Ethical Solution For Our Worst Murderers

[Triskadecamus]

The description of execution in a philosophical orientation for a society which maintains its rules in a state of just, and fair implementation is easy to defend. I don’t support it, even then, but I do follow the argument. The reality is that out of many thousands of murders, each year a few dozen men are condemned to die, and then wait for a few dozen years. Out of the thousands waiting, each year we kill a couple of hundred. An examination of the characteristics of dead murders will correlate best with inverse proportion to general wealth, and prior income potential. Somehow, I missed the philosophy part, in the application of this social value.

When we start approaching the near neighborhood of equality under law, and impartiality of sentencing for capital cases, and a mere whiff of rational implementation of death as a punishment for criminal acts, I will reconsider the matter. Until then, I say let’s just keep the criminals in prison. There is just waaaaaay to many problems in the real use of this ultimate punishment. Justice is the name we give to vengeance or mercy, depending on which it is we want, at the time. The philosophy is not enough like the reality for me to make this decision on purely philosophical lines. The answer must be to leave the option open, and death does not allow that.

Tris

[Liberal]

Gilligan

I’d appreciate your comments on this passage.

Inflicting the death penalty on a murderer may satisfy certain feelings of vengeance and some people may believe it deters future criminal acts, but it is irrational in a restitution-based system. If my life could be taken to replace the one I have cut short, there might be some reason for so doing. It does not seem, however, that science is anywhere near inventing a transfer-of-life machine. So why would my killing someone would mean that I forfeit my own right to life ? Let’s assume, for instance, I burgle my neighbour’s house and walk away with his television set. I have deprived him of watching his favourite soap opera or football match. Does this mean that I now owe him his television set, or another one just as good, plus compensation for the aggravation; or does it mean that I have forfeited my own right to watch the programs I enjoy ? If my stealing a television set does not forfeit my right to own a television set myself, how does my stealing a life forfeit my right to my own life?

I’ve heard variants of that argument many times. (Note: if you want to see libertarians go at each other, debating philosophical interpretations, visit the raucous message boards at Free-Market.) I believe the argument is fundamentally flawed because it doesn’t take into account what rights really are.

The burglar never had a “right” to watch that TV to begin with. There is no “right to watch TV”. There is only the right to watch the TV you own. All rights are entitlements of ownership. All crime is crime against property. A theft and a murder are both assaults against property.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Lib:
I understand your distinction, but I do not see how it answers Gilligan’s question.

Mr Smith steals a TV, depriving Mr Jones of the right to watch the TV that he owns.
Mr Smith is caught and must pay restitution.
Mr Smith retains the right to watch the TV that he owns.

Mr Tom kill mister Dick, depriving Mr Dick of the right to the life which he owns.
Mr Tom is caught, but cannot meaningfully make restitution.
Does Mr Tom forfeit the right to live the life which he owns? If so, is every criminal who cannot make meaningful restitution subject to the death penalty?

---

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Wolf:
**
I argued for the DP for thirty years, but recently I’ve begun to wonder. If it is wrong for an individual to commit murder, how is it right for the state to do so? Should the state not set a better example in how to deal with those you have problems with?
**

Because, Wolf, we give the state the authority to do things we ourselves don’t do. We give the state the authority to lock someone up, even though you and I can’t do it. We give the state the ability to take a chunk of your paycheck. We give the state the authority to decide who does and doesn’t get a driver’s license. So, why not the death penalty?

Zev Steinhardt

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Because the state cannot be trusted with it. Unlike other mistakes, there is no reversing the decision to end life.

---

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi:
**Because the state cannot be trusted with it. Unlike other mistakes, there is no reversing the decision to end life.

**

On that basis, Spiritus, we should outlaw prison too. For while you could release someone after being imprisoned wrongly for twenty years, and you can even give him some money, you can’t really reverse it. The time lost from his life cannot be replaced, the horrible things he experienced in prison cannot be undone, and the social stigma that comes from imprisonment cannot be removed from him. Just because a punishment is irreversible, does not mean that it shouldn’t be used. It simply means that great care should be considered in it’s use.

Zev Steinhardt

[justwannano]

Emotions should not be allowed to be used in the courtroom

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Originally posted by Libertarian:
As to what is fair retaliation when a victim cannot be restored, let the victim decide this.

How does that make sense?

I’m a young woman that’s been raped. You cannot restore my virginity. I can ask for the death penalty then?

I have a photograph of my (now-dead) father as a young man. You steal the photograph and burn it. The photograph cannot be restored. I can ask for your hands to be cut off?

examples are almost too easy to come up with.

[Liberal]

Spiritus

Mr Smith steals a TV, depriving Mr Jones of the right to watch the TV that he owns.

As I explained, Spiritus:

There is no “right to watch TV”. There is only the right to watch the TV you own.

What Mr. Smith deprived Mr. Jones of wasn’t “the right to watch TV”. Mr. Smith deprived Mr. Jones of his (Jones’s) television set. The right and the property are one and the same.

