not a crime in another. These codes would declare certain crimes — such as rape or murder — as punishable by death. The notion was that “if you scare them with death, they will obey.”
The problem with this answer is when people are no longer afraid of death, possibly wanting Her embraces, it will avail nothing to scare them with death. The adherent’s of retributionism claim that capital punishment will indeed reduce the chances of another person being murdered. Numbers can lie, and be made to say what the reader wishes. The numbers, however, do not support this claim that capital punishment will reduce any murder. In the early 1970s, reports were published purporting to show that each execution in the U.S. deterred eight or more homicides. Subsequent research, however, has disputed this finding. This research suggests, rather, “that no conclusive evidence exists to show that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent to violent crime than long-term imprisonment.” Confucius has argued, “when a child murders the parents, when a servant murders the master, the causes do not lie in a single day. They happen because what should have been done, was not done soon enough.”
So, the next question would be, what purpose does capital punishment serve within society? The lessons of history may shed some light in this.
For a social structure to function, the ruling elders must have the support of the people, the military, and the money. If the elders have the support of any two of these, they may hold the reigns of power even if the third is in revolt. If the ruling body should loose the support of two of those pillars, they must not take out any long term loans.
King Louis XIV of France had several problems maintaining control. The people were hungry and suffering from disease. The Crown was taxing the “money” class, and the military was pensive. King Louis could maintain control by declaring war on several neighbors, and later by declaring the Huguenots enemies of the state. It was only when King Louis XVI was unable to accomplish this that revolt finally hit France. By having some kind of enemy “out there” the ruling elders can distract the populous away from their problems, deluding them into believing all is well.
To maintain the illusion that the “upstanding” citizens of society are not the problem, we need an enemy, a criminal class, someone we can blame for our problem. We do not want to look to ourselves. Rather, we want someone worst than us to make us “feel” better, a “Scape Goat,” for analogy. We can avoid, or at least reduce a criminal class with a few simple but comprehensive changes.
Upon observation, one might wonder about the “civilized” nature of the death penalty. Most persons on death row are minority males. Why would that be? Two answers seem to surface.
A person will commit the crime that is most readily available to them. A young man who is economically or mentally frustrated in the ghetto will choose crimes that involve violence. Weapons are readily available, as is aggression as a response to frustration. A middle- or upper-class worker, who is economically or mentally frustrated may choose a crime that is less likely to involve violence, such as extortion or graft. So, the predominance of minorities on Death Row may be a result of choices made available to the criminal.
On a more ominous note, however, the justice system seems more reluctant to convict a person of “Northern European” heritage. It is even more reluctant to be unsympathetic toward females, especially in capital cases. This tendency ranges from Law Enforcement — who may be less thorough in their investigations — to the courtroom. When a population feels the constituted authority does not have their interest at heart, that population may begin to revert to Natural Law, and take retribution into their own hands.
For someone to be on Death Row, at least one other person had to be needlessly and deliberately put to death. The next question might be, “could we have prevented this first death?” The prevailing answer to this is, “more times than not … yes!”
We may distill the causes of murder into one of two sources: mental illness or aggression. Psychology operationally defines aggression as “a series of actions having as their reinforcing goal-reaction ‘injury to some other organism or organism surrogate’ [Bateson, 1941].” Mental Illness is a mental, emotional, behavioral, or psychological syndrome that deviates significantly from those typical of human beings enjoying good mental health. A mental disorder may involve a present distress or impairment in important areas of functioning.
Catastrophic changes in neural homeostasis may cause mental disorders. This in turn may be brought on by improper diet, drugs, or a genetic flaw. In either of these cases, a change in the neural environment and thought patterns, aided by psychotherapy, can result in better mental health. If genetic conditions are caught early enough, then the person may require less care to bring on mental health. In extreme disorders, however, the individual may require restraint to protect everyone. With modern psychiatric science, very few persons need suffer under a mental disorder, and with care, a murder need not have happened.
So! Why are mentally incompetent persons on death row? If the suspect shows any sign that they knew that what they were doing was wrong — such as hiding the body — then we believe them to have been competent enough, and are held up to the scrutiny of court.
Aggression, on the other hand, rises from frustration. Life is full of frustration, but frustration will not always result in aggression. Aggression, however, is always instigated by frustration. Dr. Neal Miller (1941) noted that
When the occurrence of acts of aggression is prevented by more strongly instigated incompatible responses, how is the existence of instigation to aggression to be determined? If only the more direct and overt acts of aggression have been inhibited, …
Directing a child to vent their frustrations in a safe and effective way is not easy. The child may feel justified that life is not fair, and an action is worthy of reprisal. Children, however, learn from the models in their environment. One need only watch the parents at a little league game to see that aggression is a strongly cultivated response. How often do we go to a fight, and watch a hockey game break out? While frustration results from some “need” not being met, such as food or sleep, frustration is more likely to be intense when some social need is unmet. We may observe two children asking for an ice cream as an illustration of this point. If child “A” asks for an ice cream, and mother says no, this child may be disappointed, but that is all. If child “B” asks for an ice cream, and mother says no, this child may be disappointed, but then we may be entertained by a bout of balling or other aggressive expressions. Dr. Abraham Maslow (1941) noted that,
It is only when a goal object represents love, prestige, respect, or achievement that being deprived of it will have the bad effects ordinarily attributed to frustration in general.
The difference between child “A” and child “B” is we have deprived child “A” of an ice cream, where child “B” has had some threat to his or her personality or life goals, defensive system, self-esteem and/or feelings of security.
It does not take long, especially in childhood, for a person to develop a pattern of behavior when some “success” has reinforced it. While raising horses and dogs, this author has learned to teach the animal the “expected” behavior from the beginning. Otherwise, the animal has learned an unwanted behavior, believing it to be wanted. They will then judge any other request against the first lessons, favorably or unfavorably. So that a horse we have shown that nuzzling and mutual grooming is okay — if teeth are not used — will quickly learn that grooming is fun, without teeth.
If a child learns that “hitting sister” will get brother the attention he needs, then sister will get hit. As the child grows, the patterns of behavior become ingrained into his or her personality. What we taught, through action or inaction, will be reinforced as the desired behavior. Aggression that gets a response, where “civilized” behavior did not, will result is a pattern of aggression. So, we see that we may teach our children, through example and cultivation, the very behaviors we want or don’t want.
For someone to be on Death Row, someone else had to die first. Clearly, society may not have done enough to prevent the first death. Capital Punishment is too much too late. The question really to be answered is, “Why did we wait to provide a remedy?” We ought to suspend the Death Penalty, and reevaluate the issues addressed here, including the people on death row. Evaluating these people will help us understand better the events that lead up to that first murder. To accomplish this would require comprehensive changes in national policy, a revolution of the mind. Until then, we may wonder how many “Einstein’s” we have in prison.