Here’s an argument: like it or not, the U.S. is a Christian state, founded on Christian morals and values. Christianity is very clear on the topic of revenge: it is not allowed.
It’s interesting to note that many European countries where the population is less religious than in the U.S. have done away with the death penalty.
Fair points, and now that I think about it, I don’t think I was particularly clear about my logical progression. That is, I was trying to present three points that I consider to be true and that the logical conclusion of those three points is that the death penalty is called for. However, if you don’t adhere to one or more of those beliefs then, obviously, my logic falls apart.
The “eye for an eye” part specifically is mostly me referencing a well known starting ground through which I can explain my perspective. Other ways of picking the same starting ground are things like “the punishment should fit the crime”.
I suppose this is a point I sort of take for granted, and I guess I assumed it was a prefered state for everyone, but it may not be. I’ll try to explain it how I see it though, and this is, more or less, a generalization of the “eye for an eye” or “punishiment fits the crime” concept.
The idea is that, without punishment or with insufficient punishment, the criminal actually gains a net benefit for his crime. To take a less esoteric and more extreme example, imagine a criminal steals $40,000. If he only spends a week in jail, then he is essentially making roughly $2 Million a year at that rate. So, one could perceive that he has still gained from the transaction. Moral and social order issues aside, I would argue that this is an undesirable state. Sure, a situation where the criminal gains only a little is no where near as bad as when he gains a lot, but ideally he should never gain from his crime. Carry this concept over to something with a less direct “gain” like rape, assault, etc., and you have a generalized concept that the punishment should ensure that there is no perceived gain on the part of the criminal, not just in terms of property rights (as with money) but in terms of other rights.
Similarly, if a punishment is too harsh, we approach an opposite extreme. Imagine someone steals $5 worth of merchandise and then spends 20 years in jail. I suppose it fits the idea of preventing recidism and such, but the important part to consider here is that even a criminal is a human being, so it shouldn’t be overly harsh either. Besides, if this were okay then, if anything, it would favor the death penalty more.
All in all, this basically puts a very strict lower limit on the punishment and, ideally, puts a strict upper limit as well, although the upper limit isn’t really applicable when discussing the death penalty because, based on the logic I’m trying to present, I show that the lower limit, given my points, necessarily requires the death penalty.
The point I’m trying to make is, how does one define stronger crimes? My perspective is that the purpose of law is to protect rights, thus the strength of the crime is dependant upon the value of the right that was violated. The values of those rights may vary from person to person, but we have, as a society, come to some concensus.
The important point here that I tried to make is that the right to life isn’t just the most important one, but that it is more important that all the other rights combined, and my reasoning for that is simple. Without life, you cannot make use of any other rights. What’s the point of owning a house if you’re dead? You can’t really live there if you’re not living. What’s the point of having the right to free speech if you’re dead? You can’t talk if you’re not living.
Thus, if the punishment is tied directly to the right that is violated, and the right to life is greater than the sum of all other rights, then no punishment that doesn’t include a forfeiture of the right to life can possibly be an equitable punishment.
I hope I cleared up my perspective a little bit, and if not, I’ll try again. I have previously laid out my argument mathematically, so if that may be helpful, I’m willing to do so again, or maybe I can just find that particular post.
Blaster, wow thanks for the swift response to my questions.
I can see what you mean, it’s more like an “economics of crime” than mathematics. I can see the point as long as money related crime is involved, like theft. I do not agree when violence comes into play, since the system then more tends to “an eye for an eye”. The economics argument is basically justified with prevention. I am not sure that the death penalty prevents crimes more efficiently than a life sentence.
And it does not solve the problem of executing innocent people.
Moreover, how do you propose to cope with involuntary homicide?
Your chance of being wrongfully convicted of murder and executed (especially if you live in Texas) might be about the same as that of being killed by an escaped psycho.
Exactly where do you draw the line between a mass murderer and a plain one? Number of deaths? Deaths spaced out in time? if two people are killed in a holdup does it become mass murder?
