Feb. 7, 2010
COMMENTARY: We Won't Sentence a Corporation to the Death Penalty
By Stephanie Van Hook
But we do collectively sentence other 'legal persons' to death.
According to Amnesty International, there are as many as 3,300 inmates
on death row in the United States alone, as of today; mostly male;
many with mental illnesses; many abused as children; many guilty of
the accused crimes; many innocent among them.
In Maryland itself, each death-penalty case costs the state tax-payers 3 million dollars. Even
with these numbers and considerations, only fifteen states have
abolished capital punishment, showing that contrary to rhetoric
against conservatives, Americans do care about something other than
money and profits: we care about protecting our moral standards first.
Still, why is this topic so controversial to so many?
Conservative Americans stand firm in a belief in the sanctity of life
and in protecting the individual. They seek to make clear that these
[legal] people have transgressed our moral standards and the families
of the victims need closure for the harm done. It is about
individualism and security: a nation that does not prioritize the
security of the individual is not doing its job.
Just as a father would feel it to be his responsibility to severely punish his child as
a consequence of hurting another, with "this hurts me more than it
hurts you"; a nation without severe consequences will never teach true
morals to its citizens, either. In fact, without such severe
consequences, we demonstrate no empathy at all for those who have
suffered.
Progressive Americans also stand anchored: there is no such thing as
individual culture; we are a collective culture. To the progressive,
we are literally made up of one another, like a family. We should feel
responsible when a crime is committed in our larger human family, in
the same way that a mother feels shame, and partially responsible,
when she finds out that the child has been arrested for stealing.
Likewise, the progressive side believes that for each crime committed
by any member of our society, we are partially responsible as as
nation to rehabilitate that person, as we would our own child. We may
have been deeply offended by the act, but we should hold fast to the
ideal that human life is always sacred, even in the most trying of
circumstances on our hearts and minds. We place our eggs in the basket
of human imperfection and firmly state that a society based in
retribution, not rehabilitation, is one that lacks empathy.
As it turns out, conservatives and progressives actually agree with
one another: Americans are morally rooted in the sanctity of life and
in a culture of empathy. We care about our security: that of our
families, of our communities, and of our nation; and we care about
each other. We even care so much about individual people that when we
come together in these collective identities, we don't see abstract
entities; we see collectives of individual people who deserve our
empathy. This is why I am willing to defend my sister's intentions
sometimes, even if the act she committed might be wrong, since she is
a part of my family; or why we are at times willing to defend our
President if he makes a mistake: because he seems to be acting in good
faith and we elected him to make hard choices in the name of our
nation.
Regardless of what it may look like on the outside, we are a culture
in respect and defense of the person. This idea is reinforced by the
recent Supreme Court ruling to affirm 'legal personhood' to the
corporation. Why? Because a corporation is not an abstract entity--it,
like a family, is composed of individuals. And, paradoxically,our
government, like a parent who deeply loves her child, is willing time
and again to grant pardon to our corporations for their mistakes (our
mistakes), and their transgressions (our transgressions);or as she
would act toward an unfaithful spouse, to give them another chance.
What about when corporations commit alleged acts that would warrant
capital punishment? Even if we could, we would never sentence a
corporation to the death penalty because we do not hold them fully
responsible for their actions. When it comes to this specific
collective of individuals, we are astoundingly progressive as a
nation. Yet, we wouldn't have the chance to see this truth about
ourselves without the work of conservatives, either. So, why are we
not yet this empathetic with each other, as exemplified by the 3,300
legal persons on death row?
As it stands, the United States of America is becoming incorporated,
whether we like it or not. Perhaps our real challenge (as the original
"legal persons" ) is not to deepen our mistrust for corporations with
this ruling; rather, we must work unceasingly to undo our deeply
rooted mistrust of one another. As this decision gives us pause to
redefine what makes a person sacred, reconsidering the death penalty
may be the right issue to start with.
* * *
Stephanie Van Hook teaches French and holds a graduate degree in
Conflict Resolution. She is a veteran Peace Corps volunteer (Benin,
West Africa) and is on the board of directors of the Oregon Peace
Institute. This commentary was distributed by PeaceVoice, a program
of the Oregon Peace Institute, Portland, OR.