The Death Penalty

[ST88]

On the TV show, "Homicide", one of the characters describes the Death Penalty this way: "It's wrong... and necessary." On TV, it's often used as leverage to get suspects to confess -- I don't know if it works this way in real life. But the idea is that the threat of death as a punishment for violent crime is part of its effectiveness.

We often hear the religious among us talk about the sanctity of life when it comes to topics like abortion and assisted suicide, and though many religions have come out against the Death Penalty, only one actually puts a fair amount of resources towards opposing it (Quakers, I believe).

Most of the world's nations have banned the death penalty, and yet the U.S. is made up of people who arrived from most of the world's nations. We have a culture of death in this country -- idealizing death as the ultimate punishment, in some ways the ultimate exile from society. In this way, the U.S. is less pragmatic than other nations, and more reliant on an image of the ideal society. The ideal society myth is part of the reason why people emigrate here.

The Death Penalty strikes me as pie-in-the-sky reasoning about what death should mean to people and how the threat of it affects their behavior. In pop-sociology, what it is intended to do is deter people from committing violent crimes for fear of having the government put them to death. This is ludicrous, of course, but the ideal is still around.

What is the purpose of Capital Punishment, and is it a fair way to deal with the worst violent criminals in society? What does religion have to say about the death penalty, and how has it informed U.S. opinion?

[MagusYanam]

Part of the queasiness many people feel as regards the death penalty is that it has a finality that renders justice irrelevant. If someone is killed at the hands of the state and is later found innocent, there is no way to resurrect them, apologise and send them on their way. If, however, imprisonment were to be used, justice could actually yet be done. Someone wrongly imprisoned can be released, someone wrongly killed cannot be un-killed.

Also, I have strong feelings regarding retributive justice. Justice is a societal concern, not a personal one. It is not the place of the state to gratify a person's lust for vengeance - nor is it healthy for a person to wish vengeance in the first place. Yes, in capital cases there is wrong done - a murder, for example. There is a discord that needs addressing. The Christian way to address this discord is not to accommodate vengeance, but to facilitate reconciliation. The wronged must forgive the wrongdoer for the good of his or her own soul (as well as the wrongdoer's). Believe me, I've been wronged in the past. I've wanted to get back at the people who wronged me. When I succeeded, it never brought me peace or self-justification. When I turned around and walked away, let go of the incident and forgave the wrongdoer, I was able to feel stronger, a better person.

I think the ideal society should be able to justify itself morally. I think that catering to a person's baser nature - the animal instinct for revenge - is not the proper way to conduct society. Pardon if this sounds too Victorian or nave, but the society should engage its members to lift themselves above such pettiness. If we are able to shift this paradigm fundamentally and eliminate the need for vengeance among the citizens, there would be far fewer murders to have to deal with in the first place. Instead of reaching for the quick fix (a dead body) we should be reaching for the greater goals (a vital society).

[ST88]

Part of the queasiness many people feel as regards the death penalty is that it has a finality that renders justice irrelevant. If someone is killed at the hands of the state and is later found innocent, there is no way to resurrect them, apologise and send them on their way. If, however, imprisonment were to be used, justice could actually yet be done. Someone wrongly imprisoned can be released, someone wrongly killed cannot be un-killed.

If it was possible to be absolutely 100% sure of guilt, would this change your opinion? Your argument below indicates that it probably wouldn't, but how much of each side of your argument goes into your opinion?

Also, I have strong feelings regarding retributive justice. Justice is a societal concern, not a personal one. It is not the place of the state to gratify a person's lust for vengeance - nor is it healthy for a person to wish vengeance in the first place. Yes, in capital cases there is wrong done - a murder, for example. There is a discord that needs addressing. The Christian way to address this discord is not to accommodate vengeance, but to facilitate reconciliation. The wronged must forgive the wrongdoer for the good of his or her own soul (as well as the wrongdoer's). Believe me, I've been wronged in the past. I've wanted to get back at the people who wronged me. When I succeeded, it never brought me peace or self-justification. When I turned around and walked away, let go of the incident and forgave the wrongdoer, I was able to feel stronger, a better person.

It seems to me that forgiveness is not a sound social policy. Crimes like murder, burglary, and even rape are not seen by the state as one person vs. another -- they are seen as one person vs. the state. The state sets up the rules, and if someone breaks them, they are going against the interests of the state. The state's dispassion regarding these crimes discounts the idea of forgiveness in favor of punishment. How far would you go in drafting policy that would facilitate forgiveness? For example, how Christian is the idea of imprisonment?

