Embedded Files
March 7, 2025
Brad Sigmon, 67, a South Carolina man who was convicted for murdering his ex-girlfriend’s parents, was executed by firing squad today, marking the first time since Ronnie Lee Gardner met his fate in Utah fifteen years ago through much the same method. Sigmon chose to use the less-common firing squad method over lethal injection and electric chair citing fear of being fried alive and fear of drowning respectively, according to his attorneys. The South Carolina Attorney General’s office has yet to respond to the Brutus Journal’s request for comment.
The execution of Sigmon understandably reignites the nationwide debate over the necessity of capital punishment. Judicial homicide, colloquially known as the death penalty, has been practiced throughout history. Almost all ancient civilizations carried out the death penalty in some form. The Code of Hammurabi dictated many scenarios for which the death penalty could be carried out. In the scripture, Jesus himself acquiesced to the stoning of a woman who had committed adultery, but brilliantly qualified his endorsement by offering, “Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her” (John 8:7). In practice however, the debate over the death penalty is much more complex than a matter of whether the executioner is blameless. Government is an imperfect institution tasked with an idyllic obligation: ruling people. The reality that the government is run by humans makes it prone to error and injustice. In Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison writes, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary” (Federalist 51). But the government is not composed of angels. Thus, an obvious question arises: what right does a flawed system have to determine to carry out capital punishment? In other words, why does human consensus grant the ability to legally take another’s life?
The answer can once again be found in the Federalist Papers. John Jay writes, “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government… and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, to vest it with requisite powers,” (Federalist 2). It follows that under extreme circumstances where individuals, especially when individuals have violated the right to life of a fellow citizen, government should retain the capability of taking the perpetrator’s own life. Doing so would not only enact retributive justice against the convict but also serve to deter future violators. But if the existence of government necessitates the surrender of the right to life, is government indispensable in the first place? Aristotle confirms that government is an essential and natural component of human survival. It is self-evident that for a social species to exist there ought to be a higher power that can arbitrate disputes between individuals and if necessary, enact punishments accordingly. So long as a government and a functioning judicial system exist, the death penalty ought to be within its bounds.
However, just because the judicial system sentences convicts to death doesn’t mean people should die for their crimes. Clemency, issued by relevant authorities, must be broadly applied to individuals on death row. Capital punishment is a product of the system and should be considered evidence that a judicial branch is functioning fairly and properly. However, government is operated by people who possess empathy for their fellow human beings. The biggest responsibility of executive authorities is ensuring the welfare of its people and that involves commuting death sentences to life sentences and granting pardons when applicable. Clemency should be granted in all but the most egregious of offenses.
Google Sites
Report abuse