Should military and civilian personnel convicted of treason be executed or given life without parole?

executed

1 of 6

by slim'n'none

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

It has been said, and famously so, that treason, is a matter of dates. I prefer to think of it as which side of the fence you sit on. Men the British considered, and indeed hanged, for treason, we hail as heroes. Now, given the facts of those cases, either side could be said to be legal, and indeed the legality of it is as much a question of the dates as anything else.

The colonists claimed they were a new country, no longer subjects of the crown. Britain's empire said they weren't, and claimed that they were in fact citizens of the British Empire. Rule Britannia. The outcome remained to be seen at the time, though history has since passed down its own verdict. Had the British won the war, the men would have been traitors in fact. As it stands, they are wrongfully convicted patriots.

Now, the point of this opening has been as much to define exactly what treason is, as it pertains to this debate. Simply put, being a traitor requires you to be a member of the organization you're doing your spying on. If you're not a member, then you are simply a spy. So, to be considered for the crime of high treason against the state, legally, you must first be a citizen. No one who is not a citizen can be tried, convicted or executed for treason. They must be tried for something else. Now that we know what treason is, we can move on to how to deal with it.

The answer, to whether traitors should receive the death penalty vs. life imprisonment is really, quite simple. It is, in essence, an argument over whether or not the death penalty is acceptable. It is. In fact, not only is it acceptable, it is necessary for a wide range of crimes, and, if handled appropriately should be a great deal cheaper than simply imprisoning a man or woman for life.

In this debate, the opponents of the death penalty have made several points. Some good, some, absolutely horrible, and some were utterly unconnected to the debate and so are irrelevant. But, in good faith, I will tackle each argument one at a time.

The worst of these articles completely fails to address the question at hand. Instead, the author the current lowest ranked article goes of on an anarchist tangent calling for the dissolution of the current government. Fortunately for him, his writing is in a country where freedom of speech is guaranteed, even if it be against the current government, so long as it does not incite the public to take up arms against that government. However, his essay is at best poorly written, consisting of one giant paragraph, and at worst, treasonous talk, aimed to incite armed rebellion against the state. At any rate, the articles lack or relation to the topic merits no further consideration.

The next argument says that death is too easy. This is an appealing argument, admittedly. Let them suffer. Slap them in irons; put them in solitary. Let them rot away. Let them torture themselves insane with mental agony over what they've done. It's evil, devious, it's downright sadistic. And I like it!

There is a problem however. When people are convicted of crimes, their punishment is an example to other possible criminals. The punishment should be one effective enough to deter other potential traitors. While imprisonment does keep them off the street, it doesn't make enough of an example of the traitor. Now, a potential traitor sees someone else caught, tried and convicted. The punishment, he sees, is nothing more than life imprisonment. Meals paid for, clothes provided, and he's living the good life either way: either he gets paid and escapes to a non extradition country, or he gets caught, and if his lawyer can't get him off, they slap him in prison. Life imprisonment hardly seems an effective deterrent.

And it goes without saying that our jails are already overcrowded. And now people want to add those who have committed capital crimes to the mix permanently. This is more money that taxpayers must expend to support the growing prison population. Economically it doesn't make sense.

Now, if that same potential traitor sees a traitor tried, convicted, and then executed, he suddenly has a much more valuable prize on the line. Now he knows that he risks his life. And, at the same time, we reduce the crowding in our nation's prisons by one body, decreasing the burden he poses to the taxpayer. So you see, execution is simply the better choice. But, this argument alone cannot stand up to the opponents of the death penalty. There are still more objections to be raised against the death penalty.

Another opposition is the possibility of wrongful conviction. This is perhaps the most compelling, and difficult to defeat argument that can be made. Simply put, of all the punishments that can be meted out, death is the most final. Once a man is dead, he cannot be brought back to life due to new evidence. It is true that there have in the past been wrongful convictions. It is also likely that there will be wrongful convictions in the future, through well constructed set ups, or simply having a case mishandled on one or both sides of the trial.

