Is the death penalty moral/ethical?

[Singular Intellect]

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.

Only when the system is designed to try harder for someone sentenced to death rather than jail time. So much for equal justice efforts.

[Akkleptos]

This has been done before, albeit it's true that the original focus on that thread was whether "an eye for an eye" punishment was fair.

At the risk of being flamed to a crisp, I'd rather quote myself than rewording arguments already posted.

For me it's not about moral issues as it is about practical ones. This man has proven to be a real danger to others? He has to be isolated to protect the people. Too expensive for the people to provide room and board to an obvious menace to society? Terminate him. What about his human rights, yadda yadda? Too -fucking- bad. He REALLY should have thought of that before <snip: irrelevant>.

I think this is relevant here given the OP: Is the death penalty moral/ethical? Regardless of how ethical or moral towards the criminal, we really shouldn't lose sight of what's moral and ethical for society, as a whole.

Now, for those who totally oppose the death penalty for whatever grounds, as well as those who think a vicious criminal shouldn't get free room and board, health care, etc., how about having him work forced labour, so that society could at least get something useful in return. That way, there is no death penalty, but life in prison wouldn't just mean a shitty vacation for murderers, rapists, et al.

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).

Yeah, something like that.

Besides, the recomendation of the Ludovico Technique applies to this situation as well.

[Samuel]

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.

Which is why many of us support a surveliance society.

Now, for those who totally oppose the death penalty for whatever grounds, as well as those who think a vicious criminal shouldn't get free room and board, health care, etc., how about having him work forced labour, so that society could at least get something useful in return. That way, there is no death penalty, but life in prison wouldn't just mean a shitty vacation for murderers, rapists, et al.

I prefer the Jig-saw Man method myself, if only because it is horrific enough to serve as a deterant.

[Knife]

One aspect which I have not seen addressed so far is this; the drain on society of keeping someone in prison for life.

Balanced by the notion of a societal predator being kept away from society?

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.

This part I agree with. If a human life can be ascribed a 'worth' than by definition that worth can be compared to other worth's.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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 they are rather shitty as a proxy for utility. They are useful for a legal system which cannot by its nature hand-wring over every moral choice (which is part of the reason something can be legal and immoral, and moral and not legal). But when determining whether the action itself is moral or immoral they do not work as a proxy.

Also, I am, using utility because Rights Theory has too many gaping wounds in its logic to be tenable.

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.

I will grant you the last part, but how do you justify the other postulates? It relies upon rights theory, which you will have a very hard time defending...

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

The rest of your arguments rest upon your first premise which I challenge you to justify.

Also: the cost to society of maintaining the criminal is probably not sufficiently high to justify the harm done to them and their families from the standpoint of a utilitarian ethical system. Argument from marginal utility. It costs a few thousands of dollars (the max I think I have ever seen was 30k) per year to maintain a lifer. I am not sure how those figures are calculated, but I would hazard most of those are fixed costs and related to maintaining the prison itself (IE. the only costs involved with the prisoner an sich is food and other disposables and per year that does not tally to 30k.) spread out over the political body which has jurisdiction (the state we shall assume) the marginal loss in utility is minuscule. No one notices it. Vs a good number of innocent people losing a loved one over and above the original murder.

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.

I would submit that this is not always the correct response either. I will be honest, a lot of animal bites are the person's fault. There is often a two strikes rule with such dogs before putting them down becomes mandatory. (depending on locale...)

Now all bets are off if the animal is diseased.

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.

Here is the problem. We as a society, due to our economic and social institutions create these criminals. People have a lot less actual agency than many realize (or are willing to consider, frankly)Decisions get made in the brain prior to conscious thought about the decision. Your rational thoughts actually often rationalizing thoughts (at least when it comes to decisions. Theorizing and abstraction are handled differently)

To use an example. It is disturbingly easy to get people to kill or torture (Zimbardo's prison experiment, Migram's obedience study). Even most rapes are literally what men are programmed by evolution to do under certain circumstances (IIRC most rapes are of the date-rape variety... serial rape type rape is the result of actual psychosis).

