However, some have argued that the case for execution isn't primarily a matter of deterrence or even expense, it is a matter of retributive justice. I do accept C. S. Lewis's claim that it is extremely perilous to remove the question of desert from sentencing.
It should be the first consideration, though surely not the only consideration. I am quite sure that Lewis would have also endorsed this comment, which his friend J. R. R. Tolkien put into the mouth of Gandalf:
“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
The retributive theory of punishment requires that we deprive the criminal of happiness to a degree commensurate to the wrongness of their acts. In order to fit the crime, the punishment does not need to resemble the crime. We wouldn't use that principle in the case of rape and torture, so why use it for murder? In order for the argument to go through that the death penalty uniquely meets the requirement of giving a criminal his just deserts, you need an argument other than the argument from resemblance, and I don't know what that would be. Executions are quick and physically painless, which was probably not true of the death of the victim of murder. The person executed knows for a long time that this is coming, which again would not be true of the victim. So, once we are deprived of the argument that a punishment that resembles the crime best fits the crime, how do we show that the death penalty is the best way of exacting retribution?
13 comments:
The "rape and torture" objection to the retributive justification for the death penalty is not analogous. The reason is because for anyone to rape and torture a perpetrator as an infliction of punishment would involve serious moral harm to the executor.
See Ed Feser's paper
"Punishment, Proportionality, and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Chris Tolefson"
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/10/4126
It's not, strictly speaking, an objection to the retributive justification for the death penalty. It is a critique of the similarity requirement for proper retribution. I question whether similarity to the offense is an advantage when exacting retribution. I don't know of any other punishment where similarity to the offense enhances or improves retribution.
Rape is always rape.
Murder is always murder; but not all killing is murder.
You are trying to pretend – without having the decency to honestly admit what you’re trying to do – that ‘execution’ is equivalent to ‘murder’.
I have no idea where you're getting this "similarity" stuff from. There is no more similarity between murder and capital punishment than there is between kidnapping and locking someone in prison, or between stealing money and paying a fine. In other words, there may be some superficial similarity, but it's purely coincidental. What makes execution fitting for some crimes is the severity, not any imagined "similarity". That's why people think different crimes can call for the death penalty (e.g. child molestation). If life imprisonment is as severe as execution, then you should feel the same about both of them, and if it isn't, then it can hardly be an acceptable substitute.
And note that to claim that "the irreversibility of the death penalty is an argument against its very existence" is also preposterous. Unless you're arguing that all legal penalties should be abolished, because they are all irreversible. How do you reverse, say, the loss of decades in prison, of family, of friends, of reputation to someone later determined to be innocent? Give him a time machine? Again, serious crimes demand serious sentences, and any serious sentence will have serious effects. Either we accept that and apply it the best we can, or we give up on a "justice" system altogether.
A lot of people think seem to find the death penalty especially fitting for murder because of the similarity.
I was simply pointing out that retributivism doesn't require any such similarity, so one would argue for the death penalty as the best retribution on some other basis.
I'm not equating execution with murder.
There is a difference between execution and imprisoning a person, even if the loss cannot fully be recompensed. Someone like Ray Krone, who was sentenced to death but then was exonerated, was able to live long enough to be exonerated, and was released from prison. There was a reversal of the injustice done to him which would not have happened if he had already been executed.
Exactly, Anonymous.
Moreover, as I have previously shown (and as VR is thus aware), *every* argument against capital punishment is *also* an argument against having any normative laws whatsoever. For, *all* laws which command, "Do this" or "Don't do that", are backed up by at least an implicit death penalty.
And, worse, when this death penalty inherent in all normative law is meted, it is out done by the body of society after careful and non-emotional deliberation of the facts, followed by a later re-evaluation of facts and arguments presented, as we intend a judicial proceding and condemnation to be conducted, but rather on-the-spot, by one or a mere few agents of the state, who are generally in highly-charged emotional state or under extreme pressure of some sort.
Innocent people die due to the enforcement, by mere human beings, of the traffic laws, and probably in greater numbers than from capital punishment -- THEREFORE, we must abolish traffic laws. The same goes for all other normative laws: the "higher" "morality" of those who know themselves to be more moral than God shows us this, that since innocent people die due to their enforcement, it is immoral even to have them.
The only laws which are "moral" -- according to the twisted moral vision which equates just execution with murder -- are those declaring National Puppie Appreciate Month and the like.
VR, there are no good arguments against capital punishment, per se -- for any argument capital punishment, per se, is also an argument against all justice.
You need to acknowledge this and "move on", as they say. You don't need to like it, but you do need to acknowledge it.
