Is the death penalty moral/ethical?

[Ender]

Born out of a thread in N&P, I think this is a major issue that I can't recall being covered here in some time. So for this thread, put forth your arguments for or against the death penalty as appropriate punishment.

For the sake of clarity and keeping this on topic, assume an ideal situation - that the legal proceedings leading up to the sentencing have been impeccable, that the defendant is guilty with no mitigating circumstances. Hopefully this will prevent a side track into a discussions about bias in the criminal justice system.

And on a personal note, I reserve the right to lift ideas from this thread when my philosophy class discusses it in a few weeks.

[Dominus Atheos]

Born out of a thread in N&P, I think this is a major issue that I can't recall being covered here in some time. So for this thread, put forth your arguments for or against the death penalty as appropriate punishment.

For the sake of clarity and keeping this on topic, assume an ideal situation - that the legal proceedings leading up to the sentencing have been impeccable, that the defendant is guilty with no mitigating circumstances.

What was the person's crime? Are we absolutely certain that the person is beyond rehabilitation? You say there's no question of his guilt, and by "no mitigating circumstances" I assume you mean it wasn't a crime of passion, and there's reason to believe if he gets out, he might commit more crimes, right? Has he escaped from prison before, or do we have a good reason to believe it would be very hard to keep him locked up?

[Ender]

Born out of a thread in N&P, I think this is a major issue that I can't recall being covered here in some time. So for this thread, put forth your arguments for or against the death penalty as appropriate punishment.

For the sake of clarity and keeping this on topic, assume an ideal situation - that the legal proceedings leading up to the sentencing have been impeccable, that the defendant is guilty with no mitigating circumstances.

What was the person's crime? Are we absolutely certain that the person is beyond rehabilitation? You say there's no question of his guilt, and by "no mitigating circumstances" I assume you mean it wasn't a crime of passion, and there's reason to believe if he gets out, he might commit more crimes, right? Has he escaped from prison before, or do we have a good reason to believe it would be very hard to keep him locked up?

Hrm, I was trying to set up a scenario for discussing whether the death penalty in and of itself was moral/ethical, not comparing it relative to other options, but thinking some more I'm not sure how I can do that. Unfortunately I'm currently running late, so I'll have to think about this some more. If anyone else has some thoughts on the scenario and want to throw them in to kick of discussion wile I'm out, I'd appreciate it.

[Serafina]

One of my problems with death penaltys:
You are supposed to PUNISH the criminal. The death penalty, however, offers a "cheap way out".
No matter how much wrong you have done, no suffering for you.

Of course, this may be read in such a way that i would like to see cruel punishments.
This is not the case.

I rather think that someone who is locked away in a cell for all his life is more punished than someone who is mudered (yes, i consider the death penalty a murder - it is underhanded and has a low moral motive - revenge).
This criminal actually has to LIFE with his deeds.

Only in cases where there is no chance at all that the criminal will ever regret his deeds, the death penalty may be justified. However, we can NOT know if this will ever happen - or can YOU see the future? I dont think so.

Therefore, i am in favor of forbidding the death penalty for all crimes (luckily, i live in Germany and we have no death penalty).

[Alyrium Denryle]

The death penalty is not moral because it does not maximize utility. A crime has already been committed, and the victim's family suffers for it. However killing he perpetrator does not fix this travesty, nor does it really bring any measurable amount of peace to the family of victims. All it does is create more victims, namely the families of the perpetrator who now suffer the loss, and the perpetrator himself who suffers and dies on death row.

The purpose of a criminal justice system should be primarily to protect society and to attempt to eek some good out of a bad situation. (again, maximization of utility). The death penalty does not do this and hence is immoral.

(bear in mind I dont think our current prison system is moral either...)

[Kanastrous]

Commission of a capital crime with special circumstances means that you forfeit the right to be housed, clothed, fed and medically maintained at public expense, as well as the right to move freely within society. Since you can't be left free as a matter of public safety, since it is impossible to absolutely guarantee that you will not escape confinement and perpetrate another crime, and since it's obscene to demand that public funds be expended upon maintaining you, it's entirely proper that you be put down. Preferably quickly and painlessly, not for your sake but for the sakes of the society and executioners charged with the task.

Seems to me that there's utility in conserving the resources necessary to maintain a criminal in prison, too.

[Graeme Dice]

The death penalty is inherently unethical because it entails the killing of a person when that person is of no threat to anyone else. There is no need to kill somebody to ensure that society remains safe from them, so their right to life remains.

[Kanastrous]

The death penalty is inherently unethical because it entails the killing of a person when that person is of no threat to anyone else. There is no need to kill somebody to ensure that society remains safe from them, so their right to life remains.

