Split Thread Why Capital punishment?

[Emily's Cat]

I have split this from

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=369667

Which is about the least inappropriate method of execution, not its rights and wrongs


This thread (or one it gets merged into) is about the rights and wrongs of capital punishment

Posted By: jimbob

Death penalty cases tend to be more expensive than life imprisonment...


Source

Source

Source

Cost is the only reason I have to oppose death penalty. And even then, it's with recognition that those costs are driven by 1) the large number of repeat appeals allowed to the condemned and 2) the ridiculous costs associated with our current inefficient and borderline inhumane methods of execution.

I have no moral opposition to executions; I have a pragmatic opposition to needless costs. Years ago I changed my policy position (not my principles) to support LWOP rather than death penalty, only because of the excessive costs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Life in prison for a capital crime is a waste of money, of course. But that is the least of my concerns. The greatest of my concerns is that life in prison for a capital crime is unjust. And that's true for me regardless of which option is cheaper.

Can you elaborate? I can't tell if you mean it's unjust because it's too harsh a sentence, or whether it's unjust for some other reason that I can't think of.

 

[theprestige]

Can you elaborate? I can't tell if you mean it's unjust because it's too harsh a sentence, or whether it's unjust for some other reason that I can't think of.

It's unjust because it violates the basic principles of justice.

Justice consists of doing what is just.

If you have defined a crime for which justice prescribes capital punishment (a capital crime), then it is just to sentence someone to death for committing a capital crime. It is unjust to sentence them to some punishment other than death.

Note there are two axioms in play here: One is that you've defined a capital crime. The other is that you agree that justice consists of doing what is just. Obviously if you don't believe in capital crimes, the above conundrum of crime and punishment is irrelevant to you. On the other hand, if you don't believe that justice consists of doing what is just, then there's probably no way for you to formulate or gainsay a coherent system of crime and punishment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's unjust because it violates the basic principles of justice.

Justice consists of doing what is just.

If you have defined a crime for which justice prescribes capital punishment (a capital crime), then it is just to sentence someone to death for committing a capital crime. It is unjust to sentence them to some punishment other than death.

Note there are two axioms in play here: One is that you've defined a capital crime. The other is that you agree that justice consists of doing what is just. Obviously if you don't believe in capital crimes, the above conundrum of crime and punishment is irrelevant to you. On the other hand, if you don't believe that justice consists of doing what is just, then there's probably no way for you to formulate or gainsay a coherent system of crime and punishment.

 

[bruto]

It's unjust because it violates the basic principles of justice.

Justice consists of doing what is just.

If you have defined a crime for which justice prescribes capital punishment (a capital crime), then it is just to sentence someone to death for committing a capital crime. It is unjust to sentence them to some punishment other than death.

Note there are two axioms in play here: One is that you've defined a capital crime. The other is that you agree that justice consists of doing what is just. Obviously if you don't believe in capital crimes, the above conundrum of crime and punishment is irrelevant to you. On the other hand, if you don't believe that justice consists of doing what is just, then there's probably no way for you to formulate or gainsay a coherent system of crime and punishment.

That seems fairly reasonable, but the definition of a capital crime is arbitrary and certainly subject to change, and one of those changes could well be one based on Emily's criteria, that what have so far been capital crimes are more efficiently and cheaply dealt with by LWOP. It might even end up that more just verdicts are reached, as the reluctance of some to impose that final drastic penalty would not be germane.

The other problem with the simple view of what is and is not justice occurs when we consider the small but real number of wrongful convictions that occur. One can argue on and on about what is or is not an acceptable rate of error, and you may well argue that there is some benefit to execution that outweighs the occasional error, but it is dead certain that executing an innocent person is not just.

By the way, I might be reading it wrong, but do you mean "gainsay" here? I would have thought you meant the opposite.

 

[Ziggurat]

what have so far been capital crimes are more efficiently and cheaply dealt with by LWOP.

Saving money isn't justice. We can deal with crime more cheaply by doing nothing, but saving money isn't the goal of the criminal justice system.

There are two basic arguments against the death penalty that you can make on the basis of justice, and neither of them has to do with cost. The first is the argument that no crime deserves the death penalty. This is an axiomatic claim (but then, so is the claim that there are crimes which deserve the death penalty), for the most part you either agree or don't. If one believes that no crime deserves the death penalty, then there should be no capital crimes at all. The existence of the category presumes that some crimes deserve death.