I am not justifying the behaviors. We have rules and violating them is wrong, and for the safety of everyone we cannot allow these rules to be breached and have it go unpunished. However how can we justify putting someone down like a rabid dog for doing what evolution combined with the social environment wired their brains to do?

(The concept of free will as typically conceived BTW is incompatible with modern neuroscience...)

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.

As a matter of policy that would lead to an increase in the already unacceptable number of innocent people being executed.

Balanced by the notion of a societal predator being kept away from society?

[NomAnor15]

One aspect which I have not seen addressed so far is this; the drain on society of keeping someone in prison for life.

Balanced by the notion of a societal predator being kept away from society?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the question is here. If you're saying that we should keep dangerous people in prison rather than releasing them, I agree. What I was trying to say is that in extreme cases where there is no chance of rehabilitation or the crime was exceptionally despicable, it would be more pragmatic to simply execute the criminal rather than have them be a money pit for the rest of their lives. If you're saying something else entirely, please let me know.

[Darth Ruinus]

It is disturbingly easy to get people to kill or torture (Zimbardo's prison experiment, Migram's obedience study).

You misspelled Milgram. It's a pretty famous experiment, so I think people would notice, but just pointing it out.

I am not justifying the behaviors. We have rules and violating them is wrong, and for the safety of everyone we cannot allow these rules to be breached and have it go unpunished. However how can we justify putting someone down like a rabid dog for doing what evolution combined with the social environment wired their brains to do?

Probably because we should be above the petty urgers of our bodies, and should be responsible ethical people. The social environment also tells them that murder and rape are wrong, so they are breaking society's laws.

[Knife]

One aspect which I have not seen addressed so far is this; the drain on society of keeping someone in prison for life.

Balanced by the notion of a societal predator being kept away from society?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the question is here. If you're saying that we should keep dangerous people in prison rather than releasing them, I agree. What I was trying to say is that in extreme cases where there is no chance of rehabilitation or the crime was exceptionally despicable, it would be more pragmatic to simply execute the criminal rather than have them be a money pit for the rest of their lives. If you're saying something else entirely, please let me know.

No I agree with you. Both on financial and moral grounds. Prison without the hope of freedom is cruel beyond measure. Death is a release at that point and those that argue elswise are more cruel than they pretend pro-death people are.

[Formless]

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.

Which is why many of us support a surveliance society.

Not to derail the thread any, but... what? Do you mean that you support a Big Brother state, and that somehow the cost of capital punishment is an argument in favor of said state? I'm trying to see where you are coming from here, because I certainly don't subscribe to your philosophy if that is the case. IMO, we have enough problems with state abuse already without opening that particular can of worms.

Now, for those who totally oppose the death penalty for whatever grounds, as well as those who think a vicious criminal shouldn't get free room and board, health care, etc., how about having him work forced labour, so that society could at least get something useful in return. That way, there is no death penalty, but life in prison wouldn't just mean a shitty vacation for murderers, rapists, et al.

I prefer the Jig-saw Man method myself, if only because it is horrific enough to serve as a deterant.

If I may ask that you elaborate? I am unfamiliar with that method.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Probably because we should be above the petty urgers of our bodies, and should be responsible ethical people. The social environment also tells them that murder and rape are wrong, so they are breaking society's laws.

That is like saying that squares should be circles. To say something "ought" to be one way, and we should make decisions based upon how the world "ought" to be, implies and in fact requires that what "ought" to be is an option that we can achieve. It is not. The brain evolved as a risk-benefit calculating machine. Any deviation from what is optimum (in this case a phenotypically plastic response to maximize fitness in prevailing environmental conditions, that once set is relatively inflexible after brain maturation...) is going to be selected against. We lack the capacity to be "above" our petty urges even if it were ideal, in any place or time but our imaginations.

All society's laws do, functionally speaking, is increase the risk of performing an action which provides a fitness benefit to the individual (but a risk or fitness decrease to everyone else) and as a result reduce the chances an individual will commit the action in question.

Most of the time when presented with the choice to commit a prohibited action, your brain calculates the risk vs benefit in the background, and your forebrain rationalizes the decision which was actually made a fraction of a second before. This decision is often that the risk is too high to justify the fitness benefit.