What makes you believe that the sort of person typically subjected to the death penalty - a murderer - is "no threat to anyone else?"

[Samuel]

The death penalty is inherently unethical because it entails the killing of a person when that person is of no threat to anyone else. There is no need to kill somebody to ensure that society remains safe from them, so their right to life remains.

Rights are not inherent. If they violated the social contract that severely, they forfeit their rights. It is why Alysium is using utility.

since it is impossible to absolutely guarantee that you will not escape confinement and perpetrate another crime

Actually, we could, but the methodology (solitary and never leaving the cell) to do so is considered cruel and inhumane.

[Graeme Dice]

What makes you believe that the sort of person typically subjected to the death penalty - a murderer - is "no threat to anyone else?"

A properly operated prison system can do just that. Note that nearly all prisons are operated in a retributive manner that is essentially guaranteed to not accomplish this.

[Graeme Dice]

Rights are not inherent. If they violated the social contract that severely, they forfeit their rights. It is why Alysium is using utility.

Unforfeitable rights are a good proxy for maximizing utility. They also avoid having to make the argument that reasonably avoidable killings can be moral.

Actually, we could, but the methodology (solitary and never leaving the cell) to do so is considered cruel and inhumane.

Escapes that result in further crimes are also rather rare, even with our dysfunctional prison system.

[Kanastrous]

A properly operated prison system can do just that. Note that nearly all prisons are operated in a retributive manner that is essentially guaranteed to not accomplish this.

I think you are describing some idealized prison system that has never existed, and whose existence in the future is open to doubt. Even in the old 1800s individual-cell-type prisons, with far greater control over the prison population inmates managed to injure and kill one another.

If you are positing escape-proof prisons, and prisons in which guards maintain absolute control over prisoners at all times, you ought to demonstrate that such a prison has ever been successfully maintained.

Escapes that result in further crimes are also rather rare, even with our dysfunctional prison system.

I doubt that their rarity is much comfort to the victims involved. And the interests of those victims outweigh any conceivable interests of the perpetrators.

[ray245]

One of my problems with death penaltys:
You are supposed to PUNISH the criminal. The death penalty, however, offers a "cheap way out".
No matter how much wrong you have done, no suffering for you.

Of course, this may be read in such a way that i would like to see cruel punishments.
This is not the case.

I rather think that someone who is locked away in a cell for all his life is more punished than someone who is mudered (yes, i consider the death penalty a murder - it is underhanded and has a low moral motive - revenge).
This criminal actually has to LIFE with his deeds.

Only in cases where there is no chance at all that the criminal will ever regret his deeds, the death penalty may be justified. However, we can NOT know if this will ever happen - or can YOU see the future? I dont think so.

Therefore, i am in favor of forbidding the death penalty for all crimes (luckily, i live in Germany and we have no death penalty).

We don't have to view it as a punishment you know. We already know that things like food, shelter and water cannot be distributed fairly.

In a prison system, the nation is obliged to support such a person by providing him with all those basic needs. Why should the people use those resources on a murderer?

If a Murderer warrant a life sentence without parole for the rest of his entire life, he cannot contribute anything back to society in any way. Given that he is a threat to public safety, and can't be trusted to allow him to run freely again, what is the point of keeping all those resources from those who might need it more, and deserve it more?

People who is stuck in the poverty cycle, and did not commit any crime that warrant a life imprisonment or a death sentence. People that we believe can learn from their mistakes and contribute back to society.

Even if a perfect prison system exist, resources can be redistributed to other areas of society, instead of keeping a person who committed acts of murder alive for instance.

[Dominus Atheos]

Commission of a capital crime with special circumstances means that you forfeit the right to be housed, clothed, fed and medically maintained at public expense, as well as the right to move freely within society. Since you can't be left free as a matter of public safety, since it is impossible to absolutely guarantee that you will not escape confinement and perpetrate another crime, and since it's obscene to demand that public funds be expended upon maintaining you, it's entirely proper that you be put down. Preferably quickly and painlessly, not for your sake but for the sakes of the society and executioners charged with the task.

Seems to me that there's utility in conserving the resources necessary to maintain a criminal in prison, too.

Except as Alyrium pointed out, the person being executed isn't the only one being affected by this. The family of the person also needs to be taken into consideration. The parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles/aunts, cousins, etc who would all suffer if their family member was killed. Since they all pay taxes, there really shouldn't be any question of resource conservation either.

[Graeme Dice]

If you are positing escape-proof prisons, and prisons in which guards maintain absolute control over prisoners at all times, you ought to demonstrate that such a prison has ever been successfully maintained.