I think the ideal society should be able to justify itself morally. I think that catering to a person's baser nature - the animal instinct for revenge - is not the proper way to conduct society. Pardon if this sounds too Victorian or nave, but the society should engage its members to lift themselves above such pettiness. If we are able to shift this paradigm fundamentally and eliminate the need for vengeance among the citizens, there would be far fewer murders to have to deal with in the first place. Instead of reaching for the quick fix (a dead body) we should be reaching for the greater goals (a vital society).

Except that nations and states are not set up as moral instruments. Instead, they are pragmatic institutions. Discouraging crimes like murder is not in service to a moral standard, it is in service to maintaining the stability of the state. It could be argued, for example, that the death penalty relieves the victim's family from having to carry out the ultimate retribution on the perpetrator. This, in turn, relieves the state from having to prosecute the victim's family for the retribution. It breaks the cycle of vengeance that is present in so many major conflicts and minor feuds. This contributes to the stability of the state by freeing up both sides from having to perpetuate this cycle. I don't necessarily believe this, but I am curious as to how you reconcile your idea of eliminating vengeance with maintaining societal stability.

[Dilettante]

I have observed that most criticisms leveled against the death penalty are really criticisms of the way it is administered (it's discriminatory, there's a danger of executing innocents, it is too costly, etc.) and not of capital punishment per se.

Other criticisms are just unsupported assertions (it is barbaric...it is uncivilized). We need to know why it is barbaric and why it is uncivilized (when most civilizations had it at some point in time and when most philosophers, including enlightened ones such as Kant and John Stuart Mill defended it).

And yet others take a subjective point of view, writing about specific individual cases where someone who is wrongly convicted will fare better in prison than dead (which may be true, but an innocent who served a life sentence and died in prison would also be impossible to revive).

In my opinion life without parole can achieve the same effect as the death penalty in most cases. So I generally don't support the death penalty, sort of like a dentist conservatively deciding that pulling out a tooth is unnecessary when a root canal will do . But I don't exclude the possibility of using it in really extreme cases with extremely dangerous people who put the whole of society in danger. Can we really say the death penalty is always wrong? What are the moral arguments against it? I have been grappling with this difficult issue for a long time now.

[micatala]

Let's suppose we mak 'no death penalty' the default, and then ask 'what reason is there to implement or have a death penalty?'

1. It deters crime. I have to admit, I am not up on all the most recent data on this, but my impression from the data I have seen is that the data will not support this.

2. Psychological reasons. eg. revenge, feeling that justice is done, 'an eye for an eye', etc. These are certainly compelling reasons for some people. "He killed my daughter, so he should die." Personally, while I can certainly understand the feeling behind this, I don't think it is a good reason to have a death penalty. Do we want to encourage, as a state, feelings of revenge and give sanction to these by justifying them? I think we should encourage the opposite, forgiveness.

3. Public safety. As already noted, the death penalty would effectively serve this purpose relative to those who have been shown to be unsafe. However, life without parole does the same.

As far as reasons for not having a death penalty that are not related to implementation, my own view is that killing in general is morally wrong, and the fact that we might be killing someone who has broken that moral code does not, in my mind, make it right. This is admittedly a subjective reason.

I also think that not having a death penalty encourages, in a subliminal way, a more humane society, while the death penalty does the opposite. If we want to have a less violent society, we can foster this by not acting in violent ways.

[MagusYanam]

How far would you go in drafting policy that would facilitate forgiveness? For example, how Christian is the idea of imprisonment?

Okay, I realise that my previous argument betrayed a certain amount of navet, but I assure you that I do have pragmatics also at heart. A justice based on forgiveness is likely far out of our society's scope. I would be content instead with a reformatory form of justice that could foster reconciliation on a personal level. Imprisonment, to use your example, can be reformatory when coupled with counselling, treatment et cetera, whereas the death penalty cannot be reformatory in any measure.

... how much of each side of your argument goes into your opinion?

I wouldn't look at it quite this way. I was pointing out that where the prisoner is innocent, the death penalty in its irreversibility is flat-out wrong. There can be no possible moral justification for it.

Where the person is guilty, I was pointing out that the death penalty does not serve the good by exacting vengeance. It does no good for the criminal (who is now dead) and it does no good for the victims (who now have vengeance but whose souls are still vexed). The question shouldn't be how much of each side goes into my argument, but where my logic from the preceding premise leads me. This is where it leads.

The point of societal stability is a good one, but rather than debating it on philosophical grounds, I will defend my stance with a few examples. Great Britain is one of the most stable societies in the world, having withstood countless invasions and mediaeval foreign entanglements, the ravages of industrialisation and capitalism and grievous loss in both World Wars. They no longer use the death penalty for any crime (barring possibly the crime of high treason) and still remain a stable society and a global power. The same could be said of most northern European countries who have been willing to experiment with abolition of the death penalty. I admit freely that the reason for the abolition of the death penalty in Britain was purely pragmatic, not moral. After an innocent Welshman was hung for the assault and murder of his wife, it was decided that the death penalty was not a proper means of dispensing justice. Even so, the grounds may not be relevant as the proof is.