Scott Turow used to be for the death penalty before he was on the Illinois commission and studied the facts. One thing that struck me when I listened to an interview with him is this. They found that it was common for prosecutors to charge a suspect with a capital offense in order to make it more likely to get a plea bargain for a smaller charge. But if the suspect had an incompetent lawyer, or if he was actually innocent and trusted the system to get him off, he’d go to trial on the capital charge with a greater chance of being convicted of it than a truly guilty person who thought the lesser charge was a good deal.
Once you buy the death penalty, it is hard to argue that deliberate killers of even one person don’t merit it - and we get into the problems already discussed. Viscerally I’m all for it, and would pull the switch for a person who I knew killed with 100% certainty in a second - but in this world there are so many innocents killed that I choose to control my urges.
The ultimate purpose and best use of the death penalty is to cull out those that possess genes that have the propensity for violence. Retribution and punishment aside.
I won’t argue with that, except for the 100 year span that you suggested; I think it’s longer throughout the western world, not yet to be found in other parts of the world, or not anymore.
Of course, if you talk about incarceration as a new idea of the purpose of punishment, I think, the earliest example might be the Rasphuisin Amsterdam.
Still, your point is, while correct, moot insofar as everyone born today in one of the western societies knows that they live in a world based on and ruled by laws. And while we might be hard pressed to find a person who will consider the rule of the law to be unequivocally just and fair, most people realize its dominance over their lives.
As long as the state has the power to enforce the law, citizens have a clear incentive to uphold even the laws they don’t agree with.
The less fair and just the rule of law appears to be to (a growing number of) citizens, however, the more difficult and costly its enforcements will become. Then we are back at the point where we have to deal with the underlying problems within society to deal efficiently with crime. Harder punishments won’t have a positive net effect, a negative one is more likely.
I’ve heard this argument quite often, but I think it is not entirely justified. The difference is not so much religiousness but the political influence of extremely conservative and fundamental Christian movements. While such groups have little to no influence in Europe, they have shaped American society more than their absolute numbers suggest.
I think, it’s no coincidence that Europe and the USA had similar ideas regarding the death penalty up to the early 80ies before fundamentalists started to gain much more influence on your side of the Atlantic. But I have to admit that I lack the knowledge to say anything certain about such connections.
Ah yes, ius talionis, very old testamenty indeed.
Leviticus 24, 17, 19-20
Do we actually have to discuss the problems we’d face within our complex societies if we re-established the idea of analogous punishment?
Could you, for one thing, explain to me, what punishment is analogous to forgery of banknotes? Falsification of accounts? Attempted extortion? Trafficking?
There is also the question of the circumstances that led to a crime: is there evidence, e.g., that shows that the person wasn’t fully responsible for what he did/what happened? If we only consider the result of a crime, a dead person, then every action that leads to such a result is punishable by death; that way the punishment doesn’t distinguish between an accidental death (two kids playing with a loaded gun) and a murder committed by a serial killer: it’s invariably death.
Alright, you might think I went to far when I included accidents. So what about manslaughter, murder, serial homicide? Are there no differences possible that should be reflected accordingly in the punishment?
Two final objections (well, for now): Once everyone knows that a death leads necessarily to capital punishment, no offender has an incentive to not kill again and again (while fleeing, e.g.), because his punishment can’t become more severe than it already is.
In that case, the punishment is an incentive for further crimes and not a deterrence.
Which leads me to my final objection: there is no possibility of rehabilitation within your idea of just punishment. And while this might seem fair on first sight, the circumstances that led to the death can be so different that justice will be rarely served by dealing out the same punishment in every single case.
Why?
There is no “why” to my previous statement, “why not” would be the real question. Try spending some time in close unguarded proximity with some of the people that I have come to know.
You’ll never know, what you don’t know son.
No, “why” is a perfectly legitimate question. Do you have any reason to believe violence is genetically transmitted? And would your eugenics program only be applied to those who had not already procreated? Because if they had kids, you would have to kill them too, in order to cull those bad genes. Otherwise you are just kidding yourself; it’s all about retribution.
