PERSPECTIVES ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT : Passion’s Posse Claims a Victim : Fear and revulsion have trapped us between the either/or extremes of killing violent people or simply weeping for them.

“What reason weaves,” wrote Alexander Pope, “by passion is undone.”

I did not expect Robert Alton Harris’ life to be spared; I also did not expect the sickening revulsion I felt when I awoke to the news that, minutes before, he had been executed. What a barbaric nation we are, I thought. In one state we imprison people for life who are caught with a few ounces of marijuana; in another, we let a murderer off with a few years if he killed “only” one person; and across the country, we randomly and unevenly impose the ultimate penalty in spasms of self-righteousness.

My despairing thoughts were interrupted by Robert Morgan on KMPC radio, gloating that the “ponytail-wearing guys from the ACLU” had been defeated, that “justice” had been done. Laughing, he repeatedly played the old Alka-Seltzer ditty, “Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh, what a relief it is . . . . “

For many people, it is indeed a relief that Harris is dead. We need to understand why it is.

A passion for justice is the basis of all legal and social systems, but legal and social systems must not be governed by passion. I’m grateful that the judicial system does not rest on my momentary fits of revenge fantasies. When I am outraged by news of heinous crimes, I want to castrate rapists, hang child-molesters upside down in trees, throw bank embezzlers to the mob whose life savings they stole, cut off the hands of punks who knock old people to the sidewalk and steal their wallets. Fortunately, the justice system restrains me and others who would act, posse-style, in the “heat of passion.”

The emotions generated by questions of crime and punishment tend to be shaped by opposing ideologies, both of which are guilty of fallacious either / or thinking: Either you’re for the victim or you’re for the criminal. The conservative right tends to construct the matter this way: “Because I have sympathy for the victim, I cannot have sympathy for the murderer or be concerned in any way about the forces--in biology, upbringing or society--that created him.” The liberal left seems to say: “Because I have sympathy for a person whom I believe to be the product of a disturbed biology, upbringing or society, I am obliged to understand and forgive his behavior, for which he is not responsible.”

Both of these positions confound two independent issues: understanding behavior and excusing it. The language of “understanding,” both in psychology and in law, has been woven into the issue of diminished responsibility, which can be used to argue for reduced sentences, if not outright acquittal. We’re hearing more and more of these excuses lately. In Texas in 1988, Ronnie Shelton pleaded not guilty to 28 counts of rape because of his alleged “excessive testosterone.” He was convicted, but every day there seems to be a criminal trial in the news in which another biological or psychological condition is served up as a mitigating factor--postpartum depression, childhood abuse, spousal abuse, trauma, delayed trauma, and the like.

Consider this evidence: A team of researchers compared two groups of imprisoned delinquent teen-agers: violent boys (who had committed rape, murder and serious assaults) and less violent boys (who had taken part in fistfights, threatened others with weapons, and so on). The researchers discovered among the former a high incidence of symptoms associated with temporal lobe seizures and neurological impairment (such as blackouts and stumbling) and paranoid thinking. Nearly all of the violent boys (98.6%) had at least one neurological abnormality and many had more than one, compared to 66.7% of the less violent boys. More than 75% of the violent boys, compared with one-third of the others, had suffered head injuries as children, had had serious medical problems and had been beaten savagely by their parents. Many had endured abuse severe enough to have damaged their central nervous systems.

The response of many people is: Who cares what makes these kids aggressive? If they turn out to be criminals, violent, impulsive and lacking any human compassion and empathy themselves, then they forfeit ours. Put them away. Kill them.

It’s an understandable reaction. People are right to demand reliable protection from human beings who lack a moral sense, who lack empathy and connection to others, who can kill as easily as smile--whether the reason for their heartlessness is brain damage, bad parenting or a psychopathic soul. Support for the death penalty is especially understandable when one learns that Robert Harris once beat a man to death and served only 2 1/2 years in prison.

But, understandable as the “kill ‘em” reaction is, it does not serve society’s interests. It is not “liberal,” but rational and civilized to acknowledge the biological, psychological and social causes of violence, for every humane society recognizes that some individuals are not responsible for their actions. And it is not “conservative,” but rational and self-preserving to demand that society protect us from violent individuals who are not responsible for their actions. If we don’t even try to draw such distinctions, we will become focused on punishment and learn nothing about prevention.

We have to get past the either / or ideologies. We must both protect ourselves and recognize that some individuals cannot control their violent impulses. We can feel heartsick both for victims and for criminals who are physically and mentally impaired.

Finally, in calm moments when our passions are not being swayed by demagogues and news of horrid crimes, we can think about the children all around us whose brains are being damaged by abuse and neglect. What should we do with those who grow up to be violent? Kill them?