Saturday, August 08, 2015
Is the death penalty better retribution?
As an admirer of C. S. Lewis's essay on the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, I nevertheless have reservations about the retributive adequacy of the death penalty. I guess the question is whether the death penalty is better retribution than, say, life without parole. I think that people make a mistake when they think that a penalty fits the crime better if it resembles the crime. If we want resemblance to the crime, our current methods of execution give the criminal a painless death which the criminal denied to his victim. But torturing a murderer to death is cruel and unusual punishment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
If you have someone in prison for life without parole, you may not have any options left beyond cruel and unusual punishment in some cases. What do you do when the lifer kills someone in prison?
But what if the lifer prefers death, and keeps killing to get his wish?
http://murderpedia.org/male.V/v1/vickers-robert-wayne.htm
"I guess the question is whether the death penalty is better retribution than, say, life without parole."
Oh, come on! Even a well-trained "liberal" knows that the only murderers who *can* be sentenced to "life without parole" are the ones who murder famous or influential "liberals".
Murder Bobby Kennedy and not only will you rot in prison, but even your desiccated corpse will be left there. Just to make sure.
Murder Ilíon -- or Victor Reppert -- and you *may* be sentenced to "life" ... which is to say, 20 years max with time off for "time served" (while awaiting trial) and time off for "good behavior".
But let's address the problem I raised earlier. If we decide to go with the death penalty, we have to decide whether the death penalty should be guarded with an more extensive appeals process than there is for other penalties. If we say yes, it becomes expensive, it drags families through more trials and hearings, it provides closure, if at all, only decades later. If your argument for it is going to be retributive, then you have to come up with the idea that it is better retribution, even with the long delays and infrequent use.
I realize that many people see prisons as a country club, but I taught classes in a federal prison that outside observers would have considered to be a pretty nice place, but given the lack of freedom the prisoners desperately wanted to be free again.
But what if the lifer prefers death, and keeps killing to get his wish?
That seems like an example that supports the view you're opposing here.
Are you trying to locate the two options here as between 'retributive' and 'rehabilitative'? Because I think a third option is missing: just. I suggest it's possible that while act X may more fully exact retribution, and act Y may successfully rehabilitate, act Z - the just act - is the only clear winner. And sometimes, it seems, justice demands death.
What makes a punishment just besides retribution? Justice always requires death, (the wages of sin), so under what criminal cases do we use it, and why is it better justice in those cases?
What makes a punishment just besides retribution?
That seems oddly worded to me. You can have a retributive act that isn't just, after all. Saying that justice requires some amount of retribution doesn't make them equal.
VR: "What makes a punishment just besides retribution?"
'Retribution' is a punishment in consequence of something else. 'Retribution' is not necessarily just -- as for example, all the millions sent to the Soviet gulags for ... well, for no real reason at all.
'Justice' is no more reducible to something else than 'love' is. Either one understands what 'justice' and 'love' are ... or one pretends not to understand.
VR: "Justice always requires death, (the wages of sin) ..."
We are not God.
VR: "Justice always requires death, (the wages of sin), so under what criminal cases do we use it, and why is it better justice in those cases?"
Murder is the biggie. Hell, you "liberals" freak-out about executing even the most heinous murderers (*) -- and thereby deny that his victim is a human being, and a member of our society, and as fully deserving of justice as you imagine yourselves to be -- why bother asking this "what else" question until you admit that the murder deserves to be executed? and that justice *demand* the murderer be executed?
(*) at the same time, the more self-righteous of you drool over "what he'll get" from some other thug in prison.
Let me ask, do you agree with an extended appeals process that is required for death penalty cases?
When people get executed for a crime that happened in 1989, after appeal after appeal, you still housed them for 25 years on death row and paid a lot of money to get them through the appeals process.
Let me ask, do you agree with an extended appeals process that is required for death penalty cases?
It depends on 'extended'. 20 years, appeal of appeal? No, clearly something has gone wrong there. And the fact that 'cost' is a big talking-point against the death penalty makes me strongly suspect that death penalty opponents know that a 20 year appeals process is ridiculous and unnecessary, except AS a talking point.
Let's use the Breivik case. Right-wing extremist walks into what amounts to Liberal Youth camp dressed as a cop, and kills dozens of teens and teachers. He admits it. Everyone knows he did it. Do you think we need 20 years of appeals to determine much of anything there? 10 years? 5?
I want to add... I'm not exactly the biggest proponent of the death penalty. And I am dead against the death penalty as 'a way to solve the crime problem', or even 'as retribution'. For me, it's a simple justice question. Some crimes justly deserve death.
Want me to give a practical argument? Here's one I never, ever see deployed by opponents: The government is incompetent and run by corrupt people. The less access to death-causing methods they have, the better, especially where their own citizens are concerned.
But I think most of the arguments I encounter against the death penalty don't stand up to scrutiny, and the ones that come close to being convincing ('We can just put them in solitary for the rest of their lives!') is playing on the retribution motive I reject.
I was more looking for Ilion's response here. He's a much bigger death penalty advocate.
VR: "... [Ilíon is] a much bigger death penalty advocate."
You're not paying attention, are you?
Post a Comment