THE DEATH PENALTY (Capital Punishment) Psychoanalytic Perspectives

There is no doubt but that the death penalty is very much in the news. Every day we read of murders, convictions, sentences. Crime is understandably a major concern of the public, and arguably the prime concern of the populace. There remains much debate as to what can be done about it. Some advocate more and more prisons, stricter and speedier punishments,while others feel crime can only be prevented by social reform.

Within this context there is increasing discussion of the merits of the death penalty for 'murder-one'. Murder-one, that is, premeditated murder, is generally considered to be the most severe crime, and through the ages, those convicted of it have earned the most severe penalty, the death penalty. The carrying out of the death penalty has been called, 'justice', throughout the years, and this strict justice has been thought to encourage 'morality'. It is morally wrong for an individual to kill, but the state is morally right to exact the death penalty.

There are some who consider the death penalty itself, immoral,because it is always wrong to kill, and two wrongs do not make aright, and it is argued that the execution of the murderer does not bring back the murder victim. They consider revenge and retribution unworthy of a civilized state, and feel that exacting the death penalty is brutalizing, in and of itself.

I will examine this discourse, first by reviewing the history of the death penalty, then the advent of the prison reform movement and the legal considerations associated with the death penalty. Finally, I will elaborate some of the unconscious mechanisms underlying the arguments for and against the death penalty. In doing so I will try to redefine what is morality and justice, and consider how does society seek to regulate itself. What is the relationship of the individual to society when it comes to the crime of murder?

The concept of right and wrong and what is punishable by death has certainly changed and evolved through the ages. As Hamlet tells Horatio, "There is nothing good or bad but that thinking makes itso." Furthermore, Nietzsche defines morality with conformity to the accepted norms of a given age, likening unthinking conformity to sheep like compliance, unworthy if unthinking.

In the Old Testament, Adam and Eve are punished for refusing to obey God's injunction not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In effect, the Lord demands an unthinking compliance with his commands. But he has also given Man and Woman 'free will', and by exercising it, they are banished from the Garden of Eden and will know pain and shame and work, which is the price paid for growing up, for coming of age. And so, here we are, descendants of Adam and Eve, and in the process of using our free will and the benefits of our experience to decide what is Good and what is Evil, and then we must decide how to foster good and discourage evil, as we define them.

The Old Testament is our main source for the death penalty, as we know it. Genesis 9:6 says, "Whoso sheddith man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man." The book of Deuteronomy (19:21) also speaks of severe punishment for anyone committing a crime: "And thine eye shall not pity: but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,foot for foot." In other words, the Bible says that one should be punished in a way that matches the severity of the crime. We all can sing that famous rhyme from Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado""let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime."It was an amazing transformation that these clever composers could create a comical character in the heretofore dark figure of the Lord High Executioner.

We can only conclude that in biblical times the prophets felt that it was necessary to control man's homicidal potential, in order to develop a civilization. It was reasoned that the urge to kill was so strong, that only the ultimate punishment, death, invoking the natural fear of death, would be the only effective deterrent, and this reasoning continues to present times. Even now there is certain logic to the contention that for society to exist and for civilization to grow and evolve, it must contain Man's murderous drive and potential. The concept of punishment and God's wrath were central to the concept of morality in the Old Testament.

People who are against the death penalty, however, can also quote passages in the bible to support their position. They point to the Fifth Commandment in Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt not kill." And in the New Testament, opponents of the death penalty cite the message of Jesus as one of mercy toward criminals, as well as the poor. However, it can be argued that the Ten Commandments are for the individual, not the state. Somehow the state is allowed to wage war and execute criminals without going against the bible.

THE HISTORY OF THE DEATH PENALTY

People may interpret the bible differently, but it shows clearly that capital punishment existed in ancient times. In the ancient kingdom of Babylonia, in what is now Syria and Iraq, one of the first great sets of laws was written down. Known as the Code of Hammurabi, these laws were named for the Babylonian king who ruled1792-1750 BC. The Code of Hammurabi contained many specific punishments for different kinds of crimes. For example a person could be put to death for robbery, or committing adultery, as well as for murder. Depending on the crime, one could be beheaded,stoned or even drowned. In ancient Babylonia, criminals were expected to suffer. Today our laws are designed to be forgiving and merciful, not only to punish criminals, but also to offer them the opportunity to reform.