You ought to demonstrate that such a prison is unlikely, since you are the one who is basing a fundamental part of your argument on the idea that prisoners will routinely escape prison. The current prison system might as well be intentionally designed to be as inhumane and out of control as possible.

I doubt that their rarity is much comfort to the victims involved. And the interests of those victims outweigh any conceivable interests of the perpetrators.

Their rarity should be a comfort, because any person who worries about events that are so rare as to be unlikely to happen in ones lifetime is not acting in a rational matter. To make up a probability on the spot, no person should rationally be worried about the one in ten million chance that the one individual prisoner who victimized them will escape and not be recaptured before committing any further crimes. People on parole often commit further crimes, but this is a different case than people who remained prisoners for life.

[Kanastrous]

If you are positing escape-proof prisons, and prisons in which guards maintain absolute control over prisoners at all times, you ought to demonstrate that such a prison has ever been successfully maintained.

You ought to demonstrate that such a prison is unlikely, since you are the one who is basing a fundamental part of your argument on the idea that prisoners will routinely escape prison. The current prison system might as well be intentionally designed to be as inhumane and out of control as possible.

Do I need to provide linkage to stories covering prison escapes? I should have thought that we can all agree that they do occur, and that escapees do sometimes kill again while they're out.

Prisoner escapes don't need to be 'routine' to be problematic. Why should the general public accept the threat to collective safety posed by even rare escapes?

As for demonstrating unlikeliness, *you* are offering an argument that requires the existence of reliably escape-proof prisons. So I think it's up to *you*, to demonstrate with historical examples that such a system is possible.

I doubt that their rarity is much comfort to the victims involved. And the interests of those victims outweigh any conceivable interests of the perpetrators.

Their rarity should be a comfort, because any person who worries about events that are so rare as to be unlikely to happen in ones lifetime is not acting in a rational matter.

I think you missed the point, which is that for the VICTIMS of criminals who escape prison, the incidence is 100%, because it's those victims who suffer as a result of the escape, which is a result of permitting the criminal to live rather than executing him, which would permanently and irrevocably end his ability to harm anyone else. Seems to me that you're essentially making the same argument as the manufacturer of a product with known fatal flaws that will only rarely manifest: why eliminate the danger? It's a small danger since catastrophic effects will be rare, so everyone should just accept the risk and be rational. A good example being the folks on that 747 that exploded thanks to a known, uncorrected, rarely-will-be-a-problem design flaw; I'm sure that they were rational all the way down to impact with the surface of the Atlantic Ocean...

To make up a probability on the spot, no person should rationally be worried about the one in ten million chance that the one individual prisoner who victimized them will escape and not be recaptured before committing any further crimes.

Why accept even a 1/10,000,000 chance of losing an innocent life, when the odds can be reduced to 0% by the simple expedient of executing a felon guilty of a heinous crime? Again, on the day that the odds line up, that victim will be 100% victimized, and all this business about rationality won't be worth a hill 'o beans.

[Graeme Dice]

Do I need to provide linkage to stories covering prison escapes? I should have thought that we can all agree that they do occur, and that escapees do sometimes kill again while they're out.

Do you have any stories about escapees that kill again while escaped? Multiple murderers are vanishingly rare, so multiple murderers who kill while escaped from prison must be even more so.

Prisoner escapes don't need to be 'routine' to be problematic. Why should the general public accept the threat to collective safety posed by even rare escapes?

The general public routinely accepts threats to collective safety that are fare more common than prison escapees. Further, most escapees are not people who would be candidates for the death penalty. The statistics I link to later in this post illustrate that most escapees are not murderers.

As for demonstrating unlikeliness, *you* are offering an argument that requires the existence of reliably escape-proof prisons. So I think it's up to *you*, to demonstrate with historical examples that such a system is possible.

Prison escapes are really, really, rare. As the article illustrates, most are from people who are aren't even locked up. One person escaped from federal prison in 1999.

I think you missed the point, which is that for the VICTIMS of criminals who escape prison, the incidence is 100%, because it's those victims who suffer as a result of the escape, which is a result of permitting the criminal to live rather than executing him, which would permanently and irrevocably end his ability to harm anyone else. Seems to me that you're essentially making the same argument as the manufacturer of a product with known fatal flaws that will only rarely manifest: why eliminate the danger?

A small enough danger can indeed not factor into calculations. I don't worry about the chance that my body will spontaneously quantum teleport into the sun because the probability of it happening is so small that it would take many times the current lifetime of the universe for it to be likely to happen. I don't worry about this, and neither should anyone else even though it would be a 100% fatal event.

It's a small danger since catastrophic effects will be rare, so everyone should just accept the risk and be rational. A good example being the folks on that 747 that exploded thanks to a known, uncorrected, rarely-will-be-a-problem design flaw; I'm sure that they were rational all the way down to impact with the surface of the Atlantic Ocean...

