Commentary
President Biden’s decision to commute the death penalty for 37 federal prisoners raised questions about consistency. In his announcement, he stated that he believed “we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level,” guided by his conscience and experience.
While President Biden was not always opposed to the death penalty, it is not a criticism of him to have changed his stance, as a mind open to change is a discerning one.
Similar to President Biden, the late President of France, François Mitterand, shifted his position on the death penalty from endorsing it to overseeing its complete abolition. Whether this change was genuine or politically motivated remains a subject of debate, given Mitterand’s adaptable nature.
President Biden’s decision to spare three federal prisoners on death row while commuting others could also be seen as a political calculation. Pardoning terrorists and mass murderers might not have been well-received, despite aligning more closely with his anti-death penalty beliefs, potentially sparking outrage. However, it is not unusual for politicians to consider the political implications of their decisions.
President Biden may have believed that commuting the sentences of the three individuals would hinder the overall abolition of the death penalty by provoking significant opposition. Reforms often occur gradually rather than instantly.
In the realm of abolitionism, few individuals remain entirely consistent. For instance, few would argue against the execution of someone like Heinrich Himmler, underscoring the limitations of desert as a sole determinant of punishment.
While the death penalty’s deterrence effect is often debated, utilitarian arguments alone do not suffice in justifying it. Even if executions were proven to deter crime, the wrongful execution of an innocent person would still be deemed unacceptable.
Mistakes in implementing the death penalty have been documented in various jurisdictions, highlighting the inherent risks of wrongful executions. The ethical implications of executing an innocent individual cannot be dismissed based on utilitarian calculations.
And if the argument is made that the death penalty should only be reserved for extremely heinous cases and those where there is absolute certainty of guilt, it would still greatly damage faith in the criminal justice system.
In court, individuals are supposed to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with the legal presumption being that all guilty verdicts are equally valid. It is impossible to differentiate between levels of guilt. It is unjust to imprison someone for life if they cannot be executed due to any doubt regarding their guilt. If there is any doubt, they should not be imprisoned at all.
Despite all this, I must confess that deep down, I believe that for certain crimes and criminals, death is the only appropriate punishment. I suspect that many abolitionists feel the same way, even if they do not openly admit it. The role of our personal feelings in advocating for a policy, and how they interact with rational arguments, is a complex issue. However, I personally could not carry out the death penalty myself. Can I truly ask others to do something that I am not willing to do?
Please note that the views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.
Source link