In ancient Rome, one common form of execution was crucifixion; the Romans probably learned this from their exploits into Carthage. It was common practice among the Romans to force the prisoner to carry the cross to the place of execution. The prisoner would then be either nailed or tied to the cross, and the legs were broken in order to cause more pain. A person on a cross dies either of suffocation, brought on by the strain of hanging, or of starvation.To instill fear among the people, the Romans would often leave the body on the cross, its eyes eaten by birds and its flesh rotting in the sun.

Jesus Christ, who was sentenced to death by the Romans, is the best known figure to be executed by crucifixion. Once a symbol of the lowest form of criminal death, the cross is now the principal holy symbol of Christianity.

Despite the teachings of Christ in 1233 Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, a kind of court to suppress heresy. Torture was permitted in the questioning of suspects, and most trials ended with a guilty verdict. If a person refused to confess, burning at the stake was thought to be a sufficient punishment. A person burned at the stake was tied to a wooden pole. Dried wood and leaves were heaped at the victim's feet and then ignited.

In 1478 another inquisition was established by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. This inquisition was under the control of the Spanish state, and its purpose was to persecute Jews and Muslims living in Spain who had not converted to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition was much more severe than the earlier inquisition and was opposed by the Pope. The Grand Inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada became a figure of terror throughout Spain. In 1492 Jews and Muslims were expelled from Spain, but by this time the Inquisition had been extended to all aspects of people's lives. One of its most terrifying moments was the 'auto-da-fe', a ritual mass burning at the stake.

One could go on and on, documenting the horrors of the death penalty, from the beheading of three queens by Henry VIII(1491-1547), Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard and Mary Queen of Scots. The latter, also known as Mary Stuart, was accused of plotting to kill Queen Elizabeth I of England, and was beheaded in 1587. None of these three queens were really executed for the reasons given; they were simply victims of politics. Their behavior was considered treasonous, and the punishment for treason was death.

Execution by a swordsman was thought to be worthy of a noble person. Lowly criminals were hanged or drawn and quartered (tied to horses and then torn apart as the horses pulled in opposite directions). As a reminder of what awaited anyone who broke the law, the heads of common criminals were placed on stakes and displayed on bridges over the Thames river in London.

Even at that time, such severe punishments were not felt to be a deterrent to further crime, as during public hangings, pickpockets had a field day with the celebrating crowd, even as former pickpockets were hanging for their crimes. There was always the ego-defense mechanism of denial.

In early France, burning at the stake and beheading were the most common forms of execution. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for heresy May 30, 1431. But most French prisoners, whether common people or nobility,suffered the death penalty by guillotine. The victim would lie face down, his or her neck held in place by a wooden brace. High above was a sharp blade, which when released would fall swiftly,cutting the victim's head off.

During a period of the French Revolution known as the reign of terror (1793-1794) thousands of men and women were beheaded in executions carried out before cheering crowds. The government at the time was a dictatorship. It passed laws making many crimes"treason", and thus punishable by death. And ordinary person, for example, could go to the guillotine for hoarding food. Members of the nobility were executed just because they were from the old ruling class. The guillotine's most famous victims were the deposed king and queen, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

MOVEMENTS TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY

Death as punishment for crimes continued to grow in popularity in Europe during the late 18th century. In England at the beginning of the 19th century, more than 200 crimes were punishable by death.

Gradually, movements to abolish the death penalty began to appear. The modern movement to end the death penalty began in the 1700'swith the writings of French philosophers Montesquieu (1689-1755)and Voltaire (1694-1778). Both men were concerned with preserving individual liberties from attacks by government, protecting the individual from the mob, so to speak, the mob as led by cruel rulers. The death penalty, they believed, was the violation of a person's basic rights as a human being.

Another strong opponent of capital punishment was the Italian criminologist and jurist, Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794). His "Essay on Crimes and Punishments", published in 1764, was one of the first arguments against the death penalty and the inhumane treatment of criminals.

In England, the philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) worked tirelessly to have the number of crimes carry the death penalty reduced. The early opponents of the death penalty helped define the key moral and ethical issues surrounding capital punishment. As they introduced the concepts of basic human rights and questioned inhumane treatment, these philosophers and jurists set the stage for a continuing debate, one that continues, obviously, to the present time.

