Is the death penalty immoral?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
We have to put a great big caveat in this one. Let's isolate trial vs. punishment by saying there is no doubt that the person in question is guilty due to incredibly potent scientific, photographic, and forensic evidence, and further let's say that the person confessed under circumstances such that you cannot blame aggressive police interrogation. I.e. there is no way in Hell that the person in question DIDN'T do the crime for which this penalty is being assessed.
In the case where we are absolutely talking about removing someone from society permanently AND we have no doubt about the legal correctness of the situation, then the moral question will depend on your viewpoint of penal purpose. Is jail a correctional facility or a house of punishment? (As its primary purpose.)
If jail is used for punishment, then the death penalty doesn't belong anywhere. Killing a person who would otherwise never see the light of day again relieves that person of punishment. If jail is used for retribution, then the death penalty makes sense.
Myself, I see the death penalty as a necessary but very unpleasant duty for any society that wants to control disruptive behavior from extremely active threats. If it is good for the whole of society (by analogy with cutting out cancer before it attacks other parts of the body). BUT as stated before, we must have no doubt whatsoever about it being the right person.
In the case where we are absolutely talking about removing someone from society permanently AND we have no doubt about the legal correctness of the situation, then the moral question will depend on your viewpoint of penal purpose. Is jail a correctional facility or a house of punishment? (As its primary purpose.)
If jail is used for punishment, then the death penalty doesn't belong anywhere. Killing a person who would otherwise never see the light of day again relieves that person of punishment. If jail is used for retribution, then the death penalty makes sense.
Myself, I see the death penalty as a necessary but very unpleasant duty for any society that wants to control disruptive behavior from extremely active threats. If it is good for the whole of society (by analogy with cutting out cancer before it attacks other parts of the body). BUT as stated before, we must have no doubt whatsoever about it being the right person.
I’m aware that some people may be put off by very long posts, so I’m going to break this one down into a number of smaller posts, which tackle roughly the following:
Bee 😊
The above is the aggregate of my thinking with regards to the death penalty. But since many of these are self contained topics in and of themselves, they warrant their own thread.
- Purpose of prison - discussed here: https://themindtavern.com/community/threads/purpose-of-prison.124/
- Right to live - discussed here: https://themindtavern.com/community/threads/right-to-live-right-to-life.125/
- Fallibility - see below
- Retribution - discussed here: https://themindtavern.com/community...it-have-a-place-in-a-progressive-society.126/
Bee 😊
The above is the aggregate of my thinking with regards to the death penalty. But since many of these are self contained topics in and of themselves, they warrant their own thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Fallibility
The most common argument against the death penalty is that innocent people will be killed, because of mistakes or flaws in the justice system. Execution cannot be put right. It’s permanent. The death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims. As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated
There is ample evidence that such mistakes are possible: in the USA, 130 people sentenced to death have been found innocent since 1973 and released from death row. Source: Amnesty International.
Bee - I made it clear that in considering the death penalty, you HAD to have certainty. In a sense, you might consider my post a hidden case of reductio ad absurdam since it is absolutely absurd to have certainty in most things of this world. Yet in the abstract the question still has merit. I hoped to start a conversation by isolating the parts of the question, or "dividing the question" as lawyers would say. And my assumption or requirement or however you look at it is the necessary step of separating the problems of (1) finding the truth and then (2) acting on it.
So my question perhaps should be taken as: We have found the truth of someone's guilt beyond any doubt whatsoever regarding a heinous, violent, brutal, unconscionably despicable multiple murder. What do we do next?
So my question perhaps should be taken as: We have found the truth of someone's guilt beyond any doubt whatsoever regarding a heinous, violent, brutal, unconscionably despicable multiple murder. What do we do next?
In these cases, who really pulled the trigger? Was it the person holding the gun, or was it the person who brought them up in such a manner that they went down the wrong path? If you wire someone's mind for criminality, they have essentially become damaged. But they did not damage themselves. Should we recognise that these killers are neither mad, bad or sad, but instead victims of their own circumstances, and require compassion and treatment, just like those addicted to hard drugs?
Jon, I hear you. But until we know how the brain actually works, we can't rewire damaged brains. Ideally we could fix them, but in reality today, we cannot. Therefore, your question - while perfectly valid - deals with non-extant options. I would just as soon spend my limited brainpower on things that are possible today. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but for me, that solution is too far down the road.
