American National Government

Even though she was sentenced to life in prison, the public passions were still burning high from indignation. Susan Smith killed her two little sons in a manner so cruel and brutal that mercy for life was similarly drowned in the deep public well of rage and hatred reserved for extremely heinous and despicable crimes. The community in her small town as well as the majority of the people nationwide shouted unanimously for her death. As the initial shock subside, however, the public regain control of their emotions and more and more started questioning the wisdom of defiling the State with the killing of an obviously disturbing 23 year old female. The Smith case rose unsolved questions about human nature and brought once more the debate about the legitimacy of killing by the State. Political science professor Walter Bern's believed the death penalty is appropriate for atrocious crimes because it reveals the moral condemnation of the society. Social writer Mary Meghan, refute this claim arguing that capital punishment creates several undesirable consequences in the criminal justice system and in the human psyche. I believe capital punishment for the sake of "naked vengeance" is counterproductive to human perfectibility, but, regardless if its apparent consequences favorable or not to society, it is justified by a special kind of rational retribution. Professor Bern's, believes the death penalty is justified on retributive grounds. It is justified to take the lives of those whose heinous crimes put at risk the integrity of the community. Anger, in other words is a natural human attitude toward those who have acted unjustly. Thus by sternly condemnation of the wrongdoer, the community also implicitly venerate the human capacity for just actions. Both praising of human dignity and abhorring of his evil nature show society's respect for individual freedom, paying due homage to the criminal by holding him accountable for his acts. Anger, then, is not a selfish emotion, it is a human expression somehow related with the pursue of justice. Bern's, claims that anger reveals the penumbra between the premises and the conclusion of his argument. Rational thinking becomes during the explanation emotional expression. This was also part of the rationale of the Supreme Court in his decision upholding the constitutionality of the capital punishment: "The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by law" Gregg v. Georgia 428 US153,49Led2d (1976). This proposition, however suffers from two detrimental flaws. First, human instincts sometimes have to tame to attain social living and maturity of consciousness, as cannibalistic and incestuous urges had to be adapted. Second, an instinct is shared by the whole species and not by a majority of them, though the minority, there are a great number of people who oppose the death penalty, regardless of their "instinct" for vengeance. My theory of rational retribution solve the ethical antonym by discovering the attributes of human dignity. A human has dignity because he alone possesses rational consciousness in the world. His awareness makes him reflect about himself and is fellow ones whom share his same existential experience. Because instinctively he avoids pain and follows pleasure, culminating the latter in the intellectual mending of his own behavior for his longed happiness, he intuitively appreciate the life of others as his own, and unless he has a justification or excuse, he will never attempt against his own life or the others. Because the common man recognize this and even with the help of his rationality is incapable of transgressing it, it follows that he who does so is different from us, and we thought he had. Thus the dignity of human is not a mere definition or a mere title given by the Enlightenment to man. It is a quality of his nature, nowhere found in abhorrent murderers of his own kind. Death sentence is also justified by mere probability of deterrence. The traditional argument against utilitarianism for holding the murderer just as a mean to dissuade the majority and not as an end in himself is also nullified by rational retribution. Moreover, although there is persuasiveness in the claim that lesser penalties might work just as well because there is not enough empirical evidence to support the effort of deterrence upon others, we may safely presume the death penalty will bring second thoughts to the professional killer or to the resentful prisoner making a life sentence. A true expression of human dignity we find in those who oppose the death penalty. But, we should not let their empathy interfere with our duty to take action in pursue of the perfectibility of man.