A person who kills, or rapes uses the same process, but under perhaps weighting (based on prior experience, not necessarily with rape, but whole environment affecting brain development) criteria of risk vs potential fitness benefit, to a different conclusion.

However there is nothing necessarily "wrong" with this person in a metaphysical sense. That person is just like you. Or me. As evidenced by the vast body of evidence in social psych, criminology, and evolutionary psych.

[Sriad]

It is disturbingly easy to get people to kill or torture (Zimbardo's prison experiment, Migram's obedience study).

You misspelled Milgram. It's a pretty famous experiment, so I think people would notice, but just pointing it out.

I am not justifying the behaviors. We have rules and violating them is wrong, and for the safety of everyone we cannot allow these rules to be breached and have it go unpunished. However how can we justify putting someone down like a rabid dog for doing what evolution combined with the social environment wired their brains to do?

Probably because we should be above the petty urgers of our bodies, and should be responsible ethical people. The social environment also tells them that murder and rape are wrong, so they are breaking society's laws.

It seems odd that you can state this so categorically IMMEDIATELY after referring to Milgram's study, albeit not in the main thrust of your post. Yes we should hope to overcome our glandular passions and wilder instincts, but these studies are part of a body of research that shows a majority of people can readily be maneuvered into committing criminal acts. I'm not arguing some nutty moral relativism to let murderers off the karmic hook, I'm just saying that failure to transcend ones human limits shouldn't be punished with confiscation of the same, especially when society has the capacity to remove the criminal's threat and negative influence WITHOUT resorting to state-sponsored cold blooded murder.

No I agree with you. Both on financial and moral grounds. Prison without the hope of freedom is cruel beyond measure. Death is a release at that point and those that argue elswise are more cruel than they pretend pro-death people are.

Buuuull-shit. Unless you have a handy survey in which a supermajority of life-without-parolees claim to crave the sweet release of death that's an eye-crossingly crass and blasé statement on several levels.

Ultimately I'm strongly against the death penalty because cases like Ender's hypothetical are rare. I agree we can have a productive discussion about whether the death penalty can ULTIMATELY be moral in any case at all, but it's important to remember that conclusions reached in this thread are unlikely to have a bearing on a significant number of real-world cases.

[Vultur]

I don't think it's inherently (that is, in all circumstances) immoral, especially if there is no question of potential innocence. In the real world, though, I would be very cautious. I think there is no practical alternative in some cases, though; Osama bin Laden being a current example, as is (really) anyone who could (a) serve as a figurehead and (b) garner enough support to make an assisted prison break likely.

I'm not completely sure of any of this, though, especially since (as a personal idiosyncrasy) life in prison, even a non-abusive prison, sounds far more horrifying to me than death.

[eyl]

Regarding the question of the possibilities of murder by an escaped convict, I'm not convinced that the risk of that is high enough to justify what is essentially premptive prevention by means of execution (with the possible exception of cases like Dahmer). However, if someone does escape and commits a murder, or commits a murder while in prison (including engaging in a conspiracy to murder someone outside), he's proven that incarceration is not sufficient to remove his threat to society and thus I'd argue that his execution for the latter crimese is completely justifiable.

[ray245]

Another point to note, given the state do support state killing anyway, such as allowing the police and military force to kill, is giving out a death penalty any less ethical?

What is the point of putting all those criminals nutcase into one spot, only to allow them threaten each other and other inmates (who may only cause an accidental death, like a car incident for example).

[Sarevok]

Another point to note, given the state do support state killing anyway, such as allowing the police and military force to kill, is giving out a death penalty any less ethical?

What is the point of putting all those criminals nutcase into one spot, only to allow them threaten each other and other inmates (who may only cause an accidental death, like a car incident for example).

Are you too dumb to realize the difference between a Police shootout or warzone and a courtroom ?