THE DEATH PENALTY IN UNITED STATES HISTORY

The first colonist from England landed in what is now Virginia at Jamestown in 1607. They brought with them English laws, customs and traditions. In the U.S. today the death penalty is only used for murder-one, and the most extreme cases. During the time of the first colonists, however, a criminal could be sentenced to death for 150 different crimes. Included among those crimes were robbery, counterfeiting, witchcraft, arson, slave rebellion, and even some forms of lying. Death was usually by hanging.

One of the most famous episodes in American history occurred in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. At that time at least 25 men and women were hanged for witchcraft. The death penalty for witchcraft was common throughout Europe. Many people at the time believed in the power of the devil to possess human beings. Possessed people were considered witches who had the power to cast spells on others,making them ill or insane.

In England, over a period of several hundred years, 30,000 men,women and children were executed for witchcraft.

The dynamics, social and psychological, of the Salem witch trials,were explored in various essays and plays, most memorable of which was Arthur Miller's "The Crucible". This was written during the McCarthy era, in which a certain political hysteria held sway, and the fear of Communists in the government was exacerbated. Presently, we have seen a similar trend, in the prosecution of day-care teachers by sick social workers who goaded gullible children into making wild and unfounded accusations of sexual molestation. As we now know, several innocent daycare teachers were jailed for long periods of time in the mistaken belief that children did not lie. These phenomena point to the fact that the human condition is such that there are serious flaws in the criminal justice system, which includes our present jury system. Its defenders argue that it is not perfect, but it is the best system we have, given the limitations of humankind. Similarly, the adversarial system is in place in which the jury listens to 'facts' as defined in open court by the prosecution and defense, and comes to a decision about guilt and punishment.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Six years after our victory in the Revolutionary War, establishing the independence of the 13 colonies from England, the constitution was ratified in 1789. All the colonies had death penalty laws at the time. But two of the Constitution's amendments referred to capital punishment in an indirect way only. These amendments do not state how capital punishment should apply or for what kinds of crimes it should be used.

The fifth amendment states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentiment of indictment of a Grand Jury... nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..."

The eight amendment reads "Excessive bail shall not be required,nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This phrase comes from the English Bill of Rights of1689, which was adopted to stop extremely cruel forms of capital punishment, such as burning at the stake and beheading.

PRISON REFORM IN THE 1800'S

These included improved prison conditions, and many states gradually began to reject laws that required the death penalty. Juries would have to decide separately and after a person was convicted, whether he or she should be put to death. The Supreme Court was first asked to rule on whether the death penalty was"cruel and unusual" in 1879. It ducked the issue. In a case called Wilkerson v Utah, the court allowed an execution by firing squad and said that only certain kinds of capital punishment, such as burning at the stake and beheading were definitely cruel and unusual. But the court ruled that it was not possible to say whether the death penalty by itself violated the eighth amendment.

MODERN METHODS OF EXECUTION

Since it was felt, in modern times, that ancient methods of execution were indeed cruel and unusual, newer methods began to be employed. These included the electric chair, poison gas and lethal injection, in addition to the firing squad. Now, lethal injection is the favored and most common method, employed by 20 states. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have no death penalty statutes or have abolished the death penalty. In 1972, in Furman v Georgia, the Supreme court ruled against the death penalty in an instance where it felt that the jurors received inadequate guidance. Later, in 1976, the Supreme Court voted that rewritten laws of a number of states were constitutional. In the intervening four years, there were no executions. Actually, there was a ten year period in American history with no executions.

DOES THE DEATH PENALTY REDUCE CRIME?

There are death penalty laws in 36 states, and the United States still has one of the highest murder rates in the world. This can be disputed in questioning the validity of the statistics. There are many murders in the overcrowded metropolises of India, and these bodies are swept up in the streets, along with many others who die of sickness and starvation, but these are not counted. Similarly, many Mafia murders are listed as accidental in Italy and elsewhere, along with suicides in Catholic countries. In many countries the murders are by government agents or militia, against political dissenters, and these are not counted as murders. In spite of the fact that we still have a high murder rate, a Gallop poll of 1992 reveals that most Americans, by a ratio of two to one, still believe it is better to have some kind of death penalty laws than to abolish them altogether.

WHY DO WE HAVE A DEATH PENALTY AT ALL?

