Mr. Reaper
The recent execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams in California has thrown the debate over capital punishment to the fore once again. It also got me thinking about the death penalty, so I figured I'd throw some thoughts down here. Let me know if you have opinions.
First of all, it's important to note that the death penalty has been around since pretty much the beginning of human history. "Might makes right"; "Survival of the fittest"; "The strong survive".....pick your cliche. They all pretty much mean that those who run afoul of those in power will pay the ultimate price.
But in a society ruled by laws, one which is attuned to a certain set of moral guidelines, does this practice have a place? Perhaps.
The main rationale for the death penalty is deterrence - it is around this point which most debate revolves. Murder is the ultimate wrong, and if we can deter others from perpetrating that act by enacting capital punishment, then we should do that. The key phrase there is if. How real is this deterrence factor? I think it's pretty safe to say that while the evidence points to the area of little to no real deterrence value, it has not been conclusively proven (for if it had, the debate would have shifted).
John McAdams, a political scientist often cited by those pro capital punishment, said the following: "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
And this in a nutshell represents the viewpoint I've heard from those of my friends who support the death penalty. Their bottom line is: if it has even the possibility of deterrence, then it's a no brainer.
Of course, the other side disagrees pretty vehemently. As I remarked earlier, the debate here centers around deterrence, and the lack thereof. Since they claim that there is no detterence value, then we have to look at other factors.
For example, capital punishment trials and incarcerations cost an average of 30-40% more than your average 'life imprisonment' trials and incarcerations. This extra cost can go into the millions or tens of millions of dollars for states with lots of executions, and that is money that could be spent elsewhere more productively. Another argument is a moral one: that of hypocrisy. By murdering the murderers we stoop to their level, and therefore become no better than they. Oddly enough the religious wing of the country, which has been historically very pro-death penalty, has been coming out against it recently. They cite the ideals of forgiveness and redemption, and God's commandment that "vengeance is mine".
I don't know whether it's an effective detterent or not. I believe Mark Twain when it comes to statistics, and so I'm going with my gut on this one. I think that the criminal is probably more deterred by his chances of getting caught for a crime than the sentence involved, unless the differences are extreme, and then only slightly. I also find it odd that we only execute a small percentage of murderers and a high proportion of minorities, which makes me think this punishment might not be evenly applied.
And ultimately, I can't condone it, because I can't ask someone else to do what I won't.
The recent execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams in California has thrown the debate over capital punishment to the fore once again. It also got me thinking about the death penalty, so I figured I'd throw some thoughts down here. Let me know if you have opinions.
First of all, it's important to note that the death penalty has been around since pretty much the beginning of human history. "Might makes right"; "Survival of the fittest"; "The strong survive".....pick your cliche. They all pretty much mean that those who run afoul of those in power will pay the ultimate price.
But in a society ruled by laws, one which is attuned to a certain set of moral guidelines, does this practice have a place? Perhaps.
The main rationale for the death penalty is deterrence - it is around this point which most debate revolves. Murder is the ultimate wrong, and if we can deter others from perpetrating that act by enacting capital punishment, then we should do that. The key phrase there is if. How real is this deterrence factor? I think it's pretty safe to say that while the evidence points to the area of little to no real deterrence value, it has not been conclusively proven (for if it had, the debate would have shifted).
John McAdams, a political scientist often cited by those pro capital punishment, said the following: "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
And this in a nutshell represents the viewpoint I've heard from those of my friends who support the death penalty. Their bottom line is: if it has even the possibility of deterrence, then it's a no brainer.
Of course, the other side disagrees pretty vehemently. As I remarked earlier, the debate here centers around deterrence, and the lack thereof. Since they claim that there is no detterence value, then we have to look at other factors.
For example, capital punishment trials and incarcerations cost an average of 30-40% more than your average 'life imprisonment' trials and incarcerations. This extra cost can go into the millions or tens of millions of dollars for states with lots of executions, and that is money that could be spent elsewhere more productively. Another argument is a moral one: that of hypocrisy. By murdering the murderers we stoop to their level, and therefore become no better than they. Oddly enough the religious wing of the country, which has been historically very pro-death penalty, has been coming out against it recently. They cite the ideals of forgiveness and redemption, and God's commandment that "vengeance is mine".
I don't know whether it's an effective detterent or not. I believe Mark Twain when it comes to statistics, and so I'm going with my gut on this one. I think that the criminal is probably more deterred by his chances of getting caught for a crime than the sentence involved, unless the differences are extreme, and then only slightly. I also find it odd that we only execute a small percentage of murderers and a high proportion of minorities, which makes me think this punishment might not be evenly applied.
And ultimately, I can't condone it, because I can't ask someone else to do what I won't.
posted by slithytoves at 5:45 PM
2 Comments:
Kabs~
I knew I could count on you for a thoughtful discussion of this topic. NPR just hasn't cut it.
I think, though, the appropriate cliche would be "Eye for an eye," but that's nit-picking.
It does lead into topics that are even more fundamental to this discussion than deterrence: justice and a right to life. If a murderer has some legitimate right to life and we execute him, deterrence or not, it would be unjust. Implicit in McAdams's remarks is the idea that the meaningless killing of a murderer is less loathsome, in a significant way, than the killing of an innocent.
So, I think the fundamental question is this: Does taking the life of another human being, with malice aforethought, in some way dilute one's own right to exist? I tend to think that it does.
That said, I still find capital punishment problematic, not for any theoretical reason, but for its questionable application.
And are you so sure you wouldn't be able to "flip the switch"? I know we'd all like to think our unimpeachable sensibilities put it beneath us, but I doubt it. Milgram's experiments are revelatory on this.
Anyway, I would love to hear your thoughts on Syriana. I was disappointed when you couldn't come.
-Christian
Good points, all of them.
I tend to be wary in general of so called 'fundamental' rights such as the right to exist. The idea that killing someone else dilutes my own right to exist is compelling in theory, but I find it difficult to apply in practice. For example, does denying liberty to criminals by locking them in prison dilute by own right to liberty? Or does it protect it? It's kinda silly, but there are many parallels I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home