Preserving the law

The execution of criminals used to be—and in many ways still is—a public spectacle. People would gather in the town square with their families to watch the guilty suffer and be put to death. This demonstration was a means of exerting and establishing public authority. The right over life has been one of the fundamental factors of legitimate political authority since time immemorial. The execution of criminals used to be—and in many ways still is—a public spectacle. People would gather in the town square with their families to watch the guilty suffer and be put to death. This demonstration was a means of exerting and establishing public authority.

The right to life has been one of the fundamental factors of legitimate political authority since time immemorial. Even after public torture and execution were deemed cruel and unusual punishment by a good portion of the Western world, state-sponsored murder continued, on the one hand in closed courtrooms and private jail cells and, on the other hand on battlefields with massive casualties. The means have changed over time, but the end goal of emblematizing political authority remains unchanged.

Historically, “justice” is a relatively arbitrary term that is thrown around nonchalantly by governments, and one that has been used to justify all manners of atrocities, including the death penalty. The state’s right to kill its own subjects and citizens is historically more notorious than praiseworthy. The Inquisition comes to mind, as do the horrors of colonialism. The Nazis used the rhetoric of the death penalty—that is, the state’s right to kill—to assassinate over 11 million people for committing the crime of existing. Even Jesus was executed on commands from those in authority.

For these killings, these crimes as we now call them, the rhetoric was all there—the legal arguments were in place. What has changed in retrospect? Why are these once-legal crimes some of the most painful and embarrassing instances in human history? What has truly changed? Will history look back on what we do today and call us criminal as well?

This brings us to today and to the future that will become our own. What are the specific differences between the death penalty that still holds authority over more than half of the world’s population today and the crimes of the past that we condemn? What is it that so protects us from past evils and prevents us from repeating history? What is the worth of the death penalty in today’s society? Has it solved problems? Has it prevented crimes? Even if the death penalty deters crimes, do we, a civilized society, have the right to take the life of others under the guise of the law?

These questions can be asked on both a macro and micro level. In terms of preventing crime on a massive scale, how successful is the death penalty? There is more incentive to not get caught than to not commit a crime. For instance, Saddam Hussein was killed under the authority of a provisional government. Did Saddam refrain from violating human rights and committing “crimes against humanity” for fear of the death penalty? Are other dictators following suit? Or, did Saddam commit such crimes with tolerance from the international community until the United States decided to invade Iraq and capture him? On a smaller scale, does the death penalty prevent people from committing murder? In other words, does it scare people into obeying the law?

History can demonstrate that fear is not always the most lasting form of political authority. Self-interest has always been more motivating. Even in situations where political bias is not an issue, the death penalty is more vengeance than justice. It is responding to violence with violence. Is this the law we believe in? Is this a legacy we want?
Who has the right to kill another human being? Is there such a thing as a uniform policy on the matter? Or is it more arbitrary? Is it subject to personal and political biases and prejudice? If so, how much more time must pass and how many more people must be killed legally before we come up with an appropriate answer? The death penalty is a legal experiment. It is always changing and circumstantial. Human lives are our guinea pigs.

Overall, I believe that the death penalty is one symptom of a diseased legal system. While I have a deep respect for the ideals and ethics of the American legal code, its manifestations are not without problems. In a country where rights are sacred and where the ultimate political authority is theoretically vested in the people, it is a responsibility of everyone to question and attempt to comprehend the meaning and power of the law.

Society and technology are moving faster than the law. Globalization is increasing exponentially while international law is more a dream than a reality. I think it is essential that people keep the law in mind and keep it changing with the times. Otherwise, we will pass it up completely and the law as we know and cherish it will become a relic of the past.  

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in history. He is the president of the CU chapter of Responsible Endowments Coalition and the treasurer of CU Amnesty International.

Tags: Opinion, Karman Lucero, Carolyn Lucey, Karman Lucero