If any crime fits the description of acts beastly enough to warrant capital punishment, Paul Hill's cold-blooded murder of an abortion doctor and a volunteer bodyguard would seem to qualify. Yet the death sentence imposed on Hill by a Florida judge this week illustrates why virtually every other industrialized country has outlawed this form of punishment.
Paul Hill's murders were cruel and calculated, and his lack of remorse and zealous sense of righteousness makes it clear he could easily threaten the lives of other people who work at clinics where abortions are performed. Obviously, he cannot be allowed to remain free. But what is accomplished by putting him to death?
For one, the state of Florida, if it carries through this sentence, will almost certainly be creating a martyr for other extremists in the anti-abortion movement who are convinced that they must kill in order to stop acts they consider to be murder. That doesn't stop crime and enhance public safety; it could easily inspire more such violence.
Moreover, in taking a life, the state is reinforcing the sinister message Paul Hill has embraced: that taking a life is an acceptable way to solve a problem. On the subject of capital punishment, public opinion in this country has remained steadfastly resistant to arguments of morality. Americans seem drawn to the notion that capital punishment satisfies a primal need for tit-for-tat justice.
That might be true, if the death sentence could be applied consistently and fairly throughout the country. Yet as study after study in this country has shown, no justice system is fair or consistent enough to ensure that patterns of injustice will not occur.
For every murderer like Paul Hill, who never denied his crime, there are plenty of cases where the truth is more obscure. In the Hill case the facts that would justify a death sentence are clear and indisputable. Equally clear is the folly -- political and
otherwise -- of sentencing Paul Hill to death.