To be honest Doc, I am just stress-testing the ideas here. I say lock 'em up! So I throw in a counter-viewpoint, even if I actually agree with your position in the first place! By putting the ideas under stress and making them pop, you can check out how bomb-proof they are. For example, I already knew you cannot prove a negative, but I was exploring argumentation to see if it is possible to make a good case for proving the negative.
Edit: Having said all that, by arguing the opposite, I could actually see a lot of validity from that alternative viewpoint. It was kind of englightening.
Edit: Having said all that, by arguing the opposite, I could actually see a lot of validity from that alternative viewpoint. It was kind of englightening.
Hi Doc - and everyone else. Let's take your initial stance that we have proof beyond all doubt that this person is guilty. That only removes the fallibility aspect of my responses.
What we do next is lock them up. Why? See the threads on prison and restribution for the substantive element of my argument.
I have, in fact, attempted to answer the question by dividing it - just perhaps not in the way you envisioned.
What we do next is lock them up. Why? See the threads on prison and restribution for the substantive element of my argument.
I have, in fact, attempted to answer the question by dividing it - just perhaps not in the way you envisioned.
By isolating the veracity of the charges from what we do next, we then get to the question: Is there such a severe crime that we would never want a given person to EVER appear in open society again?
In other words, is a sentence of "life in prison with no chance of parole, pardon, or commutation?" a valid sentence? Can society ever actually say "We never want to see you again - ever"?
It is my contention that if it is valid to say "This person will NEVER get out of prison" then we have to consider the ultimate punishment - death - as not a punishment, but as a release from a life of living in a degraded status like an animal. Bee, you said in another post that you couldn't even contemplate being in prison. For a person to know they will NEVER get out of prison - ever - I would think is the most incredible punishment possible.
But now let's look at letting the punishment fit the crime. Is this putative "forever in prison" sentence punishment for the perpetrator to match his/her victim? The victim isn't suffering any more. The victim's loved ones are the ones who want the perp to rot in jail forever. To me, the question becomes whether the greater mercy is to put an end to the prisoner's suffering or force him/her to spend a lifetime in a useless situation.
In that case, rehabilitation becomes moot. Punishment is going on, but does life in prison actually fit that crime? Deterrence occurs whichever way you go with this case. And that leads to retribution. But it isn't retribution is a form of tit-for-tat? The victim's experience is not the source of this retribution - it comes from the loved ones who spend the rest of their lives without that loved one.
I think that in cases where the prisoner is going to spend forever in jail, die behind bars, never see family again, and other things like that, then we ought to offer the person the option. Remember, we have isolated "determination of guilt" from subsequent punishment. Tell the prisoner "We know you did it. Confess, then choose whether you want to live forever in a cage or whether you would like to end your suffering." Then honor their answer.
In other words, is a sentence of "life in prison with no chance of parole, pardon, or commutation?" a valid sentence? Can society ever actually say "We never want to see you again - ever"?
It is my contention that if it is valid to say "This person will NEVER get out of prison" then we have to consider the ultimate punishment - death - as not a punishment, but as a release from a life of living in a degraded status like an animal. Bee, you said in another post that you couldn't even contemplate being in prison. For a person to know they will NEVER get out of prison - ever - I would think is the most incredible punishment possible.
But now let's look at letting the punishment fit the crime. Is this putative "forever in prison" sentence punishment for the perpetrator to match his/her victim? The victim isn't suffering any more. The victim's loved ones are the ones who want the perp to rot in jail forever. To me, the question becomes whether the greater mercy is to put an end to the prisoner's suffering or force him/her to spend a lifetime in a useless situation.
In that case, rehabilitation becomes moot. Punishment is going on, but does life in prison actually fit that crime? Deterrence occurs whichever way you go with this case. And that leads to retribution. But it isn't retribution is a form of tit-for-tat? The victim's experience is not the source of this retribution - it comes from the loved ones who spend the rest of their lives without that loved one.
I think that in cases where the prisoner is going to spend forever in jail, die behind bars, never see family again, and other things like that, then we ought to offer the person the option. Remember, we have isolated "determination of guilt" from subsequent punishment. Tell the prisoner "We know you did it. Confess, then choose whether you want to live forever in a cage or whether you would like to end your suffering." Then honor their answer.
Again, Doc - some really good points there. You are really making me think!