The second argument is that the system is error prone, and an incorrect execution is of such a greater injustice than a lesser penalty for someone who deserves death that we must err on the side of lesser penalties to avoid an unjustified execution. You make mention of this, but again, cost isn't relevant to this argument

The argument on the basis of cost has nothing to do with justice, and in fact subverts justice for the sake of expediency.

 

[theprestige]

That seems fairly reasonable, but the definition of a capital crime is arbitrary and certainly subject to change, and one of those changes could well be one based on Emily's criteria,

Agreed, but also irrelevant to any argument following from the premise that capital crimes have already been defined.

that what have so far been capital crimes are more efficiently and cheaply dealt with by LWOP.

Justice consists of doing what is just, not what is cheap and easy.

It might even end up that more just verdicts are reached, as the reluctance of some to impose that final drastic penalty would not be germane.

It is never just to sentence someone to life in prison for a capital crime.

The other problem with the simple view of what is and is not justice occurs when we consider the small but real number of wrongful convictions that occur. One can argue on and on about what is or is not an acceptable rate of error, and you may well argue that there is some benefit to execution that outweighs the occasional error, but it is dead certain that executing an innocent person is not just.

It is not dead certain for me, but I will leave this question for another thread, along with any further digressions on alternatives to execution for capital crimes.

By the way, I might be reading it wrong, but do you mean "gainsay" here? I would have thought you meant the opposite.

"Formulate" is the opposite. I'm saying that if you don't believe justice consists of doing what is just, you probably can't formulate a coherent justice system, and you probably can't argue against a coherent justice system. In both cases, because you don't have a coherent idea of what justice is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Saving money isn't justice. We can deal with crime more cheaply by doing nothing, but saving money isn't the goal of the criminal justice system.

There are two basic arguments against the death penalty that you can make on the basis of justice, and neither of them has to do with cost. The first is the argument that no crime deserves the death penalty. This is an axiomatic claim (but then, so is the claim that there are crimes which deserve the death penalty), for the most part you either agree or don't. If one believes that no crime deserves the death penalty, then there should be no capital crimes at all. The existence of the category presumes that some crimes deserve death.

The second argument is that the system is error prone, and an incorrect execution is of such a greater injustice than a lesser penalty for someone who deserves death that we must err on the side of lesser penalties to avoid an unjustified execution. You make mention of this, but again, cost isn't relevant to this argument

The argument on the basis of cost has nothing to do with justice, and in fact subverts justice for the sake of expediency.

I fall on the side of the first argument - some crimes are bad enough that the person has effectively lost the right to continue existence within our society.
I'm willing to accept LWOP as an alternative to death on the basis of financial pragmatism. Cost doesn't drive my principles, but it can be a factor in application.

Atlantic Char is the absolute best fish on the planet. I'm willing to accept trout as a meal because it's moderately close to char in flavor, but is less expensive.

 

[theprestige]

I fall on the side of the first argument - some crimes are bad enough that the person has effectively lost the right to continue existence within our society.
I'm willing to accept LWOP as an alternative to death on the basis of financial pragmatism. Cost doesn't drive my principles, but it can be a factor in application.

Atlantic Char is the absolute best fish on the planet. I'm willing to accept trout as a meal because it's moderately close to char in flavor, but is less expensive. ; )

In what way is a preference in seafood analogous to a moral principle of crime and punishment? Why on earth would convenience ever be a factor in deciding whether to do what you believe is wrong?

 

[Emily's Cat]

In what way is a preference in seafood analogous to a moral principle of crime and punishment?

Seafood isn't analogous. But the relationship between the true principle and an acceptable alternative is.

Why on earth would convenience ever be a factor in deciding whether to do what you believe is wrong?

Well, probably because unlike you I don't believe that life imprisonment is unjust. Perhaps it's a terminological technicality. Generally speaking, in states that don't have capital punishment, there are no capital crimes. There are crimes that merit a prison sentence of life; some of those crimes allow a potential consideration for future parole if there's reason to believe that the inmate has truly reformed. For the rest it's life without parole.

Look, I don't have an ethical preference between permanent imprisonment and execution. My objective is to remove from society those few people whose transgressions are beyond the capacity for forgiveness or tolerance. They've done things so horrifying and bad that they've forfeited their right to live among us. Once they're removed from society, my ethical position is satisfied. At that point, it becomes an issue of pragmatism for me.

