| The bill proposing to ban the death penalty in Montana -- SB 236 -- had its day yesterday in a hearing before the House Judiciary committee. As expected, the debate was passionate.
Proponents of the ban have an arsenal of arguments at their command. The death penalty is expensive -- enough so that a number of states are looking to halt executions as a recession-era cost-cutting measure. It doesn't deter would-be murderers. Executions don't bring peace to victims' families. Innocent men and women are on death row. The practice is barbaric and hurts our moral and diplomatic standing in the world.
Our state institutions and legal system haven't earned the right to kill.
On the other side, there isn't much supporting a death penalty. In fact, there's really one reason to favor executions, and that's...well...let death penalty supporter and Gallatin county prosecutor Marty Lambert tell you:
"The death penalty is justified on the basis of retribution alone," Lambert said. "If [serial killer Ted Bundy] did not receive the death penalty, we are actually less civilized. We're not more civilized."
Retribution. ˌre-tr?-?byü-sh?n\ "Something given or exacted in recompense; especially: PUNISHMENT."
In essence, "retribution" is a payment, or payback. Almost a financial transaction. One death earns another. Retributive justice is ancient. And I guess you could call it an aspect of civilization, primitive. That explains why it's so alluring, so satisfying in a bloodthirsty way, laying the accused on the sacrificial stone.
But I think we can get beyond that. We can see what executions are: an exchange of currency defined by the murderer. I don't want the state to be involved in that kind of exchange, using its easily corrupted, often misguided and incompetent power to end lives. Let's support the ban. |
