Friday, January 30, 2009

Bring Back the Death Penalty for Treason

The New York Times reports that CIA traitor Harold Nicholson, convicted and imprisoned in 1997, has continued to pass secrets to Russia from behind bars. Apparently he used his son as a go-between. This man was a CIA station chief who chose to betray his country for money. Why is he still alive?

Here you have a guy who was an important CIA officer. He deliberately became a spy for another country. He escapes execution and doesn't even get sentenced to life in prison. Instead of just serving out his time, he tries every method possible to contact the Russians. When other efforts fail, he recruits his own son from behind bars. Nicholson is an unrepentant traitor who found a way to continue selling out the U.S. from his jail cell. What does he have to do to get himself executed?

10 comments:

  1. Perhaps it's because I treat all forms of patriotism with a huge dose of cynicism, but I fail to understand why treason warrants deliberately ending a person's life. I'm not being facetious. Can you explain your rationale?

    ReplyDelete
  2. FrodoSaves,

    "I fail to understand why treason warrants deliberately ending a person's life"

    That's interesting, because I don't understand why anyone would oppose the death penalty in such a case, unless they oppose it almost all cases. Nicholson is actually a repeat offender traitor. Had he been executed in the first place he wouldn't have been able to conduct additional espionage activities, and his son wouldn't have been corrupted.

    People who are entrusted with important positions of responsibility, should face harsh punishment if they violate that trust. No one forced Nicholson to join the CIA. I think death is a reasonable and just punishment for military and intelligence officials who betray the country they are supposed to be serving-- particularly those who refuse to cooperate and even manage to continue those activities after being caught.

    ReplyDelete
  3. People who are entrusted with important positions of responsibility, should face harsh punishment if they violate that trust.

    This argues that treason should carry the same penalty as election tampering and corruption. Not even in Singapore are these capital crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UNRR,

    That's interesting, because I don't understand why anyone would oppose the death penalty in such a case, unless they oppose it almost all cases.

    Ah, you've caught me! I do oppose the death penalty per se, but I've never argued against it from the perspective of treason before. Regardless, I suppose the same points still stand. I read in another post that you don't believe in natural rights, so I'll try to leave them out of the equation.

    Basically I believe that if it's punishment you want to give, life imprisonment with no chance of parole is far worse than execution. I won't explain why because I expect it's obvious. The usual response to that, however, is that the prison system makes a serious dent in tax revenues. But that implies that the state should take decisions on life and death based on economic calculations, a sort of "it costs too much to keep them alive" attitude. I find that view morally repugnant.

    My secondary argument is this. In very rare circumstances the state says it is lawful for a private citizen to take the life of another. This generally amounts to self-defense, in situations where it is overwhelmingly necessary to take a life in order to prevent physical harm to oneself or another. Why then should the state be allowed to take a life where the standards are much lower? You may object to my use of "be allowed" and the Rousseau/social contract implications that follow, but I hold to that theory of democracy whereby a state derives its legitimacy from the consent of its citizens to be governed. If they don't like its laws, then by all means, they should change.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alon,

    "This argues that treason should carry the same penalty as election tampering and corruption"

    No it doesn't. Not every crime by a government official or agent is equal to treason, and a harsh penalty does not necessarily equal death. In my opinion, it should be the default penalty for treason by government officials, agents, and military officers, to be reduced as applicable for less severe cases, cooperation, or other mitigating circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FrodoSaves,

    "Basically I believe that if it's punishment you want to give, life imprisonment with no chance of parole is far worse than execution."

    I think it can be, depending on the circumstances and the individual, but it isn't necessarily.

    "Why then should the state be allowed to take a life where the standards are much lower?"

    For two reasons. 1. The state should have the ability to execute its own members who betray it. This isn't the power of the state vs. the people. It's the state eliminating its own agents who have turned against it and allied with foreign powers. 2. The state's power to utilize the death penalty is already tightly restricted. A jury of citizens has to vote in favor of execution. The state merely carries it out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. UNRR,

    It's the state eliminating its own agents who have turned against it and allied with foreign powers

    Perhaps we just subscribe to different theories of the state. I'm reluctant to recognize it as much more than the sum of its parts. In addition, since I'm of the opinion that lives should only be taken when it's absolutely necessary, I can't envision a situation in which it would be necessary for a state to take that of its own citizen. Yes, execution would have prevented that agent from further helping Russia, but so would proper and prudent imprisonment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Perhaps we just subscribe to different theories of the state."

    Probably, but there's something else to consider. When someone joins a state agency like the CIA or the military, he voluntarily and knowingly gives some of his rights.

    "I'm of the opinion that lives should only be taken when it's absolutely necessary"

    I'm not. That's our main area of difference. I see no reason to preserve the lives of those who have committed certain crimes. I have problems with the haphazard and sometimes unjust way the death penalty is applied in the U.S. For example, in my opinion it is unjust that you have a higher chance of getting the death penalty for killing a cop in a shootout, than you do for murdering a helpless victim.

    But from a moral standpoint, I see certain crimes as clearly deserving of death. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is immoral not to execute certain people, leaving them alive to possibly kill again

    ReplyDelete
  9. Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes. The death penalty is one of those issues people see very differently.

    ReplyDelete