[Vladd44]

The cost of capitol punishment, if it is properly seperated from the appeal process, is much less than 50-80 years of incarceration.

??????? Sending people in orbit around the planet is cheaper than them flying to Chicago, if you separate the cost of getting them in orbit. That doesn't even make a little sense. How can you remove the cost factor of the most expensive part of the process to get the value you want?

I would ask though, is it more humane to cage a person for 80 years with no hope of seeing anything but the jail cell, or to put that individual to sleep never to wake again?

With DNA evidence, the hopeless have gone free. I would also hazard a guess, that the efforts of appeals by death row inmates would imply that most of them would choose to live in a cell over state sanctioned murder.

[Dilettante]

Vladd44 wrote:

I would also hazard a guess, that the efforts of appeals by death row inmates would imply that most of them would choose to live in a cell over state sanctioned murder.

Hmm... calling the death penalty "state-sanctioned murder" is a good example of loaded language, kind of like defining abortion as "doctor-approved murder". Besides, it is an oxymoron, since "murder" is by definition unlawful killing. Anything that is sanctioned by the State is therefore lawful.
I have serious doubts about the usefulness of capital punishment as an institution. However, we must give the devil his due, and if we are going to identify death penalty as "state-sanctioned murder", why not go ahead and say that imprisonment is "state-sanctioned kidnapping", and fines are "state-sanctioned robbery"?

[Vladd44]

why not go ahead and say that imprisonment is "state-sanctioned kidnapping", and fines are "state-sanctioned robbery"?

lol

I would have no problem with such definitions if the actions are unjust. False imprisonment under false pretenses would be nothing more than state sanctioned kidnapping.

As a libertarian, i consider many of the fees and taxes levied on us as nothing more than state sanctioned robbery.

Failing to ever see a situation in which i trust any form of government enough to put life and death into their realm. I stand by my comment of state sanctioned murder.

[Dilettante]

Vladd44 wrote:

I would have no problem with such definitions if the actions are unjust.

So, if someone was justly sentenced to death, you wouldn't call it "state-sanctioned murder"?
By "justly" I mean "respecting all legal guarantees" (with a proper defense and under the rule of law).
In every legal system there is the possibility of foul play by dishonest lawyers, judges, etc. Even in a free state. However, barring a state of widespread corruption, that possibility in itself does not justify doing away with the justice system. Besides, given that in our societies it is the State that defines what is lawful and just, according to current legislation. So what the State does could be regarded as unethical or immoral, but I fail to see how it could be "unjust" if it's done in accordance with the law. How do you define justice then?

Failing to ever see a situation in which i trust any form of government enough to put life and death into their realm.

That's exactly the same argument I use for not driving and traveling as little as possible. I tell my friends I don't trust other drivers enough to put my life in their hands. However, my friends are not convinced by this argument. Considering that (in the US) there are many more car-related fatalities every year than wrong executions, I imagine your argument would be even less convincing to them.

I stand by my comment of state sanctioned murder.

And you have every right to do so, but it still sounds like loaded language to me. You are implying that no execution could be just, not even if guilt could be established with total certainty. You may be right, but you haven't explained why you think this way. I'd like to hear your full argument: you may convince me.

[Vladd44]

By "justly" I mean "respecting all legal guarantees" (with a proper defense and under the rule of law).

I would be remiss to not clarify what I mean my just/unjust. I cannot accept an institutionalized definition for this term. It is strictly a term I was using in an individual sense. I am the one defining certain laws as unjust and without principle by MY set of views and principles, not some archaic code set by people who don't represent my interests.

My governments currently thinks that for certain crimes, there is no need for due process, speedy trial, rights of accused to face his accusers or that they even need to admit they are holding them imprisoned. The patriot act allows for all those abrogations of rights we have come to expect for people simply accused of terrorism. All of this being done so under rule of law. Rule of law and legal guarantees are what the govt says they are today, nothing more.

You are implying that no execution could be just, not even if guilt could be established with total certainty.

Now we are getting somewhere. For me personally, guilt is not a factor, I do not trust institutions of men enough to choose to allow them the literal power of life and death over its subjects. Hell, I don't even trust them enough to levy taxes fairly, much less life/death.

Bottom line is, I cannot trust the institution that defines due process or rule of law to be the ones to implement the day to day operation of those procedures. For me that is a conflict of interest.