In the ancient Greek tragedies, Aeschylus gives an answer in his"Orestes trilogy". In that classic Greek mythology, the gods and demigods carry out one revenge murder after another. Finally, in the end, the state steps in, ordering reason to dominate over passion, by letting the state commit the revenge murder, now the execution which is the death penalty, for murder. In other words,the state, or "the people" create an outlet for the feelings of revenge and retribution, in order for the repetition of revenge murders to cease. Practically, it was a way to prevent the loss of great minds, whose bodies also contained hot blood, as society needed them for their intelligence and leadership abilities. The state becomes the proxy for the revenge murder. This 'murder' is legalized and becomes capital punishment, the death penalty. Individual murder is wrong and immoral, the state's right to execute becomes law and is moral. The death penalty is society's punishment and retribution.

This is why, even today, the family of the victim of murder is given a voice in the sentencing before the jury, even though it is not a determining one. The jury can still decide whether or not,in their opinion, the death penalty for a given crime is warranted. The jury is obviously influenced by the morality and the criminality of the times. In other words, it is influenced bythe media. Some say the media incites violence in the populace; others say that after forty years of television, it has numbed our sense of outrage.

Some feel that capital punishment is in part to restore a sense of peace and safety in the populace. The idea that the murderer lives and can murder again is a source of anxiety in many people. Civil law provides for monetary reimbursement for damages done. Criminal law provides for incarceration or death for crimes that are not reimbursable by money.

It is well known that a convicted murderer has given ample evidence of dangerousness; therefore execution of the murder deters any further murders by that particular murderer. It is also well known, especially recently, with the brutal murder of Jeffrey Dahmer within our recent memory, that murderers are dangerous even within prison, and certainly their continued existence leaves for many the risk of release by pardon, parole or escape. At the same time, the many amenities of prison life bother the people who have been struck by the loss of a loved one; they would rather a murderer not only be incarcerated, but placed in a dungeon with only bread and water.

Recently the former minister who killed the abortion doctor was given the death penalty. It could be reasoned that the jury,witnessing his lack of remorse, and his conviction that he was doing the right thing, would consider him to be dangerous for the rest of his life. Also the death penalty would go out as a strong message to other pro-life fanatics who would murder for their cause.

Presently there are movements to make the parole process more strict and to shorten the time period from sentencing to execution,as it is believed that swift and certain punishment is the best deterrence. It is also interesting that executions are carried out without television coverage, as if there were something wrong or horrible about the state exacting the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

Do we really believe in retribution? Are there any who question the competence, humanity and motivation of the Israeli Nazi hunters, who finally tracked down one Adolph Eichmann, brought him to trial,found him guilty , and executed him on the Nuremberg principles of "crimes against humanity"?

WHAT ARE THE UNCONSCIOUS DYNAMICS OF THOSE WHO FAVOR THE DEATH PENALTY?

It can be argued that those who favor the death penalty are hostile and destructive people who derive vicarious satisfaction from the state carrying out an execution. They may want to witness this execution to satisfy sadistic impulses, and as an outlet for their own murderous fantasies. Such people may also enjoy the more violent sports, such as boxing, football and hockey, as an outlet for hostile-aggressive impulses. We know that Freud explained much of human behavior, the dark side of our nature, by postulating instinctive aggressive drives. These can be modulated by society,but in "Civilization and its Discontents" he proposes that we may pay a terrible price, the price of neurotic symptoms and misery. We similarly may be rendered symptomatic by a damming up of the sexual energies. Those who identify with the victim may want the death penalty to restore feelings of power and security. Life imprisonment in modern times seems an insufficient punishment, due to the many amenities now available in prison life. Those who identify with the murderer, may want mercy and forgiveness for him, for "there but for the grace of God go I".

WHAT ARE THE UNCONSCIOUS DYNAMICS OF THOSE WHO WANT TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY?

Given the long and sordid history of the death penalty, the feelings and motivation of those who would abolish the death penalty are admirable and quite understandable. But considering how the death penalty in concert with the refinement of the civilized, humane treatment of prisoners, even those on death row,it is hard to understand why anyone would oppose the death penalty for the most egregious murderers, knowing that only a small percentage of murderers are arrested, a smaller number convicted,and an event smaller number given the death penalty. Even here, if justice delayed is justice denied, there is yet another injustice in literally letting a murderer GET AWAY WITH MURDER.