All rights are entitlements of ownership. All crime is crime against property. A theft and a murder are both assaults against property.

Arnold

I have a photograph of my (now-dead) father as a young man. You steal the photograph and burn it. The photograph cannot be restored. I can ask for your hands to be cut off?

Is there some misunderstanding?

You cannot cut off someone’s hands, even if they’ve cut yours off. Having usurped your property (your picture in this case) the thief has forfeited his rights. This is not an eye for eye philosophy. There isn’t this right or that right. There is only one right, the right to own property.

When you lose your right to life, that doesn’t mean that you are to be executed. It means that you are to lose ownership of your life. Your life now belongs, if there is no family of your victim, to the government that used its resources to bring you to justice, and to the owner of the prison who houses you.

Rights are an expression of ownership. A libertarian ethical scenario cannot be deciphered without remembering that.

If the man cannot restore your photograph, then his life is yours. You may not coerce him (i.e., initiated force) any more than you can coerce a peaceful honest man. The force you use against him is retaliatory force, as explained at the libertarian link I gave.

If you think this is overly harsh, then you will be lenient with the man. But if you think your photograph was precious and irreplaceable, then you will likely not be lenient with the man. At any rate, these are considerations that the man ought to have pondered before he tested your philanthropy.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Lib, which part of the sentence of mine that you quoted did you not understand. (hint: the word “own” might appear in some form.)

Arnold:
Lib’s answer seems to be that all crime is punished with either restitution or slavery. He sees this as the best of all possible worlds.

---

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

[Gaudere]

If the man cannot restore your photograph, then his life is yours.

Ay di me. A life for an eye, or for a photo, in this case. No thank you. I am quite glad we did away with cutting off people’s hands for stealing a loaf of bread, and have no wish to see even harsher punishment condoned. Even if that loaf of bread is irreplacable. (Who shall decide what is fungible and what is not, after all? Perhaps that loaf was baked by your great-grandma the day she died.)

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Originally posted by Libertarian:
If the man cannot restore your photograph, then his life is yours.

How about those few irreplaceable minutes that I lost reading your post? Your ass is mine, Libertarian!

But seriously, how can someone’s life be forfeit for something as inconsequential as a photograph? Even in a libertarian society, there should be some law determining appropriate punishments for appropriate crimes.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

And Libertarian, you also say

You cannot cut off someone’s hands, even if they’ve cut yours off.

So what would be the punishment for someone that has cut off my hands?
(I apologize if you’ve explained this before, but I don’t read Great Debates very thoroughly, because I’m not very good at debating.)

[Gilligan]

I assumed this:

Murderers, by abridging the right to life, have forfeited their own right to it.

implied approval of the DP, Lib, so if that’s not what you meant, then I stand corrected. But I think it was reasonable assumption.

I agree with the link’s author’s view that forfeiture of rights has no place in a restitutive justice system, and can only be for either revenge or deterrence. No one is restored of anything if a criminal forfeits his right to his property.

From the same link above:

A few libertarians argue that the forfeiture of a convicted murderer’s right to life does not imply the death penalty; all it means is that this right to life is transferred to the victim’s heirs, and it is up to them to decide whether the death penalty is applicable or not. It is therefore a case of restitution, in the form of : “a life for a life”. The test of whether this transfer of rights to life is vengeance or restitution may be evidenced by the following example : Suppose Nikita slits my father’s throat and is duly convicted for this murder. I am my father’s sole heir, Nikita’s right to life is transferred to me, I may use her as I wish, enslave her, or have her executed, and sell her organs for transplants… An exciting proposition, maybe, but there is more to it than this. For in a genuine restitution-based system, in which this right-to-life forfeiture concept would be acceptable, I now have a chance to kill whoever I wish with total impunity. I can go to my old foe Michael and lodge a bullet between his eyes in broad daylight and in public. Of course, I shall be convicted, but when Michael’s heirs come to claim my life, I shall tell them : “You may have Nikita’s, she is yours. I have taken a life, I give you another just as good”. To argue that only my life will do is to argue the case of vengeance, not of restitution.

Maybe Michael’s heirs would settle for a good photograph of him.

[SingleDad]

The death penalty, like most other Great Debates, is really a question of values, which are difficult to decide rationally.

Does a person who performs an action of which most people passionately disapprove, lose the value of his life? Or does he not?

If you believe his life has lost its value, then you may dispose of him wihout compunction.

If you believe his life has not lost its value, then you must take note of that value in your response.

Really, these sorts of values debates are just wordy variants of “does not!” “does to!” ad infinitum.

---

He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’

[Liberal]

Arnold

[quot]But seriously, how can someone’s life be forfeit for something as inconsequential as a photograph?
[/quote]

Well, as I explained, if you consider it inconsequential, then you will be lenient.

Even in a libertarian society, there should be some law determining appropriate punishments for appropriate crimes.

I’m glad you said that.

That’s the part that Gaudere keeps missing when she says things like, “I’m tired of hearing that libertarianism is the only way.”

Libertarianism let’s you select whatever “way” you damn well please. So long as all parties in your “way” are volunteers, you are societing libertarianly.

That’s why arguments against libertarianism always reduce, in the end, to arguments against volunteerism in a context of peace and honesty. Technically, I guess you could call that “one way”, but in reality, it allows every individual to select the way he likes best.

So what would be the punishment for someone that has cut off my hands?

If your hands cannot be restored, then the punishment is the forfeiture of rights. After all, he took your rights.

Gilligan

I agree with the link’s author’s view that forfeiture of rights has no place in a restitutive justice system, and can only be for either revenge or deterrence. No one is restored of anything if a criminal forfeits his right to his property.

And I respect your argument. I simply disagree with it. Many libertarians agree with you, but I would select a government that will most guarantee me freedom from coercion and fraud. I believe that a society holding rights as ownership most secures that guarantee.

Spiritus

Lib’s answer seems to be that all crime is punished with either restitution or slavery. He sees this as the best of all possible worlds.

For myself, Spiritus. For myself.

Why do you and Gaudere keep ignoring that as though it were of no consequence, as though it were a trivial tag-on?

You and she, in a libertarian world, are free to give your consent to be governed in a society where criminals are idolized as folk heros if that’s what you want.

[Gaudere]

Well, as I explained, if you consider it inconsequential, then you will be lenient.

The problem, as I see it, is there is no check for sadists. Say my child is starving, so I steal a loaf of bread (Ooh, I am so evilly coercive) from Bob. Now, not having had time to psychologically analyze the guy I stole the bread from, I was unaware that Bob would claim that that bread was irreplacable (apparently, there need not be any laws to allow the judge to say “this is ridiculous. It’s perfectly replacable; you’re in the wrong, here, Bob”). So I have forfeited all my rights, my child goes to some charitable organization to raise, and I live in slavery, all for stealing one loaf of bread. How do you guard against that? You say “select a government that has safeguards against that”, perhaps, but since libertarians can secede from the government you never know whether the person you interact with is part of your government, or another one, or just on their own. Since I stole from Bob, it’s Bob’s goverment that matters, not the one I chose. Now, stealing is certainly bad, but people make mistakes, fer Crise sakes–I don’t think a total forfeiture of rights for a single infringement is acceptable. So I would approve of coercing the hell out of Bob so that he could not ruin my life for stealing a loaf of bread for my child.

[Liberal]

Gaudere

The problem, as I see it, is there is no check for sadists.

But, there is a check for sadists.

If you are bothered by the sort of guarantees that I seek for my own freedoms, then libertarianly speaking, you are free to associate yourself with a government that proscribes harsh punishments for what you believe are petty crimes.

For your convenience, here is what I said:

That’s the part that Gaudere keeps missing when she says things like, “I’m tired of hearing that libertarianism is the only way.”

Libertarianism let’s you select whatever “way” you damn well please. So long as all parties in your “way” are volunteers, you are societing libertarianly.

That’s why arguments against libertarianism always reduce, in the end, to arguments against volunteerism in a context of peace and honesty. Technically, I guess you could call that “one way”, but in reality, it allows every individual to select the way he likes best.

And this:

You and she, in a libertarian world, are free to give your consent to be governed.

All libertarianism says is that you, as the owner of your own self, have the right to determine what kind of society you want to participate in, if any. It is remarkable that an enlightened person would oppose that, unless she simply did not understand that that was the philosophy’s implication. But once she has been thus informed, she has new knowledge, and ought to present her argument, if it still exists, to assail volunteerism generally, and not any particular case that exists in some other context, one where she had to take the laws that an imperialist government gave her, in other words, an nonlibertarian one.

[Gaudere]

If you are bothered by the sort of guarantees that I seek for my own freedoms, then libertarianly speaking, you are free to associate yourself with a government that proscribes harsh punishments for what you believe are petty crimes.

But you see, it’s not my government that matters; it’s Bob’s. Once I have forfeited my rights by the act of stealing I cannot call upon my government to protect me from another government, right? And libertarian governments are not restricted by borders, so I can’t know that because I am in America, the laws will protect me. The person I steal from may have set up his own libertarian government or may be part of a government based in France, and I would have no way of knowing. You can’t coerce people to put up signs stating what government they belong to, after all.

[Liberal]

Gaudere

Oh, lordy, I’m sorry Gaudere. I missed that. When I start reading these giant squid scenarios, my eyes tend to glaze over.

Yeah, I guess the moral of your hypothetical is that you shouldn’t have gone to Tehran to steal a loaf of bread. Either you should not have stolen it, or else you should have stolen it from a Marxist who is not also a hypocrite.

And if you don’t know the governments of your neighbors, maybe it would be a good idea either to get to know them better or else to choose where you live more soberly.

Better yet, get a job. When you had your child, did you not know beforehand whether you could provide for him or whether, in the inevitable eventualities of life, you had the resources (or savings) to buy bread?