Humanism stands for a social ethics of equality, individual human rights, justice for everyone and government that defend their citizens. Humanism cannot support the death penalty.
Death penalty supporters appeal to these principles, too. But they narrowly interpret them to justify government killings, and they coldly apply them to the weakest among us. The pro-death side behaves as if some people's value is higher than others, the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused, the desire for retribution should dictate just punishment, and that the government needn't defend everyone equally.
The pro-death camp will admit that trials can deliver wrong verdicts. There's no way to ignore how many defendants get poor legal counsel, and how death-row inmates can be proven innocent on fresh evidence. Yet pro-deathers prefer a criminal system that kills all the murderous guilty along with some innocents over a criminal system that might let a single guilty murderer escape death. The rights of the victims far outweigh the rights of the accused, in their estimation. The blood of the victim on the ground cries out for retribution -- any retribution available -- and the government's overriding duty becomes the delivery of that retribution.
Dominated by that vengeful spirit, the criminal justice system encourages prosecutors to chase a conviction of whoever they can, rather than the truly guilty; it distracts jurors from the lofty standard of reasonable doubt; and it lets supervisory courts forget their supreme duty of justice for all. In that heated atmosphere of swift vengeance, the criminal "justice" system mostly executes the poor, the disadvantaged and racial minorities. Evidently, the pro-death camp is satisfied with a system that can't value some lives as much as others.
Pro-deathers should broaden their principles. Governments exist not merely to deliver criminal justice, but to protect and defend the lives and rights of everyone. When a government executes an innocent person, it violates the ultimate justification for its own existence. The death penalty permits the government to mutate into a loathsome tyrant over its own people, rather than its protector. Other punishment options, especially the life sentence without parole, are sufficient to protect the population and signal disapproval of murder.
Pro-deathers should look inside to ponder this drive to vengeance toward other human beings. The pro-death argument exalts death-retribution as an exemplary valuing of human life. Humanism replies that the rational way to respect human life is to stop killing people. The pro-death side fears weakness in the face of violence against society. Humanism replies that the true strength of a society lies in its commitment to social justice. Pro-deathers are quick to judge who should die and who should live, as if they were a god. Would they want to be on the receiving end of an all-too-human system passing judgment on them?
Humanism stands for valuing the lives of all, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and government that defends all of its people. These grounds alone are sufficient for abolishing the death penalty. Humanism also stands for elevating human dignity and pursuing the nobler virtues of common humanity. Even if some perfected criminal system could execute only the truly guilty, such murderous machinery is still unworthy of us. Any institution that still encourages vengeance and retribution over equal social justice and protection of everyone is a decrepit perversion of civilization.
Humanism looks forward to a time when society consistently respects humane virtues. But a day of execution is day of sadness and shame. May we have mercy on us all.
The views expressed are those of the author, and not necessarily shared by the Center for Inquiry or its staff.
Being a Humanist: What Does It Mean to Be a Humanist?
Capital punishment | International Humanist and Ethical Union
Death Penalty | International Humanist and Ethical Union
Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Humanist Case against Capital Punishment | Center for Inquiry
The harsh reality is that you need a way to deal with wrong doers in society. Also some people are just not compatible with living with other humans (serial killers and such) and they need removed from human society (i.e. killed). And there is no perfect justice system to weed out the guilty from the innocent, so if you are going to run a good society you are going to have to badly harm or kill a few people. If you can't handle that, you don't have the stomach to run a society and you need to shut up about these sort of issues. If you can handle that, then the question isn't how to save every innocent man (that just isn't an option) but rather how to minimize the punishment and killing of the innocent.
I think there are some much more serious issues here, some that John Shook rightfully alludes to. Issues that would minimize misuse of the death penalty. Firstly, we shouldn't kill for revenge, we should kill only because we have to because someone is too violent to live with the rest of us. The death penalty is being used for revenge against criminals.
I think rather than focusing on the death penalty, we should focus on improving the justice system, in particular in promoting civil literacy and scientific literacy.
For one thing, our schools aren't doing their jobs and need approved. And Rick Perry isn't doing his job and should have his political career destroyed to the point that even McDonalds won't hire him. This would fix far far more in and out of our justice system than the death penalty.
at some point in your life or your next life or lives you will come to know how a statement of that kind can come from the human species.
there is more spiritual awareness in this one sentence then I have found in any evangel I have ever talked to about these mysteries of life.
for some a rejection of all religion and religious beliefs much be attained before one is ready to begin become a sincere seeker into these mysteries of life.
atheism is nothing more than a path to that end. all paths are unique but all paths lead to the same place. awareness of reality.
now to become that sincere seeker one must give up the idea of knowing. the ego will scream in protest as the ego above all else wants to be known for knowing, so without a significant emotional event in one's life; few are willing to become a sincere seeker, it is much easier to let others tell them what is reality.
History appears to suggest that moral and procedural human fallibility renders humanity unqualified to administer many “human experience management” roles, including justice and health. Assigning to humanity a role that combines the two apparently reported, already horrifically ill-managed roles appears to be reasonably considered to create a potential harm greater than its parts’ harms.
The potential perceived incentive for immoral abuse of the justice and health systems, combined with limited human capability to recognize and correct such abuse appears to provide for the possible, yet heretofore barely fathomable, subjugation of our society to both internal and external forces capable of influencing decision-making.
On a date so close to September 11, 2011, the apparently reported understanding appears to bear repeating that American education taught external malevolent forces how to utilize American technology and systems to destroy Americans.
Creating a body-harvesting industry based upon the American justice system appears reasonably considered to incentivize fraud and abuse in both and to potentially create for the anti-American, a potent potential tool for undermining America. I welcome your thoughts.
As for making the argument that the Death Penalty isn't in line with Humanism, I can't agree fully. Think about it this way, the human body makes a great analogy with individual cells (citizens) that combine to form a larger organism (society). When the human body (in this case, society) has a cancer (anyone convicted of a heinous crime [with the proof!] ) that threatens the proper functioning of the body, you cut it out. It would be nice to live in a world where horrible atrocities weren't committed, but that is idealistic. In reality, our society produces cancers that need to be removed least they be allowed the chance to metastasize and create more cancers elsewhere in the body. But, don't get me wrong, this is a last resort, of which, we have used improperly and harmfully. We know for a fact that we have killed many innocent people falsely accused of a horrible crime.
Kudos, HuffPost Religion subscribers. Now remember this the next time a person of faith writes an article.
I have to give credit to the catholic church for consistency in its "pro-life" position in opposing the death penalty, but I think it's interesting that the majority view of conservative christians in this country seems to support the death penalty for vengeance, while humanists/atheists/freethinkers lean more toward mercy. It turns on its head the thing that christians tell themselves, that for them forgiveness is a defining quality, and that people cannot be good without god.
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
However, all that being said, I recognize that the death penalty is substantively different from all other punishments passed on by law. A government, through misdeed or through a foul-up in the legal system may deprive an individual of home, hearth, and freedom. Nevertheless, the individual is still alive and may seek some form of redress, he or she is still capable of that. With the death penalty, it is final, there is no possibility of redress.
If we had a justice system, then I could support a death penalty. It clearly removes from our society such sick and incorrigible people like Ted Bundy and few other recent cases. But we do not have a justice system, we have a LEGAL SYSTEM! In our legal system, justice can be perverted by prejudicial juries (e.g., basing a judgment on race), crooked judges and prosecutors. Recently, a judge in New York had a sweetheart deal with a privately run prison for minors. Prosecutors want to avoid the blemish of a wrong conviction and cover up evidence. Poor people do not get good legal representation in court. The lists go on. Under these circumstances, I would argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.