I find your question odd. Is this a reason to keep the death penalty?
“against their will” is kind of redundant. If it’s with your will, it’s not prison, just like suicide isn’t murder - even assisted suicide.
And no, it isn’t always morally wrong to imprison people, IMO. Just like it isn’t always morally wrong to steal, or lie, or cause animals pain.
But (in my morality, I must stress) killing people is always wrong. Rape is always wrong. Torture is always wrong.
Some things have a different moral weight than other things. I understand this is a difficult concept, so I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
This post ended up a little bit longer than I anticipated, so I’ll break it into 3 parts for your viewing pleasure:
Contract: You probably don’t remember, because you weren’t conscious at the time, but you signed a social contract before you were born. You weren’t given the choice of opting out; those who refused to sign were just stirred a little longer in the baby vat till they complied. All social animals have to sign a version of the social contract, even the birds and the bees (especially the birds and the bees, those perverts). I cannot think of anyone who was born completely off the social grid, even the wolves who raised those Roman twins had social structure.
The human social contract contains a vast list of rights and penalties. Though I looked in vain, I couldn’t find “the right to a constant supply of buxom, scantily-clad underwear models”, but I did see, “the right to live” pretty close to the top of the list. Then, close to the top of the penalties list, I found, “you give up the right to live if you commit the most extreme crimes against society, including taking away an innocent person’s right to live, by malice and premeditation.”
Even bees have an implied death penalty clause in their contract. If a citizen bee goes around stinging his fellow bees to death, I’m pretty sure the colony is going to take him out (using the ol’* “pin-cushion”* execution); no attempts at rehabilitation required. I’m also confident that “extreme punishment for extreme crimes” will remain on the books for whatever our species eventually evolves into. We will hopefully evolve beyond state-sanctioned lethal force, but it will be because we will have evolved past the need for it (e.g. genetically engendered non-aggression of the species), not because of perceived immorality of the penalty.
Justice: I don’t think enough emphasis is granted to the concept of justice in death penalty discussions. Innocent victims severely harmed by criminals have a right to feel and expect justice will be served when the offender has been convicted and sentenced. While I believe “life in prison without parole” is humane-equivalent to “capital punishment”, I don’t think the majority of victims believe they are equivalent with regard to justice.
Of course, the primary victim of murder is no longer around to have a sense of justice being served, so the state must substitute by proxy. However, the friends and family of the primary victim are very much victims of the crime and they also deserve justice. I can easily put myself in the mind of a murder victim family member. I would feel justice was not truly served if, after extinguishing the life of my innocent loved one, likely in a heinously inhumane manner, the murderer is allowed to keep his “right to live” intact, and conceivably even enjoy (no 9 to 5 grind, lots of friends with benefits, etc.) living in prison. Indeed, some victims have a strong sense of redemption and are able to forgive criminals of their crimes. Someone upthread mentioned having a murdered family member and she still oppose CP. This is a very noble, laudable trait, but I’m certain most victims don’t have it, nor should they be expected to.
Deterrence: I haven’t analyzed studies on capital punishment deterrence rates, but I accept the consensus view that they have shown no correlation between capital punishment and deterrence. It makes sense to me that there is no statistically significant correlation (the vast majority of murderers are, no doubt, sociopathic bumbleheads who don’t think too far into the future…just far enough to premeditate murder). But, it doesn’t seem logical that there is no correlation whatsoever. I believe more precise studies need to be formulated and run before we can conclude whether a small correlation exists or not.
My feeling is that capital punishment may very well deter at least some of the more intelligent, white-color type 1st degree murderers. I believe this, because, again, I can put myself in the mind (less easily this time) of a murderous-type fellow contemplating murder for financial gain and considering the risk-to-benefit ratio. I’d be thinking, *what’s the worst that can happen? Life in prison? Yeah, I can live with that…maybe even make some inmate poker buddies. Lethal injection? No, I don’t think I could “live” with that…I’m just going to rip off the IRS instead. *
One thing for certain, capital punishment would not encourage anyone to murder. Even someone hell-bent on state-assisted suicide would choose rushing a police officer with guns ablaze before waiting years to be killed via death sentence. So, if more precise deterrence studies were to show even a small non-zero correlation between death sentence and deterrence, wouldn’t that be reason enough to support capital punishment? If claims are made, and they have been, that saving even one person from wrongful state-sanctioned death is worth making capital punishment illegal, isn’t it equally valid to keep capital punishment legal if it prevents even one innocent person from being murdered? I think it’s a moral wash.
I’m all in favor of making the trigger point threshold for implementation of CP even higher if it results in fewer deaths from wrongful prosecution. Perhaps conclusive corroborating forensic evidence should be required before any death sentence can actually be carried out (e.g. you could be sentenced to capital punishment before DNA evidence is found, but you remain incarcerated until it is).
It’s noble to maintain that the state should not involve itself in anything to do with death, but not very realistic. The fact is, we as a society willingly accept degrees of death-risk for many, many things. There is simply no way to obtain zero risk of death for many things that we want and enjoy. We’re not even willing to drive down the mortality rate on many things if the perceived cost is more than we want to spend. I can conceive of automobiles with virtually zero mortality rate (they would drive very slowly and be made of marshmallows), but we want our speedy, non-gooey death-mobiles and we permit the state to allow them to be manufactured. We accept the risk of dying in a car crash when we start the ignition. The convicted murderer accepts the risk of capital punishment, by way of forfeiture of his inborn right to live, when he murdered. What’s the difference, the convict didn’t accept the risk willingly? BS, he knew the risk and committed the crime anyway. We can’t guarantee no innocent person would ever be put to death with CP, nor can we guarantee no innocent person would spend the rest of their lives incarcerated with life without parole. The best we can do is make the process as error-free as possible and carry out sentences as humanely as possible.
