Koch on the Death Penalty

Though it outraged liberals and "progressives" among the nation's esteemed "intelligentsia," Koch's essay reflected the convictions of most Americans, then as now, as opinion polls have consistently shown a substantial majority in favor of the death penalty. 

Back in the day, I read an op-ed by Ed Koch supporting the death penalty and rejected its premises, but either way, the opening quote is not a convincing type of argument. Such arm wavering annoys me whoever does it and is a continual source of aggravation in my blog reading. Anyway, a quick summary of my reply to the analysis in the first link, since Ed Koch does do a fairly good job citing the main arguments. 

[1] Lethal injection does address to some degree the "barbarism" involved in past methods of execution, but killing people is not going to be fully clean no matter what method used.  Since so many jurisdictions do not have a death penalty or very rarely uses it, however, the need he cites to not tolerate murder etc. does not seem to actually exist. 

[2]  Studies also suggest that the death penalty does not do much to address the specific violent crime in our country, especially given how little -- even in places like Texas -- it is actually used.  This aside from the argument that such violent means aggravate the overall situation.  Ultimately, the death penalty is best defended as a matter of moral retribution, not as a deterrence mechanism. 

[3]  Ultimately, the chance of error -- including wrongful application of the penalty even if the person did the act -- is a complex judgment call that is a question of line-drawing.  Overall, I and others do not think it worth it.

[4]  Koch here relies part on the value of deterrence, which as noted, is greatly open to doubt. Ultimately, again, this is a judgment call -- how do we best value life?  The flaws in the system helps the abolitionist case.

[5]  In effect, he admits there are problems of discriminatory application, but that the punishment is worth it even with the risks. Again, it is a matter of balance of options -- after all, we cannot end all punishment because of discrimination. Death however is extreme and there are alternatives. As to his extension of the penalty argument, that turns the telescope around -- many oppose the penalty in various cases but apply it in a racial discriminatory matter etc.  The reasons to oppose it need to rise or fall on the merits.  If acceptable, they are not illicit discrimination.

[6]  True enough that we allow some forms of killing -- the commandment might be better phrased as "thou shall not murder."  But, not killing is a good rebuttable presumption and the arbitrary killing of a select few via the death penalty, especially multiple states and most nations manage not to do it [take murders in prison, a very hard case -- how do these other jurisdictions prevent such things or handle them?] seems wrong.

[7] As with the drone strike opponents, calling it "murder" bothers me too, since the term assumes the premise. "Murder" is illegal homicide and in some cases, governments do things that can be understood that way, even if technically authorized by some sort of law. The Nazis murdered and it is not an abuse of the word to say that. In a few cases, the evidence that a person might not be guilty or is legally not liable enough to execute (mentally retarded or whatnot)  warrants some harsh term. 

But, application of the term here is problematic. I understand how states planning executions and the like can be understood to be barbaric and on some level, I agree that it is. Still, there is a line here.  IF the state purposely executes (by lethal injection etc. ... I don't mean drone attacks or abortion or whatever)  someone known to be innocent, that would be "murder."  Perhaps, a lesser word like negligent homicide is appropriate in some other cases?  I'm game.  Use of "murder" is too much for me.