To argue against any unjust imposition of death is to at least implicitly recognize that the imposition of death is not, per se, unjust.
This is reality, and it cannot be escaped except by retreating into irrationality.
In the end, I suppose I would just say this issue should be decided by local voters. If, as a whole, they decide for where they live, they do not agree that it's just, then they can vote it away there.
Ilion
What do you mean that most laws are backed up by an implicit death penalty? How does enforcement of traffic laws lead to death? (And even if so death is not intended in these cases (doctrine of "double effect")
Here is a 2006 study on the deterrent effect of the DP
"Does capital punishment deter capital crimes? We use panel data covering the fifty states duringthe period 1960-2000 period to examine the issue. Our study is novel in four ways. First, we estimate the moratorium's full effect by using both pre- and postmoratorium evidence. Second, we exploit the moratorium as a judicial experiment to measure criminals' responsiveness to the severity of punishment; we compare murder rates immediately before and after changes in states' death penalty laws. The inference draws on the variations in the timing and duration of the moratorium across states provide a cross section of murder rate changes occurring in various time periods. Third, we supplement the before-and-after comparisons with regression analysis that disentangles the impact of the moratorium itself on murder from the effect on murder of actual executions. By using two different approaches, we avoid many of the modeling criticisms of earlier studies. Fourth, in addition to estimating 84 distinct regression models—with variations in regressors, estimation method, and functional form—our robustness checks examine the moratorium's impact on crimes that are not punishable by death. Our results indicate that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and the moratorium and executions deter murders in distinct ways. This evidence is corroborated by both the before-and-after comparisons and regression analysis. We also confirm that the moratorium and executions do not cause similar changes in non-capital crimes. The results are highly robust."
>Victor Reppert said… "I was simply pointing out that retributivism doesn't require any such similarity, so one would argue for the death penalty as the best retribution on some other basis."
OK, I apologize for misrepresenting your point. Yes, trying to argue from "similarity" that way would make no sense.
>"There was a reversal of the injustice done to him which would not have happened if he had already been executed."
But this is still wrong. The injustice wasn't reversed, merely aborted before it got worse. Spending 25 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit is better than spending 50 years in prison, but you're still not getting those 25 years back. Dying and going straight to heaven would be better still. But never executing anyone for that reason is just the flip side of executing everyone and letting God sort it out. We can never achieve perfect justice in this world, nor can we ever thwart God's ultimate justice. So we should apply prudence, not panic.
>"What do you mean that most laws are backed up by an implicit death penalty?"
I think he saw a bumper sticker that called taxes "capital" punishment and didn't get the pun. Or maybe he really believes that if you flee the country rather than paying a speeding ticket, the government will hunt you down and kill you. Hard to tell.
Ilíon: "Moreover, as I have previously shown (and as VR is thus aware), *every* argument against capital punishment is *also* an argument against having any normative laws whatsoever. For, *all* laws which command, "Do this" or "Don't do that", are backed up by at least an implicit death penalty."
Damien S: "What do you mean that most laws are backed up by an implicit death penalty? How does enforcement of traffic laws lead to death? (And even if so death is not intended in these cases (doctrine of "double effect")"
I mean exactly what I said ... and your parenthetic statement indicates to me that you do already understand the point. But, in case you don't, run this little experiment, either as a thought-experiment or in real life: refuse to pay one or more of the taxes levied upon you; say, property tax.
Assuming you "own" (in truth, all you own is the tax bill) your own home, refuse to pay the property tax levied upon it. What will be the result? Why, in short order, agents of the state, possibly armed, will be at your door, ordering you to vacate the property, as you no longer own it (as though you ever really did, in the first place).
But, what if you decline to vacate the property? What will be the result? Why, agents of the state will return -- this time armed for certain -- and demand that you vacate.
But, what if you, knowing they would be back, had in some way blocked them easy access to "your" property? What will be the result? Will they just say, "Oh, well!" and go back to the county building? Or, will they lay seige to you, as though they were an army and you some foreign enemy?
Is it really necessary to spell out all the steps here? Ultimately, either you will surrender -- and then be punished for daring to defy the state -- or the agents of the state will kill you. They may even take out any number of innocents in doing so.
Please, don't be like that Anonymouse who refuses to think
Damien S: "What do you mean that most laws are backed up by an implicit death penalty? How does enforcement of traffic laws lead to death? (And even if so death is not intended in these cases (doctrine of "double effect")"
Also, I didn't say that "death is [] intended in these cases"; I said that all normative laws are backed up by at least the implicit threat of death. The goal of this threat is not your violent death, but that to avoid the actualization of the threat, you comply with the government's dictates.
Post a Comment