Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
Illinois has officially banned the death penalty (although it hasn't had an execution since 1999). The Soros crowd are cheering this as evidence of a national trend. I've mostly thought about the death penalty in order to refute arguments that the death penalty is unconstitutional. That, I think, is just untenable -- but if you disagree, please jump in.
But if you agree that the death penalty is permissible under the Constitution, is it good policy? I've always thought that retributive justice is rooted in natural law and in some cases, death is the appropriate measure of retribution. But the fact that we humans can make mistakes -- and that death-penalty mistakes are irrevocable gives me pause. Am I being too fainthearted, or do others share this practical concern about the death penalty?
- Comment (89)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
SMatthewStolte: Tommy, I'm sorry about your loss.
I am curious, though. Do you think you would have felt differently if the murderer had not just been murdered in an unrelated event but had been dealt with according to an accepted justice system? Obviously, it is an impossible hypothetical (who knows how you would have felt), but I wonder what your thoughts are. · Mar 12 at 8:43am
It's a great question. I suppose I might have felt justice was more served had he received the death penalty. Perhaps a more satisfied feeling.
But again at some point I would recall again that nothing changed for my friend.
I really don't know.
Dec '10
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
Claire just posted a main feed item with a link to recent photos from Itamar, a Jewish settlement in the West Bank. They seem to me to bear on this question.
Dec '10
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
"So, to the merit. Let's stay simple. I say that the only justification for killing is self-defense. It's based on the premise that one should never kill another human being, but if a situation arises in which one of them is threatening to kill, then someone's going to die anyway. It's no longer an issue of whether someone dies, only who. And at that point, you have as much right to live as the other guy. (More, if you include your innocence into the equation.) That's why self-defense is justified."
I say your premise is wrong. I also say your application of your premise to self-defense is wrong and confused. If killing another person is wrong, the self-defense is profoundly immoral: if someone is bound to kill and another bound to die, the moralist who believes killing another person is wrong will choose to be the inevitable death rather than stoop to the same level as the killer attacking him.
And your own admission that innocence is somehow a factor in deciding whether someone is justified in killing in self-defense shows you don't believe your premise. If killing is wrong, how can "innocence" ever make it right?
Edited on Mar 12, 2011 at 11:59pmDec '10
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
"Not in the abstract. The real-life here and now. Do we have a right to execute Charlie Sheen? He has every quality you mentioned. And if not him, then who else qualifies?"
Do try to follow the conversation. You asserted that society doesn't imprison people for what they might do, only for what they already did. I pointed out that when citizens present a clear and present danger of harming themselves or others, our society does indeed take them into custody - takes them into custody, not executes them.
It may well be appropriate to 5150 Charlie Sheen to keep him from harming himself or others. If he manages to murder someone before he triggers an involuntary commitment, then he'll cross the threshold from meriting preemptive detention to meriting capital punishment (provided he doesn't succeed in presenting a diminished capacity defense).
Edited on Mar 13, 2011 at 12:11amFeb '11
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
46 executions, 15000 murders. Yet the death penalty generates endless angst, the murders not so much. And I won't even attempt to bring abortion into this.
Something is badly wrong with this picture. Just who does the state care about, anyway? Murderers get free health care for life- and the families of their victims get to be taxed to pay for it. Meanwhile, whole cities are wrecked because the government can't prevent crime of all sorts from ruining them. This is a significant failure of governance that has had enormous terrible consequences, and we've all suffered for it.
So forgive me if I find myself not especially interested in agonizing about the fate of killers and other criminals. I'm vastly more interested in reducing the number of victims.
A fabulous way to do that would be to execute every first degree murderer within a year of conviction. Ending free criminal health care would be nice too. These reforms would sling a whole heap of deterrence at potential criminals.
Let's see how it works. What we're doing now- doesn't.
Jan '11
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
Stuart Creque:
Do try to follow the conversation.
Not anymore.
Jul '10
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
Mr. Freedman,
First, thank you for calling out the critical distinction of Constitutionality versus desirability. There can be no reasonable Originalist argument that capital punishment is Constitutional. Alas, even smart conservatives often confuse that distinction, if they wish badly enough for a specific policy end..
As to the desirability, I fall into the Dennis Prager school of thought on this: that refusal to countenance Capital punishment is actually a declaration of how lightly we take the value of human life. Christians are prone (especially of the left wing stripe) to wince at " an eye for an eye". Too Old Testament. But the truth in that attitude is less a matter of revenge than a proper accounting for the value of the thing lost. If we mete out the same qualitative punishment for heinous murder as for burglary, then we are saying something about how we view those crimes. As qualitatively the same.
Civilizational excellence is a hard thing to maintain. I believe that a willingness to forego capital punishment is one of the key signs that a society is losing its civilizational self-confidence.
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
I'm a pragmatist on the death penalty. In the abstract, I do think execution can be a morally appropriate response to certain outrages against human dignity.
But in practice, in our current legal system, my understanding is that the actual execution (no pun intended) of the death penalty is so legally onerous, tortuous, drawn out, and expensive -- typically involving dozens of appeals, etc. -- that it may simply be better policy to allow even the most iniquitous to rot in prison for life.
Re: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed to Die?
I see that this thread has been added to the Editors Picks and want to acknowledge all the great discussion so far. Wow - 88 (well, now 89) comments. It's almost like being Claire Berlinsky (on a sort of average day). Like others, I express sympathy for Tommy's loss, and I agree that emotional vindication is not enough to justify the death penalty. I still think (and it seems others agree) that retribution is the philosophical foundation for the DP. As to the policy desirability, Patrick's suggestion above is intriquing: if the punishment is society's way to illustrate the gravity of the crime. A light sentence for murder (think Europe) suggests a society that holds life cheap.
And as for KC's rhetorical question "do we have the right to execute Charlie Sheen?" Well, reasonable minds could differ on that.