War vs. Capital Punishment: Although I don’t agree, I understand people’s opposition to the death penalty on grounds of morality. The premise can be distilled to: it’s not moral for the state to kill anyone who doesn’t want to be killed (I assume state-sanctioned euthanasia is less repugnant to most). My concern is: if you take this stance, shouldn’t it be absolute, across the board, all the time? The state should not kill, ever. I recall someone up-thread mention that they support CP for treason, but not first degree murder. I found that odd. Even though treason is arguably the more damaging crime, if you oppose CP for the heinous crime of first degree murder on moral grounds, you should oppose it for any crime, including treason. But, perhaps his isn’t a popular stance.
Which brings us to war. I oppose war as vehemently as the next guy, but shit happens and wars do get started (some are justified and should be supported; maybe most aren’t justified and those should be protested). That’s not the point. I’m confident most of the people who oppose capital punishment on moral grounds also oppose most, if not all of the wars your country has engaged in, also on moral grounds—nothing at all wrong with that.
But, do those of you who oppose CP and war in general, also oppose, on moral grounds, your country defending itself with lethal force if we’re being aggressively attacked by an enemy who is using lethal force against us? If you oppose state-sanctioned killing on moral grounds, then you should oppose the use of lethal force under any and all circumstances. And the caveat, “imminent danger must be involved” does not apply; the military routinely and justifiably uses lethal force against armies at rest, because they pose future threat. You can’t say “I absolutely oppose state-sanctioned killing”, then follow it with, “…unless…”
I suppose we could respond to bullets with tranquilizer darts and have our soldiers scoop up the enemy in butterfly nets for impoundment (we’d need really big nets for the tanks and battleships). And, we could respond to mortar shells by lobbing back water balloons scribbled with the message: “please stop shooting at us, it’s not nice.” I seem to recall a city who tried that strategy against Alexander the Great’s army many years ago; don’t know what ever happened to that city, you don’t hear much about it.
Conclusion: I believe state-sanctioned killing is regrettable but sometimes justified. I think it’s justified against armed enemies of the nation and against perpetrators of extreme crimes against the state and its population. I believe “life in prison without parole” is very equal to “capital punishment” on the humanity scale. I favor “life in prison” if there is anything less than near certainty that the correct person was convicted and that he was prosecuted properly. But, if the degree of certainty is virtually 100%, I favor capital punishment for the following reasons: it has a higher degree of justice to fit the crime (which can be comfort to victim’s families); I’m confident that more precise studies will reveal some non-zero rate of deterrence with capital punishment; and, it would be hypocritical of me to oppose state-sanctioned killing on moral grounds for some things (capital punishment) if I accept it for other things (e.g. killing enemy soldiers).
Tibby, no offense, you seem like a nice person, but most of the people in this thread are older people with deeper thoughts on this subject. It’s fine to use this thread as a way to think out loud and clarify your thoughts for yourself on the topic. Don’t expect to come up with any ideas that the DP opponents in this thread haven’t, though. Just some advice, no offense meant.
Tibby, you’re a breath of fresh air in this otherwise uber sanctimonious thread. Thank you!
We wouldn’t have salvation available to us, and we would all go to hell?
That would kind of suck, truthfully.
I’m not sure I get the point you’re trying to make.
Every decision that the criminal justice system makes is going to weigh costs and benefits. Let’s say that there’s someone who may or may not be guilty of treason, and the chances are around 95% that he’s guilty and 5% that he’s innocent (which I would certainly consider a ‘decent chance’ of innocence). I’d say that depending on the circumstances of his individual crime, it might certainly be the case that the benefit of executing him would be greater than the cost of (possibly) executing an innocent person, so the state should do it.
There’s no benefit in executing someone who turns out to be innocent. In your scenario, of 100 executed traitors 5 did nothing wrong. The idea of an innocent man in the scaffold while by definition the guilty man goes free is absolutely intolerable, no matter the crime. In your cost/benefits analysis, why not throw them in prison for life? They aren’t in a position to cause any further harm to society, with the benefit that we can let them out if they turn out to be innocent.
Get lives, no offence; you seem like a nice person. I’m just wondering, do you believe we never really landed a man on the moon, wear a tin foil fedora on your head and pull your trousers up to your nipples? Just a gut feeling, no offence meant.
That’s quite an assumption, Tibby. Where did that come from?
I dunno, right field?
More specifically, if you view get lives response with an un-biased eye, you should note that it was written with a rather high degree of condescension. All considered, my response to that was pretty tame.
No, it wasn’t tame, but I couldn’t care less. You’re too young to have thought deeply on many subjects. I don’t neex to know your age to know that, because I remember BEING that age, and how my mind worked then. You’re certainly not dumb for your age, nor particularly a bad writer. However, we generally don’t let people your age decide life and death issues, or really big issues in a general sense. There’s multiple good reasons for that, but a lack of time to simply think deeply about issues is one of them, for sure.
I agree with your interpretation of the post. Even though I don’t agree with your conclusions about the death penalty, I saw nothing at all to merit the snark you got.
You’ll find the old seem wiser the older you get.
He got snark because he presented the kind of stuff I wrote at 1 AM the night before an opinion essay was due in college Freshman English. Specifically, he appeared to present it as equal in value or worth to some of the better anti-DP stuff in this thread. There’s some deep stuff here. It deserves respect…and I’m actually not referring to my own posts as the best ones, although mine were decent.
Get lives, I don’t know how old you are, but I’d take a gamble and trade ages with you. I believe I may have hemorrhoids older than you.
If you are older than me, then you write shockingly like a college undergrad doing an opinion essay. I’m literally visualizing you with a Red Bull or a soda in front of a PC, taking a break from studying to post here.