Is execution ever justified?

Great Debates
1

I have started this thread partly so as not to hijack the one on conscription, but mainly because of a scenario that Facebook showed me. Yes I do read FB mainly because my kids post there.

The FB posting was about a German about to be executed after his Nuremberg trial. He had killed thousands of Jews, some by his own hand, but mainly from by the soldiers under his command. His defense was that he was just following orders, doing what he was directed to do by his superiors and he claimed he could not understand why he was being executed for that.

Okay we don’t accept that as a justification; certainly I don’t and I assume most Dopers don’t either. But what about the person who threw the rope around his neck and dropped the platform? Isn’t he just following orders to kill someone. Well, you argue that he was convicted of murder and should hang. But that is a human law too. Being a Jew was sufficient cause for execution in Nazi Germany. Of course, I understand the difference, but that guy didn’t and he felt he was going to be hanged for obeying what was at that time the law.

I remember the AG of some state (I have forgotten which) who was about to execute someone for whom serious doubt of guilt had arisen. The AG said something like, “The people of [state] have decided that this person be executed and my job is to see to that they are. I don’t care if I were to be presented with absolute proof of their innocence, it is my job to execute them and I will carry it out.” There is something seriously wrong with this, but I cannot quite put my finger on what.

2

I think there is some practical justification in the aftermath of revolution or war (“all is fair”, etc.) but that’s a matter of realpolitik. My personal morality would not let me directly participate in or support it, though I acknowledge that my support of a given state or government might make me a hypocrite in that regard.

3

I have more sympathy for this situation than probably many people would. What he was doing is what was ordered by the authorities at the time. Refusal would’ve simply gotten him a rope around his own neck without saving anyone else’s life. I guess the message is, if you’re given the choice, die with principle rather than killing as a coward. It’s easy enough to say, but few of the people saying it would pass that test if it were put to them.

What’s wrong with this is that this situation didn’t take place in Nazi Germany. You’re definitely not going to get hung for challenging or refusing a problematic execution. Depending on what state you’re in, it might be a career-limiting move, but that’s manageable. A decent person will reconsider their career aspirations if it turns out to involve killing people who are likely innocent. This AG doesn’t sound like a decent person. The best we could say about them is they show a disturbing degree of nonchalance toward killing a definitely-innocent person. I suspect it’s more than that, that they actually get more enjoyment simply from exercising the power than from knowing the power is being used as intended.

4

It appears there are two discussions here, one about political executions, and one about ordinary criminal executions. The reasons and justifications for those are generally different. For example, when we ask “what purpose does an execution serve in this case” I think we get quite different answers in the two different scenarios.

Therefore, for clarity of discussion, I encourage the OP to perhaps specify which of these two areas he is most interested in. Or to have the thread split into two, one for each.

5

I stick to my OP. Is execution EVER justified. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, if you do, that the first execution is justified. The second case was extreme, but what execution of undoubted murserers?

6

IMHO, the answer is “not in our society”. We easily have the resources to keep a relative handful of people in prison for life. Executions are neither necessary nor useful (they are just entertainment; bloodsport), and are therefore not justifiable. For us.

But some ancient nomadic society didn’t have that option, and even early sedentary societies would have struggled to do that. And exile won’t keep them from lurking nearby and striking at the vulnerable. When the options were “kill them, let them wander around killing people as they like, or exile them into what is either a cruel death or just hanging around picking people off”, then the first option of just quickly killing them has a good argument for being both merciful and a practical necessity.

“Mercy is the virtue of the strong” as they say, and part of the reason for that is that they can be merciful; choice rather than necessity can guide their actions. And we are far stronger than our ancestors. I can’t really see many circumstances in which we’d need to execute somebody, which is a big argument against it being justified.

7

Until police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and jurors become infallible, I will always oppose the death penalty as once it is carried out, you cannot correct mistakes.

8

I have only one justification- if after being sentenced to Life without Parole, they still kill another human. Either a gang boss ordering a kill, escape and kill an innocent, kill a guard or even shank a fellow inmate. If Life without Parole does not stop their killing, then execution is justified. But that would then be very rare.

Lifers have killed.

Good point, which is why in my limited justification, first they have to get convicted and sentenced to Life- then kill again, and be convicted a second time.

I am against the Death Penalty, but if Life without Parole will not stop the killing, something must be done.

9

If a kidnapper locks me in a cage, someone who’s following orders is going to lock him in a cage, right? And if he stole my stuff while he was doing it, we’re still going to fine him?

10

The AG said they’d happily execute an innocent person if it was popular and legal, which is deeply bothersome.

I’m wondering about a scenario where America is conquered by a stronger nation (maybe China, maybe aliens) and they execute anyone who has ever participated in an execution in the US. Of course I can see some hypothetical flaws with this, but it would be like that. If a new government took over and decided everyone who participated in legal death row executions needed to be executed. They’d be confused as to why they were being executed.

I think at root its because groups needs rules, and violence to protect the group is treated as morally acceptable, violence that harms the group is unacceptable, and violence against those useless to the group is morally ambiguous. its not a universal law of the universe, its just a concept that groups came up with since it makes them function better.

