I want to talk about how the death penalty - or rather, its abolition - is a function of civilisation.
.jpg)
(The Execution of Lady Jane Grey
- Paul Delaroche)
When people debate the death penalty they tend to make moral arguments back and forth. However, whether a society has the death penalty or not is usually a consequence of "options."
So, if you imagine a less sophisticated world. Let's say some little village that existed a few thousand years ago. Then you imagine that a person commits some heinous crime in that village: a rape or a murder. And this person then gets apprehended.
What are the options for the villagers that apprehend him?
They can't send him to jail, that's simply not an option, as they don't have any jails to send him to. A jail, replete with jailers, requires a degree of infrastructure and civilisation. It requires some kind of state.
Maybe, at best in our simple example, there might be a castle many miles down the road, belonging to some local baron or warlord, with a dungeon. But, even then, the dungeon is mainly for the baron's enemies. It can't house every criminal that commits a crime within a fifty mile radius.
Therefore, the villagers have few options. They can either let the criminal go, or they can dole out some form of physical punishment. Meaning, in effect, they have to hang the murderer. It's either that or leave him free to murder again. So, it's not that our ancestors were more barbaric or lustful of blood. Or somehow less moral or sympathetic than ourselves. It's more the case that their options were limited.
It's similar with other punishments. We may hear tales from history of how thieves once had their ears or hands cut off. Or how they would be branded with hot irons. Such things sound so cruel and unnecessary to our modern ears. However, once again, they were just a product of options. It would be too harsh to murder someone for a simple act of theft, but, at the same time, you can't just allow theft to go unpunished ..and there's no jail you can send the thief to. Accordingly, cutting off an ear or a finger is a happy - though violent - middle ground.
Once society does become more developed and organised though - i.e. once a sophisticated prison system comes into being. Then people have a less violent option on the table, and they naturally tend to choose it.
So, as civilisation develops, it's almost inevitable that the death penalty dwindles.
For instance, part of the reason why the US still has the death penalty when the UK doesn't is largely a overhang from the fact that America is much larger and more of a wilderness. Naturally, in the Wild West, frontier justice is more needed than it would be in developed areas with more control and infrastructure. It's not that Americans are fundamentally less caring of criminals.
Modern Debates
If you're a modern advocate of the death penalty you're fighting a losing battle because of this. As most people will eschew killing if less lethal options are available. People may raise the point that the majority of the public support the death penalty for very serious crimes such as rape or paedophilia. However, even here such support quickly fades once you raise the prospect of false convictions. Then the position shifts to, "Well, they should be jailed for life then."
Even the most ardent supporter of the death penalty would want to be absolutely certain if it was they themselves pushing the button or bringing down the axe. (At least any supporter living within the comforts of civilisation that is. Time spent in a harsher world might harden such sentiment.)
On top of this, even if the death penalty was brought back into law it would be near impossible to implement. As there'd always be a large number of people challenging such decisions in the hope of saving a life. You only need to look at the endless delays and appeals that accompany death penalty verdicts in America.
When Civilisation Falls
Of course, noting that the abolition of the death penalty is a consequence of the rise of civilisation, also implies things work in the opposite direction too.
As civilisation fails or starts to break down the death penalty starts to reappear. Once the infrastructure starts failing, or people lose complete faith in the state's ability to deliver justice, we're back to the village we were in with our first example. The castle's dungeon is only there for the baron's enemies, and once again, the villagers must resort to lynching rapists and murderers to protect their women and children.
All the debates about morality are futile, and have little influence on the reality.
