Students Civilly Discuss the Death Penalty in a Braver Angels Debate
Posted Apr 5, 2024
Last night, the Department sponsored a debate with Braver Angels on whether to abolish the death penalty. Braver Angels seeks to teach individuals how to have productive conversations where people can agree to disagree in the hope of reducing polarization.
Representing Braver Angels, Mae Rum moderated the debate. The debate occurred in a parliamentary procedure-type debate that required participants to address the moderator rather than the speaker. The debate began with four speakers who made speeches for and against abolishing the death penalty. Between each speech, audience members could ask questions of the speaker. After the four speakers spoke, students from the audience alternated making speeches for and against abolishing the death penalty and then answering questions.
The first speaker in favor of abolishing the death penalty was Zoe Leatherwood. She argued two points. First, government has the responsibility to preserve life because everyone has a fundamental right to life. Second, the death penalty reduces the opportunity for repentance and reform which may preclude the opportunity for salvation.
Jonathan Sanders followed Zoe to speak in favor of the death penalty. He argued that the death penalty reflects retributive justice. In Genesis 9, God tells Cain after he murders Abel “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” Then in Romans 13, God established government to provide security by bearing the sword and being God’s “agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Thus, he concluded that the state can execute people as long as the execution is not cruel and unusual.
Jacob Little followed up with a discussion of deterrence. While execution obviously deters the criminal by not allowing him to murder again, statistical studies show that the death penalty does not deter criminals because people do not think about the consequences of their actions by murdering someone. Furthermore, life in prison is a just form of retribution.
The final original speaker was Olivia Shaw. Her goal was to humanize the victims. She argued that we are responsible for the actions we take and that we all understand there are consequences for those actions. In response to those concerned about prisoners having enough time to repent, she suggested that time on death row gives them enough time and focuses their attention on the need to repent. Third, she reviewed the constitutional jurisprudence and how the death penalty has been reformed to make it less arbitrary and capricious and less likely to execute an innocent person. Finally, she identified the various crimes that people on death row commit while murdering someone to prove that these individuals are the worst of the worst.
After that, various individuals volunteered to speak. One student said we should not execute prisoners because while we are to promote justice, we are also to show mercy as God has. The next student used social contract theory to suggest that we give up certain rights when we enter into a society to gain protection and that individuals know that the price of this may be death if they kill people. The third speaker discussed how the environment conditions people to be more likely to commit murder and that Scandinavian countries have had success reforming serial killers. This suggests we should focus more on rehabilitation than retribution. Another student made a utilitarian argument against the death penalty arguing that it costs more to execute someone than imprison them for life. The next speaker replied to a previous speaker who made the love justice and mercy argument to suggest that the death penalty is just in many circumstances. For the problems that people have suggested, she suggested that we reform the system.
After students had spoken and asked questions of speakers, Ms. Rum led a debrief of the debates. She emphasized the importance of hearing different voices on both sides and how students provided the nuances of different positions. She also said that the students humanized the victims and the condemned as people and not statistics. She said the debate showed that people can talk about controversial issues without shouting each other down and that the students demonstrated civility.
Afterward, students expressed positive feelings toward the event. They appreciated hearing different voices and understanding the nuances of different positions. They felt like they understood the issue more after the discussion. They also liked the civility shown to others. Several speakers said that they felt nervous, but we appreciated everyone’s participation. Overall, students demonstrated the ability to talk with people who have different points of view and to agree to disagree. Those are skills lacking too much in our political discourse today.