Of course, there is just as much of a chance that a truly guilty man will be acquitted. On the whole it balances out. Now, some of the readers are screaming bloody murder because of that statement. And in truth, I wrote it just to get a reaction. But the fact is that guilty men go free just as often as innocent men are convicted.

However, the argument that even one wrongful conviction is too many breaks down. There is a principle of pragmatism that, in this case, must of needs override idealism. We must seek to obtain the greatest good, for the greatest number of people. This, of necessity, demands sacrifice. Thus, mistakes are expected and we know they will happen. All we can do is strive to minimize them, and own up to our mistakes when they are made. As stated before in this argument, imprisonment is not likely to be an effective deterrent.

Further, the argument goes that perhaps the person, while truly guilty, is merely the errand boy, and should not be executed simply for carrying out someone else's grand plan, thus allowing the brains' to continue, through a new errand boy. This can be looked at two ways. The first is that despite only being an errand boy, he knows exactly what he is doing. Ergo he is fully responsible for the consequences of his actions and deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Namely, the fullest extent of the law is death.

And, suppose the traitor did have information to provide. We don't have blanket punishments here in the U.S. So, he has information, he strikes a plea bargain, goes to prison for life, and we get the information that we need. The legal system is not rigid. It is flexible. Therefore, in arguing for the death penalty, we must also accept that there are times when imprisonment is an option, if it proves more useful to have the traitor alive.

Finally, the most popular argument in this particular debate, and I'll admit it is the most eloquent of the essays on why a traitor should be imprisoned vs. executed. However, the argument is mostly smoke and mirrors and talk of witch hunts. It is not a discussion of what treason is, and how it should be dealt with. Rather it is an expose on why treason has become a laughable offense.

Admittedly there have been times when politicians have used treason as an excuse to whip up patriotic support and fervor. It has been used to eliminate opponents certainly. However, that does not mean that it can be immediately discounted. Further, the top article claims that treason may be no more than "speaking out against the policies and practices of the current government." Here, I have to say that in no way can that be considered treason.

The constitution is very specific as to what constitutes treason, and so long as one does not make open war against the U.S., offer aid or comfort to its enemies, or incite others to take up arms against the U.S. (which by the way is simply another way of waging war), then one cannot be convicted of treason. Indeed to charge someone with treason who has not done one of these things is preposterous.

So, even the best written argument against the death penalty fails, under constitutional and logical testing, to present a convincing case that the death penalty should not be employed. Now, that statement is based upon the belief that the ideas presented herein have been logical and convincing. It is important to keep in mind that our legal system is and must continue to be flexible.

No one punishment fits every crime. No one punishment is appropriate for every instance of a crime. While there are absolutes in this world, sentencing is not one of them. A punishment must be stiff enough to punish the offender and act as a deterrent to others who might consider the same crime. I can think of no greater deterrent than the loss of one's life.

I feel it necessary to make one last argument as to the necessity of the death penalty in cases of treason. Treason endangers American lives needlessly, for no other reason than greed. It also, in many cases, results in the death of innocent civilians, or perhaps of government agents, possibly even the men and women in uniform who enforce our country's will throughout the world. To allow a man or woman who has willingly subjected other of our countrymen and women to potential harm for his own greed or grievances, is of the lowest order of life and hardly worth being called a man.

In such a case, Life is a mercy. In many cases, it is a mercy that can scarce be afforded. For if it is, then what is to deter someone else from continuing the crimes, perhaps even coming to greater success, and bringing disaster to the country we live in and whose freedoms we enjoy.

So, in examining the arguments against the death penalty, particularly in cases involving treason, we find the death penalty must be an option. It is, perhaps, the greatest deterrent we can offer. It is also the most final punishment we can enforce. That said it must be used with extreme caution. The death penalty is not to be taken lightly, nor is it merited in every case. Each case, and each punishment, must be weighed, and measured to fit the crime. But, more often than not, logic will lead to only one acceptable conclusion in high crimes against the state: the death penalty.

Learn more about this author, slim'n'none.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.