In the US, it is possible to have a life without parole (LWOP) sentence. The benefits of such a sentence are many-fold:
1. The cost to house a prisoner in general population is about $90,000 dollars less per year than for a death row inmate. Now, clearly this saving diminishes over time as the prisoner gets older - I am aware of that.
2. You are right, after the thought of being executed, my next worst fear would be being incarcerated for the rest of my natural life. I'm not sure I could wrap my mind around it. Yet we say we will execute offenders because the crimes they have committed are so heinous that they've lost the right to live. If one of the the key reasons we have prisons is to punish, then why wouldn't we carry that punishment out? Is it any more cruel and unusual than to execute someone - the knowledge of which puts prisoners under extreme duress. And it's not short-lived either. Because execution is permanent, it can take decades for the appeal cycle to be completed. We all know we are going to die. We just don't know when - and it's the knowing that seems particularly cruel.
3. The victim's loved ones deserve some form of closure. Absolutely. But research indicates that in cases where the death penalty is handed out, those friends and families (not always, but often) find it so much harder to move on. There's much more uncertainty (see appeal cycle above) and until all appeals are concluded, there is no closure. However, where there is no death sentence meted out, many more families begin the grieving and healing process quicker. No punishment will ever, ever compensate for their loss, but why prolong it?
I actually agree with giving the prisoner the option of taking the blue pill. Then it is THEIR choice.
In the US, it is possible to have a life without parole (LWOP) sentence. The benefits of such a sentence are many-fold:
1. The cost to house a prisoner in general population is about $90,000 dollars less per year than for a death row inmate. Now, clearly this saving diminishes over time as the prisoner gets older - I am aware of that.
2. You are right, after the thought of being executed, my next worst fear would be being incarcerated for the rest of my natural life. I'm not sure I could wrap my mind around it. Yet we say we will execute offenders because the crimes they have committed are so heinous that they've lost the right to live. If one of the the key reasons we have prisons is to punish, then why wouldn't we carry that punishment out? Is it any more cruel and unusual than to execute someone - the knowledge of which puts prisoners under extreme duress. And it's not short-lived either. Because execution is permanent, it can take decades for the appeal cycle to be completed. We all know we are going to die. We just don't know when - and it's the knowing that seems particularly cruel.
3. The victim's loved ones deserve some form of closure. Absolutely. But research indicates that in cases where the death penalty is handed out, those friends and families (not always, but often) find it so much harder to move on. There's much more uncertainty (see appeal cycle above) and until all appeals are concluded, there is no closure. However, where there is no death sentence meted out, many more families begin the grieving and healing process quicker. No punishment will ever, ever compensate for their loss, but why prolong it?
I actually agree with giving the prisoner the option of taking the blue pill. Then it is THEIR choice.
Last edited:
Here is where you crossed a line in this discussion: The drawn-out appeals process doesn't exist in this isolated discussion because we presumed we had already unquestionably shown guilt. WHAT appeals process? I suggested that we had to isolate the question into its two parts because CLEARLY when there is doubt on a factual or procedural level you do NOT want to perform an execution. You and I are on the same page there, certainly (and that isn't even an implied question.)
So in the case where guilt is NOT an issue, is there ever a time when the death penalty is not immoral?
This might or might not muddy the waters, but if nations to go to war, then they are implicitly prejudging a death penalty for the enemy's soldiers in anticipation of THEIR soldiers performing pernicious acts against our people. Does that mean that war is inherently immoral because it applies a blanket death penalty? (For crimes anticipated but not yet committed?)
When we send our young people out to war, we train them to kill. We teach them the important rules, like the old Viking rule: "Remember, guys... it is rape THEN pillage THEN burn..." Is it any wonder that with our law-and-order society - and our religious "thou shalt not kill" society - the kids come back traumatized not only by the intensity of the war, but by the fact that they have to take a life?
If we decide that war is justified, then we have implicitly decided at the same time that at least some times, killing is justified and therefore moral. So we have already opened that door. The USA was founded by justifying that it was proper to kill the British troops on our soil. The UK felt it was justified to shoot down Luftwaffe planes during the Battle of Britain, an action that surely killed many pilots. We could go on and on, but the point is this. We already know that Mankind is comprised of killers. We're just haggling price.
So in the case where guilt is NOT an issue, is there ever a time when the death penalty is not immoral?
