Ethics of capital punishment

Great Debates
1

I’m sure this issue has been tackled here before in some way or another, but i am curious as to the different views (i am yet undecided)

If a convicted murderer were installed with a chip that rendered them incapable of causing harm to a living thing in any way, would it be ethical to release them into society? To save them from the death penalty? I suppose the question boils down to whether you view execution or life imprisonment as a form of punishment or a means to make sure they do not commit another atrocity.

I would really like to stay clear of discussion on the ethics of installing such a chip, thus depriving free will, although i know if this were literal it would be a huge issue. The concept is somewhat dealt with on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” as a main character ( a murderous vampire) is rendered harmless. Although he remains just a vile as ever and openly rejoices he past murders Buffy (a normally rightous character) doesn’t see fit to exterminate him until he poses an actual threat. Discuss.

2

You’ve basically outlined the plot to “A Clockwork Orange.” Stanley Kubrick and Wendy Carlos at her best. Yum.

My own personal views: I’m against capital punishment and think that the ultimate goal of the “penal” system should be rehabilitation.

3

You’re effectively describing a ‘cure’ for homocidal tendencies, which implies that there was something ‘faulty’ in the first place. In that case, I see it as ethically sound to treat and release somebody, as they should not be considered responsible for a condition beyond their control.

However, most murderers (at least the ones that end up in prison or on death row rather than in a psych ward) have no such condition. That is, none has been identified and there’s no chance of finding one. AFAIK, the US death penalty is only applied to pre-meditated murder, which precludes the possibility described.

4

The ultimate aim of the justice system is for murder not to happen in the first place.

Granted, this miraculous chip would prevent further murders being committed by one who has already killed. But some deterrent would ppear necessary to prevent people killing in the first place. Merely having a chip put in would not appear to be a particularly strong disincentive to would-be first time murderers.

As for the death penalty, I believe that a long prison sentence is just as effective a deterrent, as is borne out by statistics. The only argument left is revenge, which I do not believe is a valid moral basis or motivation for the actions of a civilised state government.

5

If we’re going to talk seriously about this, we need some statistics.

This is what the gub’mint says happened in California:

(WARNING: EVIL PDF AHEAD)

http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/misc/homiSR/report.pdf

Causes of crimes:

Argument: 38.5%
Gang Related: 36.1%
Rape, robbery, burglary: 8.9%
Drug related: 4.3%
Other: 12.3%
Relationship of victim to suspect:

Friend/acq: 46.6%
Stranger: 36.1%
Family: 17.3%
(random fact I found interesting)

Gender of victim

Male: 81%
Female: 19%
(it also says that firearms were used in something like 72% of the murders)

(it also says that hispanics made up around 45% of the victims)

(it also notes that the murder rate dropped almost in half between 1993 and 2002, from 4,000 to 2,000)
From these statistics, it appears that a good 30-40% can be classified as “crimes of passion” - ie, getting hella pissed at someone you know, where a death penalty is not going to be much of a deterrant. An additional 35% are “gang related,” and I don’t know many gang members turned out of the lifestyle by threat of jail or death (the ones who do rehabilitate usually have some other cause). The other 10-20% that are made up of organized crime/drug smuggling/sales/whatever, which may or may not be deterred by a death penalty.

So frankly, it we’re talking about lowering the murder rate, there are probably better ways to do it than execution. Given that most other industrialized nations make do without it, and consider it a trait of an undeveloped nation… I don’t see many reasons to keep it around.

As far as your theory of magically rehabilitating prisoners… frankly, I think our system of justice is pretty fair, with the various degrees of murder and manslaughter. Yes, many people get off easy, and many people get a hard rap, but that happens in any justice system. Someone committing a “crime of passion” will not be as big a threat to society as a systematic, pre-planned murderer, and probably doesn’t need to be incarcerated for as long.

6

As I see it possible reasons for punishment are:

  1. Retribution. Anyone who does something bad deserves something bad happening to them.
  2. Prevention. Lock them up, kill them, etc, stops them doing it again.
  3. Deterrance (both for that person and other people). I’m scared of the punishment, I’ll be good.

In this case, it’d do 2 fine, but that’s a but moot in a lot of cases; crimes of passion aren’t going to be repeated anyway. It’d fall down on 1, but a lot of people don’t like to rely on that as a justification anyway. And it wouldn’t do much good for three. So as much as I wish otherwise, it looks like it wouldn’t necessarily be a good idea.

It’d be beautiful for lesser crimes of course, where the reoffend rate is through the roof.

7

Why not both?

Marc

8

In my opinion, the “deterrent effect” is over-rated. Very few people commit a crime expecting to be caught. The harshness of the penalty doesn’t really enter into it-- almost everyone thinks they’ll get away with it.

I’d say that murderers shouldn’t be released, even if the chip worked. Part of our justice system is punishment. If all a murderer had to do was have a chip installed to be released scot-free, there really is none. “Big deal,” some would think, “I’ll kill my annoying neighbor and get a chip installed. I don’t plan on killing anyone else, anyway.”

9

I agree, even in non-crime related events humans have a tendancy to think they are invulnerable. We tend to think we are smarter than the average bear, or ranger :slight_smile: I took some flight training years ago and the instructor stressed that point repeatedly, to the point of commenting on the survivability of my parka in a winter flight.

10

Well, in more extreme examples like Singapore or the Middle east, it can be quite easily shown that the deterrent effect is very much in force.

Personally, I think that life imprisonment without chance of parole is a much less humane treatment than a quick and painless death.

11

[quote[You’ve basically outlined the plot to “A Clockwork Orange.” Stanley Kubrick and Wendy Carlos at her best. Yum.[/quote]

FWIW, Kubric left out the last chapter of the book where our Hero

finally does turn his back on his thuggish life.

12

Fairy Godmother: “Granted. A quick and painless death. Now what do you want for your second wish, Mr. Johnson? Mr. Johnson…?”

13

RE: your spoiler Johnny LA, I think that last chapter is pretty much implied by the last scene, but maybe that’s just me.

14

I’m not sure that I’m following your line of reasoning, here. Are you saying that nobody murders anyobody else in Singapore and/or the Middle East? Because while I don’t know about Singapore, I’m fairly certain that there are more than a couple of murders that have taken place in the Middle East in the last few months. Or am I missing your point?

15

And which method of execution guarantees that?

Answer: None of them

16

I’d consider life without parole in solitary confinement with minimal functional sustenance the only proper substitute for the death penalty. Until that’s implemented, I’ll favor the DP.

17

Not true, unless you think that getting stuck with the IV needle is painful. If you consider that “cruel and unusual” than may I assume that you never get shots?

18

I’d do your research. There is a great deal of evidence that the method of lethal injection causes excruciating pain for several minutes - but the person is first given a paralysing drug so the pain isn’t visible.

19

Is that so? Care to provide a cite?

20

It is more than a bit silly to concerned about some serial killer being in pain for ‘several minutes’. For Petes sake, you are killing them. It’ll all be over soon enough, in the scheme of things.