For me, Ted Bundy is a good example of why execution is necessary sometimes. Not just because of his crimes, but because of what an escape risk he was. He escaped from jail twice. After escaping from the jail in Colorado, he went to Florida where he assaulted and murdered multiple more young women.

While he was on death row he was caught trying to escape at least once, possibly even more times.

If someone is both a dangerous murderer, and a high escape risk, I can see execution being the better option than hoping he never breaks out of prison again.

Another situation where execution could be needed is if a dictator is overthrown. If a dictator has a cult (like the Kim family in North Korea) There would always be a fear he would come back to power if he was sitting in prison. That someone will let him out, or help him escape and things will go back to the old ways. Execution prevents that risk like it did with the Ceausescus.

Look what happened with Napoleon, when he escaped exile in Elba he came back to power, albeit temporarily. Lots and lots of people died in the war that happened after he came back to power.

The execution of Beria to prevent him from taking over after Stalin was also a very wise decision.

11

I would favor it for hit-men, who contemplate murder and decide to do it anyway. Maybe for terrorist types, maybe school shooters. Folks that target, for murder, random strangers. Yeah. But not routine application.

12

Yes, I think this is a key point. What do you do with people who are too dangerous or destructive to allow in your society? The only options I can think of are to kill them, imprison them, or exile them. In a society where the other two options aren’t feasible, execution may well be justified.

13

These are, again, 2 different topics. In your first example there is doubt about the motive and circumstances - i.e., generally, if the offender was deceived or coerced into committing a crime, that’s considered mitigating if not exculpatory. So I don’t think it’s axiomatic that the first execution was justified. The person didn’t have a fully autonomous choice, he probably wouldn’t have done the killing if he didn’t face a threat to his own life.

I don’t believe “undoubted” is realistically an achievable standard in most cases. My personal view is, if that can be reasonably achieved, and if the state demonstrates the will and capability to do so, then any execution resulting from that process would be justified. If we know for an unquestionable fact that someone’s a depraved murderer, and the state has exhausted all theories to the contrary, then it’s OK for the state to execute them. The problem of course is that the state shows little sign of even attempting to meet the current standards, much less an exhaustively higher one.

14

This question almost always gets bogged down into complications: whether the accused deserves it, how heinous was the crime, they’re guaranteed never to kill again, it’s less expensive than imprisonment, doubt about guilt, etc. For me there is only ever one question and it is, who has the authority to impose death as a judicial process? My answer to that question is: no one. No individual, no head of state, no judge, no court, no tribunal, no government has the authority to terminate someone’s life in cold blood. In the US the only constitutional defense of capital punishment is that it constitutes due process. I dispute that because nothing in the US Constitution gives any government body the authority to impose death. The idea that the right to life is a natural human right is enshrined in our founding documents.

So to go back to the key question: did the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg have the authority to impose death as a penalty? No. Did the state AG quoted in the OP have that authority? No. They may have felt justified in terms of duty and responsibility, but nothing gave them the authority to carry out those responsibilities. My answer to the question in the OP is - execution may be appropriate, but since no one has the authority to carry it out, it is never justified.

Disclaimer: I make the distinction of killing in cold blood. For those unfamiliar with the expression, that means killing without an immediate threat. A police officer shooting a criminal dead in order to save the life of another person under immediate threat is justifiable. An executioner pushing a button to drop someone from a gallows (or inject lethal chemicals into someone strapped to a gurney, etc) is not.

15

Don’t they also enshrine the right to liberty and the right to property — while adding that one can nevertheless be deprived of liberty or property with due process of law, like you were just saying?

16

Yes, but both of those things are reversible and subject to “redress of grievances”. Death is not.

17

Remember, the reason why that was not a justification is that those were Crimes Against Humanity. Supposedly if you commit some minor crimes such as a misdemeanor, that might be an excuse. I know in Tax Law, if you follow the advice of your Tax Attorney, etc that can be a defense.

Perfect example. But remember, such cases are very rare. Texas alone, OTOH has executed over 70 men in the last ten years. That is not defensible.

18

This is kind of a spurious argument for a couple of reasons. Most obviously, the allusion to the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” comes from the Declaration of Independence, which is a piece of rhetoric that’s best not taken too literally. Secondly, we most definitely do routinely deprive people of liberty and the pursuit of happiness (prison, for starters), so these “rights” clearly aren’t taken as universal but rather contingent upon other factors.

More generally, to the question of “authority”, the state doesn’t have authority, the state is the source of all legal authority. It’s constrained by its laws and constitutions and court decisions of course, but if those organs declare that the state can kill someone in cold blood, then it’s authorized to do so, because the government is the authority on that question, end of story. Everything else is just word games.

19

As I said above, those things are both subject to redress of grievances as provided for in the Constitution. Death is not.

Only to the extent that authority is given in the Constitution. The authority to impose the death penalty is not covered.

It’s all just word games.

20

I think this is a matter of whether you approach it from a moral (or religious) vs engineering standpoint.

From one view, perhaps one thinks that punishment should be appropriate. Eye for an eye, they caused suffering so they should suffer the same.

From an engineering standpoint: dangerous or broken people exist, and we must prevent them from doing damage to others in society. How to do this is debatable. It’s expensive to keep them locked up. But execution is irreversible and there are regrettable instances where better evidence has exonerated them.