Funmurphys: the Blog

What Njal Said

Donald Sensing takes up Tom Bevan's Op Ed that asks, among other things:

If one is convinced of the moral strength of the argument for saving Terri Schiavo (which millions upon millions of Americans are), and if one further adheres to the proposition that every innocent life is worth protecting and that we as a society must not countenance a system that results in the death of a single innocent soul, are we not then obligated to reconsider support of the death penalty under all circumstances except those in which confessions have been given voluntarily?

I'm a death penalty agnostic, but I don't buy this argument as a reason not to have a death penalty. Here's where it falls apart: "a society must not countenance a system that results in the death of a single innocent soul". Very few systems any human society sets up can make this claim, and certainly none that involves dealing death itself. It simply is an impossible standard, and to set it up foolishness. Set up a system that takes the fewest innocent lives is workable, but any is impossible.

And when I say any system, I pretty much mean any system. Our transportation system kills the innocents at an absolutely ferocious rate - 40,000 in cars and trucks a year in the US alone. Airplanes and trains are killers too. Horsedrawn vehicles, heck horses themselves were killers before mechanical transportation means came into effect. Energy - between coal miners killed, gas explosions, deaths at refineries etc. it too is a killer. Or how about something as mundane as keeping clean - people are killed in showers and tubs every year. And don't get me started on how many buckets kill kids every year. You might argue that since the purpose of these systems isn't to kill people, we should be more forgiving of such outcomes, but isn't that exactly backward?

Now go back to criminal justice, and you'll find that there are far more innocents locked up than executed. Why nobody worries about that is beyond me; why a life time wrongfully in prison being raped is nothing to care about yet wrongful execution, whoa, can't have that is beyond me.

The real standard is to minimize the undesirable effects, and death of the innocent is hugely undesirable. It's something that should and can always be worked on, but there is no absolute possible. We often say that our justice system is designed to let 10 criminals go free rather than wrongly convict 1 innocent person; yet we don't say we let every criminal go free rather than wrongly convict any innocent person -- because it not only sounds absurd, it is absurd. And yet that's the standard that is raised here.

After winding his way through other knotty problems (it should be remembered that the original knotty problem was solved by one of the original applications of thinking outside the box: the application of a sword to cut instead of fingers to untie) he formulates his larger question:

At its core, the dilemma is this: At what point are we forced to live within the law even if we disagree morally with some of the outcomes resulting from its application?

Now we have a good question. I don't know that I'd call it a dilemma as that implies a single decision whereas I think this kind of issue is neither a single decision nor a decision alone. As I said before, any system implemented by man is going to have problems, so I take it as a given that I will morally disagree with some of the outcomes of our legal system. And here my options aren't to only live within or without the law, but to try and change the outcomes and the very law itself. I would argue that it is my moral obligation to try and change outcomes and the law itself in those cases where I think the outcomes are wrong.

Frankly, I think a better question would be phrased:

At what point am I forced to live outside the law because I disagree morally with some of the outcomes resulting from its application.

In other words, at what point does my working within the law, because that should be my default position, become itself wrong? I think the answer my friend varies from person to person. The Declaration of Independence is one attempt to answer that question; I have to be thankful to our forefathers to bequeath a system of government where I don't have to rebel to effect changes in our laws.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at April 1, 2005 12:09 PM | National Politics