One possible theory to explain this overdetermined pacifism and nonviolence is that these people are fearful of their own destructiveness and murderous rage, and so they manifest the defense-mechanism of 'reaction-formation'. Most reaction-formations contribute to admirable characterologic qualities of tolerance, kindness and mercy, but carried to extremes, these people are known to figuratively 'kill with kindness' and are recognizable as 'militant pacifists'. There are others with 'reaction-formation' whose hostility clearly breaks through from time to time, devastating an opponent unexpectedly.

Another possible mechanism for the abolitionists (of the death penalty) is an overdetermined fear of death, itself, which is prevalent in our society. Death is seen as irreversible and may carry conscious or unconscious fantasies of a horrible deterioration of the body, or even catastrophic destruction. These people may include some pro-life fanatics and oncologists who refuse to cease their heroic and ambitious therapies, prolonging the suffering and expense of terminal patients, their family and friends unduly.

Yet another mechanism, this more psycho-social, is a reflex advocacy of the underdog, no matter what the circumstance. These people were once the underdog themselves, developing a hatred and fear of powerlessness and helplessness, from their own childhood experiences, and so derive a feeling of strength by thwarting the will of the people, to punish a criminal. An recent example may be the defense attorney, Kunstler, who advocated that his client, a black man who shot many whites in a Long Island commuter train, was not responsible for his actions because he had justifiable 'black rage', due to the persecution, intolerance and discrimination of the white ruling class over the blacks in recent times.

The rationale for the creative and effective defense of the defendant is that such a defense, in the adversarial system,protects all our civil rights. In the group versus the individual,however grievous are the crimes of the defendant, the PEOPLE are not allowed to exact retribution, without due process. A powerful defense is part of 'due process', witness the defense team of O.J.Simpson.

The defenders of the murderer's right to live may be uncaring of the feelings of others who feel in danger, or thwarted in their needs for retribution. They feel, perhaps, that all aggressive impulses should be thwarted, that none should be acted upon,otherwise they feel in danger. They cannot see anything constructive in the taking of a human life.

THE CASE OF SHAKESPEARE'S "HAMLET"

And yet, perhaps we should consider the dynamics of those who feel that revenge is good and right and moral. For an understanding of these dynamics, we need look no farther than the classic play of"Hamlet". Here is a noble young man, with whom we can identify, as he is called home from school to attend the wedding of his mother to his uncle, his father's brother. He is told that his father meta mysterious and untimely death, and now there is a new king. His mother and now stepfather chide him for his somber mood, suggesting that he has only the appearance of sadness. He is angered and says, "I know not 'seems'". He feels more deeply than his 'inky cloak' would imply. He is put off that his feelings are deemed insincere, and adamantly retorts that his feelings are real, it is others who are insincere. We identify all the more with him, as he is in a position of helplessness in the company of the power of the king and queen.He complains that they are celebrating all too soon after the death of his father, replying sarcastically that the funeral libations could furnish the wedding feast. Indeed, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. His parents seemed to be "posting with dexterity to incestuous sheets".

Then the ghost of his father appears, telling Hamlet of his foul murder and wanting him to carry out revenge against his evil brother, who is a murderer. To carry out the revenge would hopefully restore Hamlet to the throne, a more proper lineage. Hamlet's suspicions are confirmed and he exclaims, "Oh, my prophetic soul!", and, of course, his first impulse is to carry out his father's wish and exact revenge. A quick dispatch of the evil king would bring swift and true justice, but it is not so easy...

"Oh, cursed spite, that I was ever born to set it right!"

He is of course cursed, in that murder, even revenge murder, is not allowed, and there always is the danger that he will be killed in the process, as the king is in the seat of power and has protectors and supporters, such as Polonius, who cautions his daughter,Ophelia, to act more distant, as male suitors are not to be trusted. Hamlet is further enraged by her distance and apparent lack of sincerity. His whole world is changing as cunning evil surrounds him.

Doubts and inhibitions start to set in, but the obstacles are not all external. The ghost has implored him at the same time not to include his mother. "Leave her to heaven". It must be terrible for Hamlet to consider the possibility that his mother was an accomplice to the murderer, and possibly an adulteress. Now she is married to Claudius and sleeping with him.

