March 6, 2006
-
Socrates Cafe's latest: The Death Penalty. Good? Bad? Useful? Useless?
The Death Penalty. Good? Bad? Useful? Useless? Does it serve a purpose in today's society?
I've recently altered my personal position on this question. I used to think it was a relatively secure way of making sure the convicted didn't ever do it again even though I never did go along with the argument that it acted as a deterrent. I did however, think that it was still an acceptable way to remove really really bad guys from society.
Now, I think the days of "Off with their heads" has passed no matter how well it satisfies the desire for revenge. There is enough government-authorized death and destruction in the world today without the justice system adding to it. Add to that the uncertainty of justice and the fact that this punishment cannot be undone, to say nothing of the expense to taxpayers because of long drawn-out appeals, and you have some pretty cogent arguments against capital punishment.
I have deliberately avoided the moral question of supporting the society's right to kill. I think, given all the killing that society condones, that would seem hypocritical as I am not a pacifist. I am opposed to capital punishment strictly on practical grounds: It is too uncertain, too expensive, and is bad for the image and prestige of the State.
Is there any situation where capital punishment is, despite these objections, either useful or necessary?
Comments (21)
Linking you now.
Have fun hosting! I am going to be helping you and Eddie so that you have some support.
Which group or individual praxis is determinative for the social value to be quantified? If we avoid moral evaluations, do we justify the actions of the powerful ("Might makes right")?
Social Values are rather special in that they always have a sound Basic Value foundation. In this case the Basic Values are probably "Equal Justice under the Law", Rationality, and Equality - in this case interpreted as fairness and certainty. That's the thing about Social Values, they are always interpreted and reinterpreted as they are applied to current social problems.
To answer Eddie's question, IMHO, social values are almost always reinterpreted and applied by consensus. When members of the culture feel that the current interpretation no longer fits the problem, they begin the process of adjusting their view and use of the value system to fit the new situation. Sociologists call this "Culture Change" and it is sometimes quite traumatic. We are probably in the midst of such a change right now - with all the different groups pushing to get their interpretations agreed upon.
What arguments can be used to bolster the use of capital punishment? We have banned it nation-wide once, only to re-instate it in most States. Is this State disparity wise?
What is a consensus? Who participates in the consensus making? How do those who participate make their individual decision, purely by sentiment?
I used to believe in the death penalty, also. There were certain people that I felt should never be released to society and I thought that it was too big a risk to allow them to remain in prison. I grew up in Nebraska at the time that Charles Starkweather was making his way through my area of the state. I believe that he was the last person to die in the Nebraska electric chair and It did not make me sad when they executed him. I felt the same way when they executed Ted Bundy.
In recent years, I have come to doubt that the death penalty is ever justified. How do we make sure that people like Charles Starkweather and Ted Bundy are never released into society, though?
Can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty? Pro-choice and anti-death penalty? Should morals be more important in one debate over the other? (please don't feel obligated to go in depth in the abortion debate, I know it's a long and tiring subject.) I'm interested to see what you think.
One thing about these debates, they tend to bring out some of the debaters' hypocrisy. A good public example is the TV preacher, Pat Roberts, who calls for the assassination of some foreign leaders who he finds offensive while condemning abortion, apparently because the aborted fetuses haven't offended him yet.
Actually, arguing pro-life and pro-death penalty is, IMHO, pretty much an apple vs. orange debate. People support pro-choice and pro-life positions for deeply-held moral reasons. Death penalty proponents mostly support it for practical reasons (Protect Society from evil-doers, punish bad guys, revenge, politics, et al).
Many interesting points have been made. I look forward to reading them in more detail later this evening. In the meantime, you may be interested in my thoughts on the subject
You have brought out an interesting point. It is very hypocritical to say that killing in any form is acceptable while arguing the pro-life stance on abortion. Why is our society to numb to such contradictions?
Maybe sometime we can have a Socrates Cafe debate on Basic Values and value conflicts. these kind of conflicts arise all the time in any dynamic culture, particularly one where the Basic Values include Individualism, Freedom, and Liberty, and where the society welcomes diverse cultural groups.
How can the different intrepretations of these values be reconciled, or can they?
Suggest that the next time I call for suggestioins, please.
Hey, I'm already against it, so drawing out the process would serve no good in my mind. In the sick thing I call a mind, the process is already flawed horribly by the simple virtue that it involves the death of a human, be it quick or an eternity.
From what I understand, adding the death penalty to the menu does little (if anything) to deter severe crime over alternative punishments; it is also not cheaper than keeping a prisoner in jail for life.
