Capital Punishment and the Quakers

So I've taught about capital punishment, CP, for about 3 weeks now. It's taken over a month (with the strikes), but I think we've made some progress. Let me tell you how it went. First thing: my students are, for all intensive purposes, Quakers (shaking, peace-loving folks). Right off the bat, a few key students were up in arms because CP is too violent. Being the most assertive students, everyone else soon followed their lead. The CP is wrong because it's mean, and because killing is ALWAYS wrong. This is what they told me. My work: harder than I thought. No, my goal is not to teach these kids that CP is a good thing, but rather it's to make them understand why it could be a good or bad thing. I want them to get past the initial emotional shock and try to reason it out. I laugh just writing that. What was I thinking?

The beginning was rough. We read an introductory text (about 1.5 pages) and they were completely lost. Wonderful. I tried to outline some basic arguments on either side, just roughly, so they'd be ready to read the texts (similar length, still introductory) about each side. Confusion all around. I had about one student "get it" the whole class period, and unfortunately she dominated the discussion (despite my attempts to rally the rest of the troops). A lot of them look disgruntled, and I couldn't tell if it's because the English was too hard or they didn't like the subject. I had one kid at the end of class tell me, "Zheeze 'ings are too 'ard to zink about. Is not zhe english, is too philosophie." Hmm. It's not the language, it's the philosophy that's the problem. What to do?

The next class they came, some what prepared, to discuss the retentionist arguments (pro side). Not everyone had read it, and of those that did, not many understood it. So I tried to ask them questions to evoke some level of understanding. I asked them about desert: do you deserve to die if you made someone else die? And, what are the problems with desert. For instance, can we rape rapists? Can we torture those who torture? I had the star student object that the executioner would be guilty of murder, and we'd have to kill 'im too. Okay we're thinking now. So I asked: does all killing equal murder?? I got a resounding yes from the classroom (hence the quaker-ness). So I asked: what if I accidentally cause your death? Okay, not the same, but still we're talking about intentional. I could not get them to see that killing could ever be justified. Finally I asked : if I was about to kill you and the only way you could survive was by killing me first, would you be justified in killing me? (Actually, I was more personal and asked would you actually kill me). Ohhh, now I see some minds change. I got quite a few people, a majority I believe, who would kill me first. There were several undecided's and two no's. My star player said no, killing is always wrong. Okay hun, I won't push it and ask: what if there was a classroom full of preschoolers and a terrorist was going to blow up the building and the only way to stop him was to kill him first, would it be okay? You may be willing to be a martyr, but should your view make a bunch of innocent children martyrs too? I could make the situation worse and worse until maybe she'd think it was okay, but I didn't try, not ready for that. My point here, and don't think I'm trying to be mean to the students, is to get them to think in unvisited territories, to challenge their preexisting beliefs. For some, it's starting to work. But others are still resisting.

The next week was abolitionist time, and things went better (namely because MF told the kids she was now going to grade them on participation). We discussed things like "sanctity of life" (and can it be forfeited), discrimination in the justice system, the innocence problem, etc. I think I got a little over eager when I tried to explain the difference between thinking about this issue in our world versus thinking about it in the ideal world. By ideal I mean: the principles of justice are perfectly applied (not that everyone is a saint). I wanted them to understand that many objections to CP, though not all, rely on "procedural" problems, or the problems we have when we put CP into practice today. They didn't get it. They were lost. I just wanted them to think about whether CP would be okay in a system where only the guilty got sentenced with CP and no discrimination was at play. If we could perfectly put it into practice, would it still be okay? Cue quizzical looks. Even MF was lost at that point. Oh well, I tried. I just wanted them to realize that the best arguments against CP must show that even in the ideal world CP is wrong. If it's wrong in the ideal, then it's wrong here. If you only show that it's wrong here, then you don't show it's wrong in other circumstances when justice might be better. That was the point. They didn't get it.

Anyway, even though not everyone got into it, there were a handful that really did (even if they didn't speak during class), and I loved watching them go from clueless to understanding when we walked through the arguments. I loved it. When you see someone who's been grappling with idea finally "get it," it's wonderful. I remember those moments for me, and they're awesome. The little mind epiphanies. Some refused to try, but those students will always be there. My job is to challenge the ones who are willing to open their minds for an hour a week and try out new ideas. I outlined the retribution, best bet, sanctity of life, discrimination, innocence and other arguments, and each one pushed them a little further towards understanding what's at stake. More importantly though, I asked them questions to get them to find the holes in the arguments, to show me where the arguments fail. What are the assumptions? What are the missteps? You don't agree with it? Good, now tell me why. I think I got through to some of them, and I think those students who have been trying are starting to marvel at their own capacity to think. They told me after class that it's hard, but they like it. I promised it would get easier as we went on. The more practice, the easier it becomes to understand these things. I'm not sure if they believed me, but they'll see it soon enough for themselves.

The hardest part of it all: getting them to find the answers themselves. I could stand up there and outline the arguments on my own and make them take notes, but I don't want to. I'm trying to get them to tell me the answer, and I have to ask questions to get them to realize it. That's hard. Really hard. The past few weeks have still be too much of me talking and explaining, but as we go, I hope it shifts to them. We'll see.