Ethics of capital punishment

[bodswood]

Fair enough. Living in China (Hong Kong), I’m not a card-carrying member of the pro-execution lobby, although I happen to be inclined towards it, in countries such as US and UK, by a mixture of rational and irrational (in the positive sense, ie intuitive) reasons. The deterrent issue doesn’t concern me much, since I feel, as others have said, that arguments can be made both for and against capital punishment being a deterrent, and it’s very much a secondar issue anyway, compared to justice and “rehabilitation”. As someone I much admire once put it, ‘to be “cured” against ones’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not reached the age of reason or those who never will…but to be punished because we deserve it…is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image’.

Isn’t the first sentiment the message of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest?

[Odesio]

@Lissa

Well, there always has to be ruling authority in a culture. Society simply cannot function without rules and punishment for breaking them.

Exactly. So you can see why crying out in dispair “who are we to <blank>” isn’t really a good place to argue from. There just isn’t any way for us to avoid making these kinds of decisions.

I believe we as a society lower ourselves to the level of murderers when we execute a person. We have just done what we supposedly abhor: the intentional, deliberate, uncessesary taking of human life.

Why doesn’t that apply to incarceration? Do we not debase ourselves by removing people from society and controling their every action? There are a lot of valid arguements against the death penalty it’s just that “debasing ourselves” and “who are we” aren’t among them.

It might suprise you that I’m rather critical of the death penalty myself. While I don’t think it’s wrong to execute people for certain crimes I share many of your concerns.

I agree. Self defense is acceptable.But the death penalty isn’t self defense. No one is in eminent danger of bodily harm.

Before you said killing was always wrong. Now it’s acceptable.

I disagree. To me, it’s always smacked of the excuses one hears on the playground: “But Jimmy hit me first!”

Why doesn’t that apply to incarceration or fines?

How are we any better than a murderer when we execute? We’ve done essentially the same act, only ours was court-permitted. Does that ruling really make that much of a difference?

How are we any better then a kidnapper when we imprision someone or a thief when we fine someone? Because the motivation and the circumstances of the execution does in fact make a difference. Sometimes it is ok to kill. Sometimes it is ok to use force to lock someone away. Sometimes it is ok to take someones money.

Marc

[wonky]

@Lissa

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.

What we can’t see is how many people didn’t commit a crime because they were deterred. I know that I’ve been kept from doing things in a rage that would have led (had I been caught) to prison. I’ve thought about it. It isn’t just my sense of morality and ethics that keeps me in check. It’s the fear of getting caught.

[Lissa]

@MGibson

Exactly. So you can see why crying out in dispair “who are we to <blank>” isn’t really a good place to argue from. There just isn’t any way for us to avoid making these kinds of decisions.

Deciding that someone broke the rules and should be punished is one thing. Deciding to kill them is entirely another. The state can decide whether a person can roam at large, or should be locked away for the safety of others. But deciding something as enormous as life or death should not be the stat’e decision.

My argument is that as a society we do have the right to punish offenders, but not to take their lives.

Why doesn’t that apply to incarceration? Do we not debase ourselves by removing people from society and controling their every action? There are a lot of valid arguements against the death penalty it’s just that “debasing ourselves” and “who are we” aren’t among them.

No, I don’t think we debase ourselves at all by seperating offenders from society. That is a reasonable punishment for violating our culture’s laws. If you cannot conform your behavior to be a productive citizen, then you must be removed from society.

My husband works in corrections. I know what life is like for the inmates. It’s not a happy life, by any means, but they are fed, clothed, housed, and cared for medically. They are treated with human dignity, only they have shown that they cannot function within society and must be carefully monitored, which can only properly be done within an institution such as a prison.

Before you said killing was always wrong. Now it’s acceptable.

But only in such an extreme circumstance. Sometimes you have to kill to save your own life. This is not a murder. Strapping a person to a gurney and pumping poison into their veins is a murder. Hell, it’s even called a homicide on the death certificate.

People have a right to protect themselves, including killing an attacker. Their lives are in direct and immediate danger. The state cannot make the same argument. If a police officer shoots a man who is about to stab someone, he has done what he must to protect a life. The state is not protecting anyone by killing an offender. He’s locked away where he can do no harm in prison. If he shows that he cannot even be at large in the prison population, there are Super-Max prisons in which he can be kept isolated. There’s no reason to execute criminals.

Why doesn’t that apply to incarceration or fines?

Because those two punishments are the ones which are reasonable and just. As I said, we must have rules and enforcement. It’s my opinion that the death penalty is not a reasonable or just punishment.

How are we any better then a kidnapper when we imprision someone or a thief when we fine someone? Because the motivation and the circumstances of the execution does in fact make a difference. Sometimes it is ok to kill. Sometimes it is ok to use force to lock someone away. Sometimes it is ok to take someones money.

Marc

I do see your point. But I would add another question: is it okay to take someone’s life when there is no reason to do so?

The terrible finality of death seperates execution from other means of punishment.

[Blalron]

How are we any better then a kidnapper when we imprision someone or a thief when we fine someone? Because the motivation and the circumstances of the execution does in fact make a difference. Sometimes it is ok to kill. Sometimes it is ok to use force to lock someone away. Sometimes it is ok to take someones money.

Is it ok to rape those who rape? Is it ok to break someones arm because they broke someones arm?

There are limits to how far we as a society will go to retaliate against criminals. Just as purposefully breaking a prisoners arm is considered unacceptable, I believe extinguishing their very existance should be looked upon as something that just isn’t done (no matter how deserving of the punishment we believe the offender to be).

[Odesio]

@Lissa

I do see your point. But I would add another question: is it okay to take someone’s life when there is no reason to do so?

Of course it isn’t. We simply disagree on what constitutes a “reason” under certain circumstances.

Marc

[Lissa]

@MGibson

Of course it isn’t. We simply disagree on what constitutes a “reason” under certain circumstances.

Marc

Fair enough.

My opinion is that the most henious, evil, cruel crime in the world does not give us an excuse to execute a person. I don’t think the state should have the right to decide to kill anyone, regardless of what they have done.