An Eye for an Eye

By Jarrett Bellini

An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

Defenders of capital punishment enjoy using this argument when rationalizing state-sponsored death, turning to archaic words when modern statistics don't seem to support their cause. In fact, the eye for an eye excuse is such an overused cliché that it seems to just roll off the tongue like drool from Pavlov’s dogs, triggered by the bell of political debate. One must wonder, then, if those who profess these words ever stop to consider what the biblical practice, if taken literally, would actually mean. Doesn’t the argument suggest that a convicted child molester and murderer like John Couey would best be punished by death… only after being brutally raped by a government employee? Try filling that position.

"Well, Jim, you seem well qualified, your references check out, and your prior work experience is more than sufficient. Quite simply, we'd like to offer you the job. But, first, tell me, how do you feel about sodomizing an old man before we pump him full of potassium chloride? Is... that... something... you'd... be... interested... in?"

"Sure, Mr. Davis. That sounds like something I could do. Let's talk about benefits."

This passage from the King James Version of the Bible doesn't stop at eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Exodus 21: 23-25 also suggests hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. I can't figure that last one out, but I gather that it has something to do with magically converting thy neighbor into a zebra.

“Get the black and white paint, Don. We’ve got ourselves a sinner!”

Recently, from the same pro-life zealots who scream that we shouldn't be playing God, I began hearing the eye for an eye argument ad nauseam as the execution date for, convicted murderer, Stanley “Tookie” Williams neared. Williams, as many learned over the weeks leading up to his death, was the co-founder of the notorious Crips street gang who, later, managed to turn his life around while behind bars. An author and outspoken critic of violence and gangs, Williams was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize and once for the Nobel Prize for Literature. This wasn’t a case of some fly-by-night do-gooder.

While we are all aware of the letter of the law, there is also the spirit of the law. In the case of Tookie Williams, the letter of the law was exacted. Sadly, however, this was a perfect opportunity for our government and justice system to act in the spirit of the law, allowing Williams to continue his work from prison. It wasn’t as though people were suggesting that we just set the guy free with thirty dollars and a bus pass.

“Off you go, Tookie! Here, have some Lakers tickets.”

Tookie’s supporters (well, those who weren’t foolishly arguing his innocence) were simply asking that he be granted clemency so he could proceed with his mission to gain back our children and our streets. By killing him, we gained nothing. Yes, it is possible that the victims’ families received closure and peace of mind – I hope they did. I pray never to be in a similar situation where I would feel that much pain and anguish, and I’m not above saying that it’s possible that the only thing on my mind would be revenge of this very same nature. I suppose nobody really knows until it actually happens.

That being said, I offer that there was more virtue in keeping Williams alive. Perhaps there is some youth out there, right now, that Williams could have counseled into a better life, and, in doing so, prevented more senseless murders which will bring more heartbreak to more families. For the sake of these unknown future victims, I ask: Did Williams really need to die?

This, of course, is just one specific case. I oppose the death penalty as a rule. So, forget about Tookie, and never mind even the countless innocent men and women on death row. Killing is wrong. How can the state forbid its citizens from committing homicide, but, at the same time, excuse its own form of murder? Really, our laws are creating a situation similar to that of the parent who says to his or her son or daughter, “Well, sure, I used to listen to Skynyrd and smoke pot all the time as a kid… things were different. But it’s not OK for you to do it!”

You might as well just cue Free Bird and teach ‘em to roll a fatty.

Killing is not the practice of civilized and advanced societies. The Central Intelligence Agency lists 34 developed countries that, generally, fit this description. Among these nations, only three permit the death penalty: Japan, Israel and the United States (Israel's one - and only - execution was in 1962). And where does the United States fall, among these 34 countries, in rank when it comes to murders per capita? Try number two, right behind South Africa... who happens to have had this teensy-tiny little problem with race relations. Even at number 24 among all nations, America remains a rather violent place despite being so developed and advanced. This begs a valid question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? While I have to argue that the death penalty has done nothing to help curb violent crime in America, others may see a desperate need for capital punishment because of our violent crime rate. So, I suppose it’s a toss-up. Given the choice, I'd err on the side of life.

The bottom line is that violence breeds violence. As the ultimate example of right and wrong, our government should act as a shining beacon for virtue and righteousness. It should be the good parent… walking the walk, talking the talk. I harbor zero sympathy for violent criminals, and have no problem locking them away in a concrete cell to rot in silence for the rest of their natural lives. But it certainly concerns me that, when it comes to methods of enforcing criminal justice, we are joined, in policy, by nations like Afghanistan, North Korea, and Rwanda.

Call me an elitist, but I think we can associate with a classier crowd.

Factual Notes
Back to Writing Home & Sidebar