The title of this post is killing it.
Anyway.
Earlier today, Stephen King posted this to BlueSky:
The replies to this are mostly people “debating” the merits and follies of the death penalty, and since I just got up from a ridiculously long nap, I figured I’d talk about it and potentially, alienate some people that disagree with me.
The question: Am I strictly opposed to the death penalty?
My answer: It’s complicated.
I don’t trust The State to execute people, but I can probably get behind a jury deciding that the evidence surrounding a crime is sufficient to warrant execution.
Maybe I need to go back a few steps and start with: Is killing ever acceptable?
I detest war, but soldiers are going to kill each other on the field of battle. So, I’m not going to blame a Ukrainian soldier fighting and killing the forces invading their country. I will judge harshly the people that started the war, however, but the soldiers put into a position where they must fight or die are blameless, in my eyes.
I also believe self-defense can justify lethal retaliation. This is not Brian Buhl saying that it’s okay for one kid to kill another kid on the street because they got in a fight. However, if someone were in their home and another person entered it, brandishing a weapon with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, the person defending themselves may have no choice.
The details matter.
I can imagine scenarios where homicide is justified. It follows, then, that I can imagine a legal system which allows for the death penalty.
What about the case Stephen King is citing?
I don’t know anything about that case. Without looking at evidence, I’m opposed to killing the accused. Is there video evidence of Brad Sigmund beating his girlfriend’s parents to death? Did the police pull up to the scene and find him in the act, with bits and pieces of the victims all of Brad Sigmund, in his hair and in his clothes, all while he was grinning like The Joker and slavering to keep going?
It’s okay to kill an irredeemable monster, in my opinion. The word “irredeemable” and “monster” are doing a lot of work in that sentence, though. If someone was out of control of their actions, and the condition that put them into a murderous state is curable, then we shouldn’t kill them. They should spend the rest of their lives trying to cleanse their soul.
I guess this is a long way of saying that I’m not completely opposed to the death penalty, but I believe the justification for its use requires an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. The crime must be comprised of actions so heinous that no other punishment can be justified. And, the evidence must convince a jury.
I’m not going to look up Brad Sigmond. I think the firing squad thing is iffy. I’m not sure any of the execution methods we have are humane enough. Maybe we shouldn’t have death penalties until we figure out that anesthesia should be involved, or something.
In other news, my birthday was fine. Very quiet, which is what I asked for. Since I deleted Facebook, I didn’t wake up to a ton of messages. I got a card from my mother-in-law yesterday, and a card from Mary Robinette. I played games with Mike, John, and Nick, which was nice. And then the next day, an Nvidia update tried to eat my computer.
Last weekend, I wrote 1100 words in the next Mel Walker novel. Tomorrow, I’m hoping to finish that chapter and move on to the next.
I hope you all had a great Brian-mas!
It’s hard to be in a party mood at the moment. Hopefully next year will be better.
I think your take on it is fair. One of my guiding principals I’ve found to very seldom be wrong is, if it was easy, it wouldn’t still be a problem. The death penalty is one such case. There are good arguments against it, but there are also cases where it still may be appropriate.
Not to reiterate the various, long debate points; it boils down to your starting statement. It’s complicated.
Happy belated lap around the sun day!