In July of 2012, James Holmes stormed a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado, opened fire in a showing of The Dark Knight Rises, killed 12 people, and injured 58 others. If the prosecutor in Holmes’s trial has his way, Holmes will be executed for the senseless, mass tragedy that he inflicted. Despite the horrific nature of Holmes’s actions, we do not live in an “eye for an eye society” and the death penalty is still an inappropriate response.
“For James Eagen Holmes, justice is death” declared George Brauchler, the district attorney for Arapahoe County, announcing his decision to pursue the death penalty and reject Holmes’s guilty plea that would have had the shooter serve life in prison with no chance of parole. The declared intention was met with great applause from many of the friends of Aurora shooting victims, who shared the sentiment that justice and the death penalty went hand in hand.
While an announcement to seek the death penalty might appease some in the short run, capital punishment is not the answer.
Will the death penalty in this case serve as a deterrent to other mass murderers? Probably not. A recent report indicated that 88% of the top U.S. criminologists do not believe that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to homicide. When mass-murderers are willing to kill themselves after taking the lives of others, as was the case at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and many others, there is little reason to think that the threat of a state imposed death after a prolonged legal battle should have any effect on a shooter’s psyche.
Rather than provide the closure that families seek, the pursuit of capital punishment only guarantees years of trials and a lack of finality. It plays to the raw feeling of revenge, but does little more. Opponents of the death penalty point out that the slow and drawn out process of a capital punishment case actually “re-victimizes” those affected by the original crime.
If ever there were a case where the merits of the death penalty were clear, it would be the case of James Holmes; yet even still, capital punishment is not the answer. The Talmud teaches us that “he who takes one life it is as though he has destroyed the universe and he who saves one life it is as though he has saved the universe” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5). The value of preserving human life extends even to those who seek to destroy it. In 1959, the Reform Movement explained:
“We believe it to be the task of the Jew to bring our great spiritual and ethical heritage to bear upon the moral problems of contemporary society. One such problem, which challenges all who seek to apply God’s will in the affairs of Main, is the practice of capital punishment. The legal execution of a criminal is an anachronism in a society which has long since abolished the primitive concept of an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” We believe that in the light of scientific knowledge and concepts of humanity, the resort to or continuation of capital punishment either by a state or a national government is morally unjustifiable.”
Image courtesy of Crenny/Photobucket.com