Freud's brilliant interpretation of Hamlet's indecision is classic,and the beginning of psychoanalytic literary criticism and a deeper understanding of classic drama. Unconsciously, Hamlet hesitates because he too, as a boy, wished (in fantasy) to kill his father and sleep with his mother. Since these thoughts are unacceptable to the conscious mind, they are repressed, along with the murderous drive that fuels them. Therefore, Hamlet cannot help but be unconsciously identified with the evil Claudius, and so cannot readily kill him. He has his own guilt feelings and built-in inhibitions to acting on his patricidal impulses. And so, he is at war with himself.

"Oh, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!"

He feels he needs more evidence of Claudius' guilt, and bides his time, while both going and acting crazy. He knows a hawk from a handsaw, but there's method in his madness. Curiously, and creatively, a play depicting the circumstances of his father's death may elicit a confirming emotional reaction in the king, and so Hamlet muses:

"The play's the thing wherein we'll catch the conscience of the king."

Hamlet, in truth, was not present at the crime scene, which will be reproduced in "The Murder of Gonzago". Hamlet has turned detective. While Hamlet waits, his aggression, blocked from direct and immediate action, turns against himself, and he calls himself a coward.

"I am pigeon-livered, and lack gall..."

The raging emotions turn outward again and he verbalizes his rage:

"Bloody, bawdy villain, remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain...... O, vengeance!"

Then comes famous soliloquy, "To be, or not to be..."

The anger is turned on the introjected object (Freud's "Mourning and Melancholia"); he feels guilty for his own murderous wishes toward his father, and so is suicidal, which is murderous rage directed from an external object to the introject within the self, and so he is questioning his own existence, an existential crisis, to be sure, of major, if not classic proportions. To die, to sleep forever, would be "a consummation devoutly to be wished." But he fears Death, and the possible retribution of God, which would be worse than death, banished for all eternity to the tortures of Hell.

Meanwhile, Claudius, who we know to be the murderer, who is still alive and at large, is plotting Hamlet's assassination, with the help of Hamlet's schoolmates, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Claudius is trying to protect his ill-gotten gains and prevent his own assassination by a pre-emptive strike. The murderer is still dangerous, and ready to murder again.

As the plot thickens, Hamlet's murderous rage is let loose,finally, as he kills Polonius, who he mistakes for his stepfather. As Hamlet is now attempting to get retribution, even though it is the wrong person, he is more alive and less depressed, as his anger is discharged outwardly. Now he is a murderer too.

Ophelia loses her mind and drowns, and her brother, Laertes, blames Hamlet and wants to kill him. Claudius takes advantage of this and proposes a duel in which he poisons a sword-tip and a drink, a pre-emptive strike against the vengeful Hamlet. Both death wishes go awry, as Laertes and Gertrude both inadvertently get the poison intend for Hamlet. When Hamlet realizes what is happening, he finally kills his uncle, but some of the poison is within him, and his own life is tragically at an end.

The stage is heaped with bodies, perhaps because Hamlet was in conflict, rather than a unified spirit. Is there a lesson to the audience to quickly dispatch the murderer? Otherwise there will be more murders, murders of more innocents?

In his soliloquy, which we ponder again for insight, we find that Hamlet questions his own inaction:

"And thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,And enterprises of great pitch and moment, with this regard, their currents turn awry...

AND LOSE THE NAME OF ACTION"

In the case of this soliloquy, the action would have been suicide, and it would have been a wrongful self-murder, but he was also thinking of the murder of the introject, who was confused in his mind, consisting of both his father and stepfather. He could neither kill himself nor the object of his revenge, and so he concludes, "thus conscience doth make cowards of us all."

My question is, do the people have the right to execute the convicted murderers? Does conscience (an overdetermined conscience) make cowards of us all, and lose the name of action, the action being the execution of a convicted murderer, the death penalty in fact,rather than just a concept? If we do not have the will to do this, will there be more innocent victims and a growing fear in the populace?If "Hamlet" is any lesson, we identify with the innocent victim, rather than the murderer, and want to execute the guilty murderer, so that the victim's kin is spared the anguished dilemma of Prince Hamlet, who is thwarted internally and externally in carrying out his mission of revenge. Revenge is what we used to call 'justice' and many wonder what is wrong with that.