[Broomstick]

Also: the cost to society of maintaining the criminal is probably not sufficiently high to justify the harm done to them and their families from the standpoint of a utilitarian ethical system. Argument from marginal utility. It costs a few thousands of dollars (the max I think I have ever seen was 30k) per year to maintain a lifer. I am not sure how those figures are calculated, but I would hazard most of those are fixed costs and related to maintaining the prison itself (IE. the only costs involved with the prisoner an sich is food and other disposables and per year that does not tally to 30k.) spread out over the political body which has jurisdiction (the state we shall assume) the marginal loss in utility is minuscule.

You do not mention the increased utility brought about by the employment of people needed to build and maintain said prison. A certain number of people derive their livelihood from working as prison guards and support staff. So while there is a certain drain on resources in housing prisoners there is a return to the economy when prison staff buy food, housing, and other items with their paychecks.

[ray245]

Another point to note, given the state do support state killing anyway, such as allowing the police and military force to kill, is giving out a death penalty any less ethical?

What is the point of putting all those criminals nutcase into one spot, only to allow them threaten each other and other inmates (who may only cause an accidental death, like a car incident for example).

Are you too dumb to realize the difference between a Police shootout or warzone and a courtroom ?

Decision which are made in office, decisions that affect the death of enemy forces or criminals anyway. If military decision can be made to secure the nation from potential threats (like bombing the hell out of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban before they launch another attack), sentencing a murderer to death can be the same thing. That the state is willingly to support the idea killing of threats in order to protect its citizens. If state sanctioned killing is allowed in certain areas, then it is not any less ethical to support the death penalty.

Killing is killing, no matter the circumstances. Sure, a person who killed another person out of self defense is not a criminal, but it does not ignore the fact that this person has taken away the life of another person. We will not condemn such a person for trying to survive, but we do not ignore the fact that a person has a lost his moral high ground to a certain extend.

Before anyone start flaming me for calling a person who tried to protect his or her life evil or immoral, bear in mind that I view humanity as immoral anyway. There is no one on earth that can be labeled as a moral person anyway. You will not and should not be shunned from society because of the fact that you are immoral, you are shunned because you are an active threat to the stability in society.

As always, feel free to find the flaws in my opinion, and tear it apart if you have to.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Also: the cost to society of maintaining the criminal is probably not sufficiently high to justify the harm done to them and their families from the standpoint of a utilitarian ethical system. Argument from marginal utility. It costs a few thousands of dollars (the max I think I have ever seen was 30k) per year to maintain a lifer. I am not sure how those figures are calculated, but I would hazard most of those are fixed costs and related to maintaining the prison itself (IE. the only costs involved with the prisoner an sich is food and other disposables and per year that does not tally to 30k.) spread out over the political body which has jurisdiction (the state we shall assume) the marginal loss in utility is minuscule.

You do not mention the increased utility brought about by the employment of people needed to build and maintain said prison. A certain number of people derive their livelihood from working as prison guards and support staff. So while there is a certain drain on resources in housing prisoners there is a return to the economy when prison staff buy food, housing, and other items with their paychecks.

This is true. I had forgotten to mention this. Thank you.

[Kanastrous]

We lack the capacity to be "above" our petty urges even if it were ideal, in any place or time but our imaginations.

Daily life is an unending series of denying petty urges to eat everything in sight, to leap attractive coworkers' desks and make violent love to them on the office floor, to lift appealing small object off other people's desks and pocket them, to sieze tasty-looking food off other people's plates at lunch and - occasionally - to commit murder. I don't know if "above" is a word that I would use, but I hope you'll accept my present status of non-imprisonment as proof that in fact I *dont'* indulge those urges, when they so frequently come along.

This seems so self-evidently true for the majority of people running loose in the world, that I have to allow as that I may not properly understand your above statement.

[McC]

I'm going to post this without considering the backlash and see what happens.

The death penalty is a component of the larger criminal punishment system as a whole, which tends to be egregiously flawed across the board for heinous crimes (which I define as crimes that cause irrevocable physical or psychological harm to an individual; theft doesn't count, murder and rape do). There is a not-insignificant chance that our criminal justice system will produce a false positive. This potential renders the morality of the death penalty (and long prison sentences) highly ambiguous. Further, imprisonment means basic (and even some non-basic) needs are all met at the expense of society -- the very society that the criminal is deemed to have wronged. This, to me, is particularly completely irrational.