Yeah, I’d really like to see a reference to a scientific study that supports DannyH’s idea. But even if we assume that we could actually see a direct link, what does “propensity for violence” even mean?
Any soldier (who is supposed to actually fight an enemy) must have some propensity for violence; else he won’t survive his very first fire fight.
Are we to cull any soldier who manages to act violently too? Or only the ones who fought in an unjust war? Or who killed an innocent (that would include pretty much every single bomber pilot)? And what about police officers who have shot at people? That is a violent action, even if it was only a reaction.
Do you think there is also a gene that adds a propensity for justified violence in contrast to the unjustified variety?
Btw, I don’t know about Fear Itself, but I’ve spent time with people who couldn’t be called anything but violent: a young man from Zaire who had hacked men to pieces during one of the upheavals; two brothers from Croatia who, during the civil war, went over to the house of a Muslim and shot him point-blank, but, as they emphasized repeatedly, didn’t touch his wife and daughter. Some others .. anyway, most of them had been friendly neighbours, loving husbands, caring fathers; then they killed when the opportunity arose.
Others didn’t, of course, but was it because they had no propensity for violence? And was such a hypothetical propensity the trigger that invariably moved people to kill or were other factors involved? And what about the people who took a long time in barbaric circumstances before they acted violently?
Propensity for violence? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. And what to make of it, even if I knew.
Can’t the same comparison be made for any punishment that the state gives? I’m sure we would agree that it is morally wrong for me to imprison someone but we condone the state doing it.
So your posting was actually serious? Can you confirm this since I still can’t believe it …
Ok, I will apologise now. These 2 guys were just caught. Speeding in New York, in the SAME CAR that they left the prison in. So much for the criminal masterminds.
We’d just have to make sure that we also kill the children the murderers already have, and their siblings also. Can’t be too safe, you know.
I agree. We should be setting criminals on fire, forever.
DannyH, pay attention. First, **Giles **addressed your point on like the fourth post of this thread. The same issue has been subsequently addressed multiple times. We cannot be certain the person killed was actually guilty, [del]further[/del] murders *in the future *can be prevented without killing anybody, and this genes business is just baffling. I’m going to assume you mean the death penalty removes murderers from the gene pool in a more figurative sense, and less of a “He’d better not pass on his killin’ genes” sense. Re: that, see above. Yes, we should scrap the system instead of improving the process because this is a process that can never be perfected. The only justifications I’m getting here are vengeance and this:
So it’s okay because we get it right more often than not? So you have some sort utilitarian business going on that makes it okay if a few innocent people get in the way, as long as we got that fucker Dahmer.
[QUOTE=Dr. Crap]
I agree. We should be setting criminals on fire, forever.
[/QUOTE]
Finally, some logic and compassion.
The purpose of the death penalty is to provide disincentive to murder.
Some actions are undesirable in a society, so society assigns them consequences. If the consequences are too light, there is little disincentive.
For example, if the penalty for theft was only that you had to make restitution for what you stole, then theft would be extremely common - as game theory would tell you you get nothing when you get caught, but if you elude detection, you get a huge windfall.
In a world where there was no death penalty, and the worst one could get for murder is life imprisonment, there would be individuals who evaluate the dilemma and conclude that since 1.) they may not get caught, and 2.) they might escape their imprisonment if they are caught, and 3.) even if they don’t escape, they could be paroled, that killing a person is worth those risks.
The counter-argument can be made that there are people today in states where the death penalty applies who still murder, even knowing that they might likely by killed in return. Unfortunately, no more severe punishment can be humanely levied. The only thing we can do to further change the situation is improve the criminal’s odds of getting caught.
How’s that workin’ out for ya?
Pretty well, since I’ve yet to kill anybody. How about you?
Oh, I’m sorry, is this not Dueling Logical Fallacies?
I don’t see the fallacy in asking if your methods are achieving your stated goals. Please elucidate.