I have never been an advocate of punishment for retribution and revenge; rather, I'm more of a fan of utilitarianism. Thus, since it doesn't result in a reduction of crime, it seems to be an excess evil. Plus, it seems that the criminal justice system is replete with inconsistancies and loopholes as well; best not to issue this kind of maximum punishment if we can't get the system of sentencing on even keel.
It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical as well; to so strongly stand against murder, then to advocate it on a state-wide level... "he who wrestles with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster...." etc...
Ciao. Thanks for the comments on my post, i tried to answer them over there.
I read your post right now, and i am kind of surprised to the reasons you point out to discuss about death penalty:
1) a secure way of making sure the convicted didn't ever do it again (in favor of DP)
2) remove bad guys from society (in favor of DP)
3) it satisfies the desire for revenge (in favor of DP)
4) There is enough government-authorized death and destruction (against DP)
5) uncertainty of justice and the fact that this punishment cannot be undone (against DP)
6) expense to taxpayers (against DP)
7) image and prestige of the State (against DP)
I am really amazed to notice that all of those seven argumentations (except maybe in a little part of the meaning, nuber 5) do not deal with the crime, the criminal or the victim. I mean, i hope you agree to the fact that death penalty, if it is to be given to somebody, it should be given judging the criminal for the crime he made and for the effects of that crime to the victim, isn't it?
Thanks to I-C for summing up my points so succinctly. Apparently I made them just as I intended - I was trying to focus on the philosophic problem dealing with capital punishment almost always brings to light. Judging from the responses this discussion has received, it is a question which really shows the value conflicts involved:
Justice - What is Just treatment for a crime?
Individual Rights - Under what conditions can we deprive a member of the society of the ultimate right - that of life?
Murder - Our society has this as a very strong negative value - how can we do what we've so strongly prohibited?
Social Order - How far can we go in depriving members of some rights in order to preserve social order?
Are there other value conflicts involved here?
No one has mentioned that the U. S is one of only four countries in the world that have the death penalty and the other three are middle-eastern countries. I was going to post on this subject but have been away from the computer and the discussion for the week and I'm still kind of numb from the weekend (happy but oh, so busy). I've been on the fence over the death penalty for many years - men like Ted Bundy should die for all the pain and suffering he caused against the possibility that an innocent person might be executed. I think that if that is the case - even one innocent person is executed - then it isn't right to execute anyone. I thought maybe these arguments would help me decide, though I definitely lean toward the "no death penalty" side. I am pro-choice, only because abortions, when not legal, were performed anyway, causing death or serious injury. As a legal medical procedure, abortionists can be regulated. Personally, I would never have had an abortion and I would never kill another person.
Love to everyone.
I like your writing ...it comes from the heart.
Hope you don't mind if i jump in.
I also don't buy that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, but I see it as acceptable in extremely rare and severe cases. When a person is such a threat to society that he cannot be rehabilitated and the threat that he poses cannot be contained through ordinary measures applied by the penal system (e.g. a serial killer who repeatedly escapes from prison or continues to kill behind bars), then the death penalty is in order. When I use the term "threat", I am referring specifically to an actual physical threat. (I don't want to give extra room to the extremists to come shouting "death to the infidels!")
Capital Punishment advocates generally fall into two groups, those who think it protects the society and those who see it as punishment/revenge (even though they might not use those terms.
Capital Punishment foes seem to be mostly using moral arguments (Killing is wrong and the society shouldn't practice it), or doubts about how fairly and accurately it can be applied.
In my opinion, ultimately the decision to continue or remove Capital Punishment from the justice system of a society will rest with those who make the society's governmental decisions . In the case of the US, by using the democratic legislative/political system, which in turn will be influenced by changes in our interpretation of our values. this is not a fast process and the debate has gone on for some years now, but the trend seems to be away from Capital Punishment.
The United States death penalty has not been or maybe never has been a deterrent. I think mainly because of the process it takes to put someone to death. All the automatic appeals, even if the condemed don't want them. How many death penalty case have been found to be wrong? I'm sure there is a number out there. With the forensic science we have today is it less likely someone is wrongly accused. sure there are bad cops and such, but is that the norm or the exception? I think our current death penalty is useless. I would be more inclined to support a life without parole, i've heard that even those with that penalty still can come up for parole, maybe i'm wrong, but an absolute you're out of society forever. But then find something they can do to give back to society, build something clean up something, mine something. i don't know put them to work, put them in the fields to do jobs that most americans won't do. i don't know but letting them live in a building without having to worry about food and clothes and tv and whatever seems too easy. I know it's not easy to be in prison, but some prisoners have more rights and privledges and comforts than a lot of americans that aren't convicted criminals. Just my thoughts.
Is it fine to place part of this on my personal weblog if I submit a reference point to this site?