That said, the premise assumes that we know the accused is guilty of a crime (which I assume to be a heinous one), so we'll operate under that assumption. In that case, I think the current incarnation of the death penalty is immoral, but not for the reasons most provide. The amount of time spent on Death Row is excessively long, during which the convicted must be supported by society. That society is asked to support this individual is absurd. I extend this line of thinking to long/life imprisonment, as well. Society should not be called upon to uphold an individual guilty of wronging it in such a fashion. If you commit a heinous crime, you've waived your status as human, and therefore your entitlement to human rights. However, as pointed out, there are exceptions to this. If someone shows real indicators that they can be rehabilitated (as in Broomstick's example), then psychiatric rehabilitation is absolutely in order. For repeat offenders, or those with no indicator that they can be rehabilitated, though, they're rabid animals and should be treated as such.

For individuals meeting this qualifier, I have a simple solution: pit fights. No, I'm not kidding.

Commercially-sponsored pit fights, broadcast on TV like sporting events, would attract immense audiences and prove highly profitable to advertisers. I suspect it would outshine the Superbowl for amount of money invested for ad placement. Accepted combatants would be all those convicted of heinous crimes, released into an arena with the directive to kill the opponent. Weapons may or may not be present, depending on the level of security available. Last man standing gets to live to see the next pit fight. Under no circumstances should any eligible fighter receive any amount of care, be it basic (i.e. food, clothing, shelter) or medical (i.e. first aid), except that which is deemed necessary to get them to the next fight. Funding is drawn from a small pool set aside from commercial revenue, the rest of which goes to maintaining the infrastructure for the fights and for other broadcast requirements. Leftover is incorporated to income tax refunds.

Is it barbaric? Sure. Is it morally repugnant? I would argue that, at worst, it's on par with staged animal fights. These people aren't human anymore, stop treating them as if they're somehow sacred, rather than sacks of meat.

[Kanastrous]

Do you think it possible that promoting and viewing this kind of spectacle might have a deleterious effect upon the people viewing it?

[McC]

Do you think it possible that promoting and viewing this kind of spectacle might have a deleterious effect upon the people viewing it?

No more so than violent television/video games. The fact that it's a televised spectacle is going to add a layer of unreality to it, largely similar to the layer of separation afforded by seeing staged violent/gory scenes. I am an ardent opponent of censorship due to questionable content.

If you really want a diatribe, ask me how I feel about the fact that ultra-violent, gory games can be rated M, while games with the least bit of nudity are AO

[Kanastrous]

I find that video game or dramatic depictions of people getting shot or blown up is qualitatively different as a viewing experience, than news or documentary footage of people being shot or dismembered, for real.

YMMV.

[McC]

I find that video game or dramatic depictions of people getting shot or blown up is qualitatively different as a viewing experience, than news or documentary footage of people being shot or dismembered, for real.

YMMV.

I agree in that context. But "context" is the key. If you depict it as an entertaining sporting event, that's entirely different from depicting it as a documentary-style chronicle of something. The latter would be incredibly uncomfortable, while the former has that layer of separation.

As you say, YMMV. My post isn't intended to be in any way, shape, or form realistic. There are too many assumptions that have to be made for it to even approach practicality, let alone subjecting it to further questions of ethics/morality.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We lack the capacity to be "above" our petty urges even if it were ideal, in any place or time but our imaginations.

Daily life is an unending series of denying petty urges to eat everything in sight, to leap attractive coworkers' desks and make violent love to them on the office floor, to lift appealing small object off other people's desks and pocket them, to sieze tasty-looking food off other people's plates at lunch and - occasionally - to commit murder. I don't know if "above" is a word that I would use, but I hope you'll accept my present status of non-imprisonment as proof that in fact I *dont'* indulge those urges, when they so frequently come along.

This seems so self-evidently true for the majority of people running loose in the world, that I have to allow as that I may not properly understand your above statement.

You did not read the rest of the post is what you didn't do.