This might or might not muddy the waters, but if nations to go to war, then they are implicitly prejudging a death penalty for the enemy's soldiers in anticipation of THEIR soldiers performing pernicious acts against our people. Does that mean that war is inherently immoral because it applies a blanket death penalty? (For crimes anticipated but not yet committed?)
When we send our young people out to war, we train them to kill. We teach them the important rules, like the old Viking rule: "Remember, guys... it is rape THEN pillage THEN burn..." Is it any wonder that with our law-and-order society - and our religious "thou shalt not kill" society - the kids come back traumatized not only by the intensity of the war, but by the fact that they have to take a life?
If we decide that war is justified, then we have implicitly decided at the same time that at least some times, killing is justified and therefore moral. So we have already opened that door. The USA was founded by justifying that it was proper to kill the British troops on our soil. The UK felt it was justified to shoot down Luftwaffe planes during the Battle of Britain, an action that surely killed many pilots. We could go on and on, but the point is this. We already know that Mankind is comprised of killers. We're just haggling price.
Except that the drawn-out appeals process does exist. It exists today, in America, even where the burden of proof has been met. That's why there are no instant executions once the death penalty has been issued - even in circumstances where the murderer has confessed. So, I haven't ignored the premise that we have established guilt, but I have taken into account what the standard procedure is once a death sentence has been levied.
But I still come back to points made elsewhere:
1. You can't demonstrate that it's wrong to kill by killing.
2. Prisons exist so people can be punished (among other reasons)
3. If rapists aren't themselves raped as punishment (for example), why should murderers be murdered?
I need to do more thinking on the military scenario you've raised. My instinct is that the military are operating under different rules, but I'm not clear enough in my own thought process as to why that's less problematic for me than the death penalty.
But I still come back to points made elsewhere:
1. You can't demonstrate that it's wrong to kill by killing.
2. Prisons exist so people can be punished (among other reasons)
3. If rapists aren't themselves raped as punishment (for example), why should murderers be murdered?
I need to do more thinking on the military scenario you've raised. My instinct is that the military are operating under different rules, but I'm not clear enough in my own thought process as to why that's less problematic for me than the death penalty.
"1. You can't demonstrate that it's wrong to kill by killing. "
If I successfully defend myself from an armed attacker and in the process kill that attacker, I have just demonstrated that it is at least sometimes not wrong to kill, and in that case I did so by killing.
"2. Prisons exist so people can be punished (among other reasons) "
True enough, but does that mean that prison fits all crimes? That side-steps the question of whether there is ever a time when incarceration is the wrong answer and execution is the right one.
"3. If rapists aren't themselves raped as punishment (for example), why should murderers be murdered? "
First, sometimes inmates arrange for rapists to get better than they gave. Particularly if the victim was a child.
Second, sometimes rapists are given drugs that are a form of chemical castration, which is pretty serious. In 1950's England, Alan Turing was placed on such chemicals because he had been convicted of homosexuality. (Hoo, boy, how times have changed... what would Dame Edna say?") The drugs made him so sick that he took his own life. I may be wrong on this, but in Biblical times, the penalty for rape was that the rapist either married his victim or lost his family jewels - a NON-chemical castration method.
Third, since the two crimes are not always related, I wouldn't expect them to have the same penalty.
EDITED for clarity! 9/24/18 17:02 USA CDT.
If I successfully defend myself from an armed attacker and in the process kill that attacker, I have just demonstrated that it is at least sometimes not wrong to kill, and in that case I did so by killing.
"2. Prisons exist so people can be punished (among other reasons) "
True enough, but does that mean that prison fits all crimes? That side-steps the question of whether there is ever a time when incarceration is the wrong answer and execution is the right one.
"3. If rapists aren't themselves raped as punishment (for example), why should murderers be murdered? "
First, sometimes inmates arrange for rapists to get better than they gave. Particularly if the victim was a child.
Second, sometimes rapists are given drugs that are a form of chemical castration, which is pretty serious. In 1950's England, Alan Turing was placed on such chemicals because he had been convicted of homosexuality. (Hoo, boy, how times have changed... what would Dame Edna say?") The drugs made him so sick that he took his own life. I may be wrong on this, but in Biblical times, the penalty for rape was that the rapist either married his victim or lost his family jewels - a NON-chemical castration method.
Third, since the two crimes are not always related, I wouldn't expect them to have the same penalty.
EDITED for clarity! 9/24/18 17:02 USA CDT.
Last edited: