Emory’s Aquinas Center of Theology pitted two capital punishment experts against each other during a lively but lighthearted debate on Monday, Feb. 1 in the Emory Law School Tull Auditorium.
Emory Associate Professor of Philosophy Michael Sullivan moderated the debate, which he said was intended to initiate dialogue, establish a common truth and introduce new perspectives.
“We must love them both: those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject,” Sullivan said while introducing the two debaters. John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, argued in favor of the death penalty, and Phillip M. Thompson, executive director of the Aquinas Center of Theology, argued against it.
Malcolm invited Thompson to the debate in response to an opinion article Thompson had written in the spring for TheWall Street Journal.
This debate also occurred two days prior to the scheduled execution of Brandon Astor Jones, who had been waiting on Georgia’s death row since 1979, according to Thompson. Jones had not yet been executed by print time.
Proponent
“Reasonable people can and do disagree about whether we should have a death penalty,” Malcolm said. “I do believe that it is a very solemn cast. Executing another human being is a sober, grim affair.”
However, the darkness of the punishment hasn’t been enough to sway Malcolm. Currently, 31 U.S. states and many countries use the death penalty, he said. The penalty is constitutional except in exceptional circumstances: when killers are minors or severely mentally impaired, he added.
“The majority of [Americans] favor capital punishment in [reasonable] circumstances,” Malcolm said. He added that the death penalty is important to society for the sake of retribution, in which case a sense of justice is given to afflicted families when “no other punishment is sufficient.”
Malcolm also argued that the death penalty can prevent families from the pain of constantly enduring hearings when the criminal is up for parole.
Malcolm added that capital punishment deters people from committing crimes such as murder. When people see the death penalty actually carried out, “would-be murderers” are essentially scared away, he said. He cited an Emory study, which he recognized was not completely conclusive but indicated that 18 fewer murders occurred with each execution.
Malcolm also noted that “end of life costs,” which provide the financial foundation for murderers sentenced to life in prison, have reached an astounding $4 million since the beginning of the decade.
“I think we, as a society, need not feel guilty about this enterprise,” he said. “[The death penalty] is a degradation that was self-inflicted.”
Opponent
Thompson argued the converse.
“Reasonable people, like John said, can definitely disagree on this matter,” he said. “I was once pro-death penalty.”
Now, he considers the system plagued by human error and inequality, he said.
“We’re never going to have a perfect death penalty system in which innocent people are not executed,” Thompson said. “If you’re going to have the death penalty, you don’t want it to be disproportionate.”
Thompson said that most African American and Hispanic people oppose the death penalty because they believe that the system works in favor of rich white citizens, especially those who can afford the lawyers with the most admirable track records.
Thompson also noted that many countries in Europe and the Americas have done away with the death penalty. “We will join North Korea, China and Saudi Arabia,” he said, referring to a situation in which the United States continues to recognize the legality of the death penalty.
Although counter intuitive, carrying out the death penalty is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life, according to Thompson. “That is just a very unnatural human action,” he added. “Once you kill them, there is no going back.”
The Audience Response
A question and answer session allowed for the debaters to elaborate on their positions. The session initiated several smaller debates in which questions of murder prevention through education and morality arose, and Malcolm said that the death penalty can balance the moral equilibrium.
After the session, Sullivan thanked both debaters and gave each a gracious pat on the back.
Audra Pagano, a leader for Respect Life Ministry (RLM) at the Cathedral of Christ the King, and Sofia Bork, a volunteer for RLM, both of whom were in the audience, agreed that Thompson clearly won the debate.
“[Malcolm] used more of a pathos-based approach,” Bork said. “He got you more riled up.”
Pagano and Bork said that Thompson exhibited exceptional knowledge of the death penalty and its implications in his arguments. They added that Malcolm came across as slightly condescending.
However, they also agreed that both debaters thoroughly explored the topics and left the audience well-informed.
Questions regarding the constitutionality and humaneness of the death penalty lingered after the debate and will likely be discussed in the future. “We’ve had a lot of time to change [the penal structure] and make it a better system,” Thompson said. “But we haven’t.”
Read More
Trending
