[posted in a slightly different form in the Slate fray]
As with torture, there is something archetype related in the opposition here that goes beyond mere numbers. Numbers-wise, even in Texas, a very small number of people are involved here. Even in days of yore, only a fraction of those death penalty eligible (even a smaller subset of murderers) were even given a death sentence, as an Explainer piece notes, even a much smaller number were executed. So, why the noise on both sides?
There is something special about the government executing those in their custody, particularly American citizens, particularly if there is something hinky about how they got there. The concern goes beyond this narrow area, of course, just as DNA testing isn't just concerned with those on death row (e.g., various people were found to be falsely accused of rape). But, the death penalty is specifically symbolic of the dangers of government wrongdoing and the sanctity of life. Even if the people involved are heinous,* we want to ensure a certain level of protection.
To quote:
Meanwhile, many more lives are at risk in ways the government can address. For instance, the thousands of people who die because of the inability to have adequate health insurance, which was addressed in significant part by the PPACA. Those of us that think health care should be a protected right, such as it is for some, see this also as an important life and death issue. As with the many criminal justice issues beyond the death penalty that needs to be addressed better, these are all important issues.
But, death remains different, particularly the death penalty.
---
* A few over at the Slate fray fantasize about getting some personal justice if a family member is involved here, but it is just that. In reality, we have a criminal justice system, one where "an eye for an eye" isn't the philosophy.
As with torture, there is something archetype related in the opposition here that goes beyond mere numbers. Numbers-wise, even in Texas, a very small number of people are involved here. Even in days of yore, only a fraction of those death penalty eligible (even a smaller subset of murderers) were even given a death sentence, as an Explainer piece notes, even a much smaller number were executed. So, why the noise on both sides?
There is something special about the government executing those in their custody, particularly American citizens, particularly if there is something hinky about how they got there. The concern goes beyond this narrow area, of course, just as DNA testing isn't just concerned with those on death row (e.g., various people were found to be falsely accused of rape). But, the death penalty is specifically symbolic of the dangers of government wrongdoing and the sanctity of life. Even if the people involved are heinous,* we want to ensure a certain level of protection.
To quote:
The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree, but in kind. It is unique in its total irrevocability. It is unique in its rejection of rehabilitation of the convict as a basic purpose of criminal justice. And it is unique, finally, in its absolute renunciation of all that is embodied in our concept of humanity.The judgment of society, which is ultimately what guides what "cruel and unusual" means to a large extent (if channeled to some degree, as Dahlia Lithwick noted in a NYT op-ed, by the courts) was expressed by Justice Kennedy, the current "swing" justice:
The rule of evolving standards of decency with specific marks on the way to full progress and mature judgment means that resort to the penalty must be reserved for the worst of crimes and limited in its instances of application. In most cases justice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense. Difficulties in administering the penalty to ensure against its arbitrary and capricious application require adherence to a rule reserving its use, at this stage of evolving standards and in cases of crimes against individuals, for crimes that take the life of the victim.The "limits" here include limiting it to cases where there does not remain some "residual doubt" after sentencing, which repeatedly has shown to be an imperfect process making appellate review and re-examination by executive bodies well justified. I and others think Troy Davis failed this test, putting aside the further belief of some of us that the "peculiar institution" du jour should end.
Meanwhile, many more lives are at risk in ways the government can address. For instance, the thousands of people who die because of the inability to have adequate health insurance, which was addressed in significant part by the PPACA. Those of us that think health care should be a protected right, such as it is for some, see this also as an important life and death issue. As with the many criminal justice issues beyond the death penalty that needs to be addressed better, these are all important issues.
But, death remains different, particularly the death penalty.
---
* A few over at the Slate fray fantasize about getting some personal justice if a family member is involved here, but it is just that. In reality, we have a criminal justice system, one where "an eye for an eye" isn't the philosophy.