Back to Top of Forum.

THE DEATH PENALTY: ONE ATHEIST'S POSITION

BY Ellen Johnson

(Ellen Johnson is President of American Atheists. These remarks, however, do not reflect any position by this organization, which has not taken any official stance regarding the death penalty.)

Introduction

"And the lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of his heart was continually only evil..." (Genesis 6:5)

This view, that people are innately evil and incapable of a fruitful existence without divine guidance is a basic tenet of most religions. We are told to believe, and to accept a life of obedience without reason, or suffer pain and eternal damnation.

It is an outlook born of fear and ignorance in a primitive world that pervades the philosophy of our judicial system to this day. Crime is perceived as the normal expectation, and punishment is society's safeguard from being overwhelmed by man's alleged innate hostility. It then follows that the more dire the punishment, the more effective it becomes.

"So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee
and all Israel shall hear and fear."
--Deuteronomy 21:21
It is my contention that punishment does not solve the problem of crime, and that capital punishment in particular fails in its stated purpose on both ethical and factual grounds, and this should not be condoned.

Deterrence

The deterrent effect of capital punishment is, and has been the principle justification for its use. Its proponents argue that the fear of execution diminished the incidence of those offenses for which it is proscribed, and thus protects and benefits the society.

The evidence, however, does not support that proposition. Seventy-five years of statistical research comparing homicide rates of abolitionist and non-abolitionist states, and of states before and after abolition indicate either no difference or an increase in homicide rates in the non-abolitionist states.¹

Furthermore, high risk groups within society, i.e. police officers, prisoners and prison personnel are no more at risk in the absence of capital punishment.² The absence of any meaningful evidence to the contrary, the above mentioned research suggests that a rational contemplation of crime and its consequences as inferred by the deterrence argument does not exist in real life. Indeed, most violent crimes are motivated by rage or passion and a consequent loss of rationality. Those who commit premeditated crimes do not expect to be caught and punished, or simply do not care about punishment.

The fact that sentences of capital punishment are carried out so inconsistently may contribute to its failure as a deterrence. Only 2% of those arrested for homicides are sentenced to death.

Regardless of these factual shortcomings of deterrence, punishment without purpose or benefit to societal safety is purposeless and unethical.

Irreversibility

"I shall ask for the abolition of the penalty of death
until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me."
--Lafayette
No one knows how many innocent people have been put to death as a result of poor police work, frame ups or public pressure. "Since 1900 in this country, there have been on the average of four cases per year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted of murder, and dozens of these persons were sentenced to death."³

In 1985, in Gainesville, Ga. for example, officials tried a Vietnamese man for murder before they realized that they had transported the wrong person from jail to the court. Both men were Vietnamese, of similar build, about the same age and both were missing front teeth. One was being held on murder charges, and the other on charges of theft. Neither the prosecutor, nor the sheriff's officers, the defense lawyer, or the witnesses knew they had the wrong individual until a woman who happened to know both men personally walked into the courtroom and apprised the authorities of their mistake.

Gary Dotson got out of jail after serving six years in prison for a rape conviction. His so-called victim, Cathleen Webb, publicly admitted to lying about the charge.

Today, people still debate the innocence or guilt of the Rosenberg's execution in 1953 on the charge of conspiracy to commit espionage. Many people are convinced that the charges were politically motivated. At that time, the nation was in the midst of the Korean war, and well on the way towards the hysteria of the McCarthy era. Critics in the Rosenberg trial charged that the case should have been investigated more thoroughly by the Supreme Court, and that the imposition of the death penalty was excessive, and motivated by political concerns.

Once people are executed, they can never be afforded the benefits of future evidence that might prove their innocence. The death penalty denies them their constitutional right to due process of law.

In most cases, the difference between a death sentence and life imprisonment is being tried in the wrong state, in the wrong political climate, having a governor reluctant to grant clemency, or being poor, black or uneducated. In an imperfect world innocent people are being executed along with the guilty.

Life imprisonment without parole should replace legal execution. Everyone must have the right to be rehabilitated, especially the youths convicted of capital crimes since they are the least set in their ways and offer more hope for rehabilitation.

Life imprisonment is no more of a financial burden to society than capital trials. "A 1982 study by the New York State Defenders Association shows that if the death penalty were reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life in prison."⁴

A Question of Justice

"The death penalty is the state's arrogation of god-like wisdom (or
totalitarian power) to decide who should live and who should die.
People who would not dream of letting the government dictate what morning
newspaper to read or what spouse to marry seem to have no problem
with letting the government decide whom to kill. And in this
century in which we have seen governments shed rivers of blood in wars,
revolutions and extermination camps, by militias and death squads
and sheriffs, they justify their lethal fury by the benefits
the killings will bring to the rest of society. Governments, we might
have learned by now, are inappropriate agencies to select some people
to be killed."
(Henry Schwartzchild)⁵
In 1972 in the case of FURMAN v. GEORGIA, the United States Supreme Court declared capital punishment to be in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment" because its application was arbitrary and tainted by racial bias.

Blacks have always constituted a disproportionately high number of death row inmates relative to their percentage of the population. "Of the 3,334 executions for murder between 1930 and 1972, 1,664 or 50% of those executed were white, and 1,630 or 48% of those executed were black. Blacks at the time made up about 10 percent of the United States population. The statistics for rape show that during the same 42-year period, 455 men were executed for rape and 405, or 89%, were black"⁶

According to the Tennessee American Civil Liberties Union, the South is the most execution prone area of the country. "The percentage of non-whites executed for murder in the South has never been below 60% of all persons executed and has never been less than 80% of all persons executed for rape."

Not only is capital punishment discriminatory against blacks, but also against the economically disadvantaged. Those who cannot afford expensive legal representation are more likely to pay the ultimate penalty.

"In Kentucky it used to be said that if a Negro killed a white man it was murder, if a white man killed a Negro it was unfortunate, but if a white man killed a white man it was self-defense, unless the affray was over a woman, in which case the cause of death was apoplexy."⁷

Until racial prejudice can be eliminated, the best way to avoid racial bias in imposing capital punishment will have to be to eliminate capital punishment itself.

Conclusion

The concepts of punishment and justice change with time. In the past, life was considered cheap and people were punished with prolonged torture, maiming and execution for hundreds of offenses. Today, most societies no longer accept the eye-for-an-eye concept of justice based on vengeance. Yet, capital punishment is still the most primitive method of dealing with capital offenders. It is premeditated, ceremonious, state-sanctioned killing. It does not serve justice, but caters instead to our vilest fears and hatreds. Moreover, it is a waste of time, lives and public funds. It causes us to divert our efforts from finding the causes and solutions to our complicated criminal problems.

Atheists trust in the ability of people to find solutions to their problems. Because atheism is a life affirming principle, we should join with the United Nations, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union in calling for the abolition of capital punishment on the grounds that every human being has an inherent right to life that may not be diminished by government fiat.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
¹ Bedau, Hugo Adam, The Case Against The Death Penalty, 1982, pg.6
² Ibid, pg. 6
³ Ibid, pg. 16
⁴ Ibid, pg. 22
⁵ Bender, David L. et al., The Death Penalty, Opposing Viewpoints, pg. 112
⁶ Insight, 3/10/86, pg. 71
⁷ Bedau, Ibid.


Back to Top of Forum.

Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.