I don't have a principled position wherein I say "some people deserve death". My position is "some people have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to live among civilized people".

In order to remove those few people from society, some action must be taken by the state. I don't have any particular ethical stake in what that action is. At that point my position is pretty much "don't be cruel" and "don't spend more than is needed".

 

[bruto]

Agreed, but also irrelevant to any argument following from the premise that capital crimes have already been defined.


Justice consists of doing what is just, not what is cheap and easy.


It is never just to sentence someone to life in prison for a capital crime.


It is not dead certain for me, but I will leave this question for another thread, along with any further digressions on alternatives to execution for capital crimes.


"Formulate" is the opposite. I'm saying that if you don't believe justice consists of doing what is just, you probably can't formulate a coherent justice system, and you probably can't argue against a coherent justice system. In both cases, because you don't have a coherent idea of what justice is.

I do not think "cheap and easy" should be the principal components of our idea of what is just, but that does not mean they are irrelevant. If we are interested, not in either rehabilitation or repentance, the point of any justice for what we now call a capital crime is largely to make sure the person in question never has a chance to rejoin society and do it again. If one remedy is more expensive, cumbersome, unreliable, and controversial than another, it seems reasonable to consider those factors.

If you have decided a crime is capital, then capital it must be as long as that definition holds, but I still say that this can be modified, and there is no overall natural law that requires some categorization of crimes.

WRT "gainsay," my misreading, then.

Anyway, I do think this is all a bit of a digression, since this thread was not intended to be about whether capital crimes should be so defined, or whether execution itself should be justified. Back to the main subject, I think it's a lot simpler than some people make out, if you recognize that you cannot kill someone without a level of cruelty and unusual-ness (is that a word?), and just try to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible and stop trying to add a veneer of dignity to something which cannot be anything but what it is.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It's unjust because it violates the basic principles of justice.

Justice consists of doing what is just.

If you have defined a crime for which justice prescribes capital punishment (a capital crime), then it is just to sentence someone to death for committing a capital crime. It is unjust to sentence them to some punishment other than death.

Note there are two axioms in play here: One is that you've defined a capital crime. The other is that you agree that justice consists of doing what is just. Obviously if you don't believe in capital crimes, the above conundrum of crime and punishment is irrelevant to you. On the other hand, if you don't believe that justice consists of doing what is just, then there's probably no way for you to formulate or gainsay a coherent system of crime and punishment.

The punishment for a capital crime includes all available punishments for the lesser included crimes as well.

It’s not like we just let a cop killer go free if he convinces the jury that he thought the cop was just an innocent bystander.

There is nothin unjust about someone be sentenced for less than the maximum punishment available.

What is unjust is that non death row inmates get far less assistance with appeals.

 

[bruto]

The punishment for a capital crime includes all available punishments for the lesser included crimes as well.

It’s not like we just let a cop killer go free if he convinces the jury that he thought the cop was just an innocent bystander.

There is nothing unjust about someone be sentenced for less than the maximum punishment available.

What is unjust is that non death row inmates get far less assistance with appeals.

I think there's a lot to argue about on this whole subject, including what appears to be the notion that you can spin a wrongful conviction to be right, but I think theprestige has a point that this is best saved for some other thread, since even though execution is a fraught subject, this thread is sort of based on the stipulation that execution will occur, and at least originated as a discussion on the how more than the whether.

 

[bruto]

I think this subject has been done pretty much already, but I'll throw in my take.

I'm generally against capital punishment, even though at a certain emotional level I can understand and share the desire just to kill certain people who can be reasonably said to deserve it. This is, though, basically a personal point of view regarding whether it's right to kill anyone, and as such I think it's essentially not a point on which argument is fruitful.

But in addition the imperfection of the system and the ambivalence society holds for it make it physically and morally too expensive, I think. While cost should not be the sole factor, society always has to reckon the cost of things when deciding what to do. The ideal of a just society includes more than just what we do with our criminals. Our politicians argue incessantly about the cost of doing the right thing. We cut taxes, labor protection, environmental protection, welfare, food stamps, education funds, everything from health care to road salt, on the basis of their immediate cost, often at the expense of the future. I find it hard to take seriously the argument of any social conservative that expense should not be a factor in this little corner of justice, when other issues of our society are so pervasively tied to their pocketbooks.

Aside from that, though one can argue about whether there is a systemic racial bias in the justice system, and one can, no doubt, argue about acceptable collateral damage when it comes to wrongful conviction and sentencing, I think the moral cost is too high. The alternative to wrongful execution is not, after all, to let them all go free. We will always make mistakes, but acknowledging that seems a poor argument against possible ways to mitigate their fatal consequences.

In addition, I think the argument of deterrence is weak. I think there is a deterrent effect of conviction and punishment up to a point, but there seems to be little evidence that the sort of person who would be deterred from a crime is more deterred by the prospect of execution than they would be by long and harsh imprisonment.

Justice is a complicated subject, and perfection is not possible anywhere, but I think we can apply some inductive approach to it. Aside from moral dudgeon and the hurt feelings of those who crave a certain standard of justice, what are the overall effects on a society? Are places where capital punishment is rife safer, happier, better in any quantifiable way, than those where it has been eliminated?

Even if we set aside issues of cost and fallibility, I think we end up with the fact that execution and the system surrounding it is not just about the individual decision about what to do about individual cases, but a thing a society itself does and is, and as such it comes down to whether you believe it makes the whole social organism better or worse.

 

[RolandRat]

Justice consists of doing what is just, not what is cheap and easy.

I agree. The issue is what is considered to be just. Some people view an eye for an eye as just. Others may consider a rehabilitated person to be just.

 

[theprestige]

Waiting until sentencing to determine of a capital crime has been committed is fine with me, and doesn't change my opinion about the correctness and completeness of my argument.

Now, if a judge or jury believed a capital crime had been committed, but imposed a lighter sentence to save money, that would be unprincipled and unjust.

 

[Thermal]

Cutting to the chase: I'm pretty much against capital punishment, mostly on the grounds that getting the conviction wrong is heinously irreversible,and simply not an option. But for those pure psychos who are irredeemable and unrepentant, life in a cage with three hots and a cot makes no sense either. They are basically being sentenced to death, just with a longer waiting period, and it would likely come with the pain of succumbing to old age anyway.

Regarding the cost, it's artificially inflated. Multiple appeals processes are unnecessary. They have been given the ultimate sentence; they get one appeal to the highest authority. None but the indisputable slam dunks qualify for the hangman. None of these gas station robberies gone wrong with sketchy witnesses and conflicting evidence. The condemned is swinging from a rope in short order, like within the month.

But again, only for exceptionally vile criminals, where there is no reasonable doubt. Take Saddam Hussein as an example. That's the model we could adopt, IMO.

 

[Olmstead]

Cutting to the chase: I'm pretty much against capital punishment, mostly on the grounds that getting the conviction wrong is heinously irreversible,and simply not an option. But for those pure psychos who are irredeemable and unrepentant, life in a cage with three hots and a cot makes no sense either. They are basically being sentenced to death, just with a longer waiting period, and it would likely come with the pain of succumbing to old age anyway.

Regarding the cost, it's artificially inflated. Multiple appeals processes are unnecessary. They have been given the ultimate sentence; they get one appeal to the highest authority. None but the indisputable slam dunks qualify for the hangman. None of these gas station robberies gone wrong with sketchy witnesses and conflicting evidence. The condemned is swinging from a rope in short order, like within the month.

But again, only for exceptionally vile criminals, where there is no reasonable doubt. Take Saddam Hussein as an example. That's the model we could adopt, IMO.

You're bemoaning the irreversibility of the punishment in one breath, then arguing to neuter the appeals process in the next.

 

[ahhell]

I'm sure I've said it before but:
I don't oppose the death penalty. There are some folks that just can't be let out into society and its probably more humane than life in prison.

That being said, we get it wrong to often and sentence folks to death for crimes the didn't commit. We probably also kill people for crimes they did not commit.

Also, its very expensive but thats a very low concern relative to killing people.

I would agree with thermal but absolute certainty is just not a realistic goal.

 

[Thermal]

You're bemoaning the irreversibility of the punishment in one breath, then arguing to neuter the appeals process in the next.

Not neuter. Streamline. Too many capital cases arrive at an execution verdict on sketchy evidence. One overriding independent review is all that is needed, to determine if there is any doubt about the verdict left. Much like what we have now, without the lower processes redundantly sucking up resources and throwing money away left and right.