That's an example of improperly performed risk analysis, not an indictment of a properly performed analysis. Further, if the utility gained by not correcting the flaw exceeds the lost utility in the accident, then it still was likely the correct decision. Note that this is a difficult calculation to make because human lives have a great deal of ethical utility.

Why accept even a 1/10,000,000 chance of losing an innocent life, when the odds can be reduced to 0% by the simple expedient of executing a felon guilty of a heinous crime? Again, on the day that the odds line up, that victim will be 100% victimized, and all this business about rationality won't be worth a hill 'o beans.

Your argument applies equally well to worries about toxic fume releases from industrial plants. On the day when all the odds line up, the victims will be 100% dead, and all this business about rationality won't be worth a hill 'o beans.

[Broomstick]

If a Murderer warrant a life sentence without parole for the rest of his entire life, he cannot contribute anything back to society in any way.

Untrue.

I refer you to the case of Nathan Freudenthal Leopold, Jr., part of a notorious murder case from the early 20th Century known as "Leopold and Loeb". Mr. Leopold was sentenced to life without parole for the first degree murder of one Bobby Franks.

Throughout his imprisonment Mr. Leopold taught classes to other inmates that increased their chances of obtaining legal employment after release. In 1944 he volunteered to be infected with malaria as part of medical research in the treatment of malaria. In return for his good conduct and both his educational efforts and willingness to participate in medical research his sentence was commuted to life parole in 1958. After release, he worked as a lab and x-ray technician at a hospital in Puerto Rico. Upon his death in 1971 he donated his organs (something not possible with our current methods of execution).

So I would submit that while it is rare it is certainly possible for a post-conviction murderer to make positive contributions to society, at least under the US system.

[Oskuro]

My personal view on this is that taking a human life is always immoral, no matter the circumstances. Taking a human life should be discussed more on the grounds of practicality, rather than those of morality, that is, discussing when there's no better choice but to take a life, rather than if it is morally right to do so.

Furthermore, the Death Penalty could be seen as the failure of the Justice system, the last resort when everything else has failed, pretty much like surgery is the failure of medicine to prevent the intervention.

To restate the point, let's not confuse necessity with morality.

[Broomstick]

Oh, wait - my position on this.

Under my ethical system (which may or may not be your ethical system) the only justification for killing a human being is self-defense. If a murderer can be contained and rendered harmless (presumably by imprisonment) then there is no justification for killing him. If, however, he can not be contained, or escapes, then for the defense of others in society shooting to kill is justified if there is no other practical means to recapture or restrain him before he harms someone else.

[Singular Intellect]

I'd argue that executing a dangerous human is just as moral and ethical as executing a dangerous non human animal. If a dog viciously attacks a child, it seems acceptable to most people that putting it down ensures it won't happen again. But if a much more intelligent and accountable animal labelled "human" assaults a child (and easily in far more traumatizing ways), he/she instead gets free housing, food, medical attention, etc. Oh yeah, and has mobility restricted while everyone else pays the bill.

Quite frankly, I tire of the notion that highly dangerous individuals, having been found irrefuteably guilty of crimes against humanity, get a free pass for shelter, food, medical attention and even luxuries the rest of us have to bust our asses to earn.

I'm all for practical rehabilitation and giving second chances to people. But your multiple murders/rapes/assorted psycho criminals...just kill them and be done with it.

I have yet to hear a good reason why human life is so precious that we feel the need to keep worthless persons alive in conditions many unfortunate innocents would strive to obtain.

[Knife]

lol, without digressing. Bubble boy got my intent.

We put down 'intelligent' animals all the the time. Social predators need to be dealt with, all the bitching aside.

[NomAnor15]

One aspect which I have not seen addressed so far is this; the drain on society of keeping someone in prison for life. The cost of keeping someone in prison is on the order of several tens of thousands of dollars per year. Why should we, the taxpayers, pay that much to keep someone alive who has committed such a heinous crime? This is especially true in the case of people who will never be rehabilitated or reintegrated into society (such as Jeffery Dahmer). I realize of course that this argument comes across as very cold and heartless, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[Kanastrous]

One frequent response is that the expense of multiple appeals, etc, plus death row incarceration, plus the expense of execution itself, can be as onerous as that of life imprisonment.

[NomAnor15]

One frequent response is that the expense of multiple appeals, etc, plus death row incarceration, plus the expense of execution itself, can be as onerous as that of life imprisonment.

Interesting. Is it possible we could simply cap the appeals at a certain number, and forgo death row incarceration? There would still have to be some of each, clearly, but I don't see why we couldn't keep those to a bare minimum.