Are you in Favor of or Against the Death Penalty?

This article arguing against ALL use of the death penalty shows an embarrassing lack of critical thinking apparently endorsed by AHA. And as a life member of AHA, I am embarrassed to the point of anger with AHA. We atheists and humanists need to give a good example of consistent and logical (truly critical) thinking to the world--if we really want them to eventually agree with our life stance.

For a less embarrassing analysis of the truly complex matter of such extreme punishment, I encourage the reader to read pp. 157 - 160 of the little paperback, Out of God's Closet: This Priest Psychologist Chooses FRIENDLY Atheism. As the author of that presentation, I would not change anything. In fact, I will try to copy and paste that whole section here, but it may be too long to be acceptable. (If so, try to find it elsewhere; you would not regret it.)
GROSSLY IMPROVED FUNCTIONING OF
OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM

Yet another blessing of non-theism or atheism for American society
could be immense. What if our justice system were so nonreligious
that Old Testament type of vengeful punishment of criminals were
not necessary? What if judges judged reasonably instead of doing
the biblical eye-for-an-eye bit for criminals? Our extremely sick
justice system now insists that punishment must fit the crime.
Reasoned consequences or responsible restitution is really what
should fit the crime, not punishment as such. Taxpayers cough
up over $30,000 per year per criminal in prison, violent or not;
this exceeds the annual cost of education at most of our excellent
universities. We can design and execute really effective probation
programs for far less!

What if criminals were sentenced according to their ability to
be responsible and pay back, make restitution to society in accor-
dance with their offense against society? Violent criminals would
stay in jail to protect society, not to punish them. Non-violent
criminals, under regular and thoughtful probationary supervision,
would work to heal the society they wounded; they would pay back
to society according to their talents and financial ability.

I think it is generally irrational and it should be considered im-
moral to imprison smart, non-violent people like Martha Stewart
and those truly major criminals that destroyed Enron, Worldcom,
Global Crossing and Tyco, in order to punish them. “Vengeance
is mine, says the Lord!” Please let the Lord punish them! Don’t
punish or fine already wounded society by taxing society further
to house the non-violent who do cooperate with rational and
effective probation programs. Just because it would take some
serious and extended thought to develop effective reason-based
probation programs does not excuse us from developing same.
Why should the above-referenced talented white-collar criminals
be housed by society when they could be effectively depositing
millions of dollars every Saturday into the coffers of their local
probation programs? The basic reason is primarily punishment.
And what does punishment as such profit society?

Some of these non-violent executives hurt millions of citizens.
Why not fine them very, very heavily for the stolen millions or
billions, the fines of restitution (plus collection costs) to be paid
off weekly and in person to the responsible legal authorities? It’s
utterly and inexcusably stupid and wasteful to bury such talent in
jail, then bill the working taxpayer for their prison expenses (or
their extensive prison-avoiding legal expenses). Such punishment
shows an outdated, Old Testament religious concept that further
punishes an already wounded society!

Non-violent blue-collar criminals could work at their jobs to
earn competitive or union scale pay, likewise under responsible
probationary supervision. They, too, turn in their fines weekly by
way of restitution to the community or families they wounded.
Non-violent criminals stay out of jail as long as they obey the strict
and productive terms of their probation. When will we learn that
it is very difficult to punish productively? This vengeful punish-
ment is an idea from Mosaic times and based on an assumed
God who named himself “Jealous.” The Bible has God saying,
“Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” Let God grab all the vengeance
he can; a thoughtful, unsuperstitious society needs restitution,
not vengeance.

Firm and reliable consequences for irresponsible behavior are
essential to an intelligent justice system. Punishment commonly
causes counterproductive anger that deepens the anti-social ten-
dencies in the criminal. I don’t think it’s reasonable to keep well
over 2,000,000 Americans (almost one percent of our citizens)
behind bars when less than 30% of those prisoners are violent
threats to society (Time Almanac 2000). Punish, punish, punish;
punish whom? Already injured society!

No, I am not going soft on crime. As a psychologist, I know
that the death penalty (I prefer “the death consequence”) is very
under-utilized, and, yes, contrary to a lot of doctored and biased
“research reports,” it is a definite deterrent from crime! The next
time you see any sort of “research report” that concludes that the
death consequence does not deter, check both the authorship
and the assumptions of such a report. With only rare exceptions,
a person’s strongest drive is to continue living. How can such a
basic fact be ignored by so many?

A life sentence without possibility of parole for the non-violent
criminal is generally ludicrous. It punishes the criminal endlessly
while it expensively punishes the society that has already been
hurt by the criminal. The death consequence, for those and only
those who are certainly responsible for the most heinous crimes, is
often far more appropriate than such outrageous sentences. Never
should a doubtfully guilty person be executed; but with the help
of DNA testing, many of the old doubts can be set aside. At the
very least, the violent criminal under such a silly sentence as “life
without parole” should be able to choose the death consequence
as an option. “But, no, only God can take a life.” Baloney! Did
God kill the drunk driver crashing into the concrete wall?

Such an illogical stance is about as outrageous as the 2006
case of California murderer Clarence Allen. He had been sche-
duled for execution, but at 75, legally blind and nearly deaf, his
attorneys appealed for a stay of execution all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court. And what was the appeal based on? Not that he
was innocent, not that he did not deserve to be put to death, but
the appeal was based on fact that if the state were to put such an
ill old man to death, it would be cruel and unusual punishment!
Do you think his appeal lawyers were doing their work pro bono,
or is it much more likely that they were getting paid well for such
ludicrous appeal efforts?

Our religiously vengeful politicians, reflecting the attitudes of
their constituencies, over-legislate and micro-manage our justice
system more and more, and their lawyer friends capitalize on it
handsomely. As a result, punishment of the criminal continues to
grow in importance. One frightening result is that good judges find
they are impotent to use good judgment, get discouraged, retire
early and leave the judges’ benches to the more politically correct
judges. Retiring U.S. district judge, John S. Martin, Jr., wrote in
The New York Times (2003): “When I took my oath of office 13
years ago, I never thought I would leave the federal bench. While
I might have stayed on despite the inadequate pay, I no longer
want to be part of our unjust criminal justice system.”

I am barely scratching the surface of this truly immense
American problem of crime and vengeful punishment. But can
you already see that many billions of tax dollars could be saved
annually if vengeful religious-type punishment-of-the-wicked were
thoughtfully removed from all our penal codes? Would “Codes of
Consequences” be far better than “Penal Codes”? If the outdated
concept of punishment as such were removed from our justice
system and if a system of fair consequences were firmly followed,
I doubt it would be necessary to lock up about one percent of our
population as we do now.

In summary, without superstition life in the United States
could improve the observance of the First Amendment, reduce
taxes, increase personal responsibility, deepen unity among U.S.
and world citizens, improve educational efforts, and vastly improve
our justice system.