Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Crime & Punishment Capital punishment: Why not?

I cannot remember a time when I was not opposed to the executing of a prisoner by the state. As a kid I opposed it because I did not trust those running the state not to make a mistake – or to just not care (Yeah, I had no use for authority figures from day one). As I got older I added to that reason one of empathy. An execution was a sentence that would also bring permanent punishment and pain to others, primarily family members. Later I realized spiritually that if one could not create life – one should not take it unless there was no other option. However, these are only emotional, practical, and an item of faith, and thus make for weak argument. I have since added a moral, that is to say, a principled argument that is not dependent on feelings and which I find to be philosophically satisfying primarily because it goes beyond mere personal thought or feeling.

This does not mean that I do not understand the arguments from those who support capital punishment, or that I look down on them for their position. A killer that is executed never kills again (not other civilians, not guards, not other inmates). A killer that is executed does not require funds to feed, cloth, shelter, and medically treat him. A killer that is executed sates the desire for revenge from the victim’s family. A killer is deserving of death for having ended another’s life.

A stepping off point for my diverging view is that I do not think that the concept of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is sufficient to sentence a man to death. Yet, I see that such a threshold has stood the test of determining what is the greater benefit for society -- kill an innocent man or let a guilty man go. I found myself looking to the political philosophy of individualism, natural Rights, and looking with renewed interest in property Rights.

Since I had opposed capital punishment all these years I did not bother paying attention to why others opposed it. I assumed their reasons were similar to mine. Now I am not so sure. Some of the noise I hear is focused not on executions so much as on executions not representing a proper racial balance. There are also religious objections, and “tender heart” objections. But, is there any real principled objection that could be made from a collectivist or, narrowing it down, from a socialist philosophical view -- something that does not depend on emotion or on the ambiguities of “social justice” or other identity politics?
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos,

I think I know where you’re coming from. I’m against the death penalty because I have a difficult time reconciling the state sanctioning the killing of a citizen due to a previously committed crime. I say this in the comfort of knowing that I’ve never been a victim of a heinous violent attack, neither has any member of my family. If a member of my family were to be killed by a violent criminal, I’m not sure where I’d stand on this because I can’t remember the last time I’ve shed a tear for a child molester, rapist or any violent criminal who voluntarily forfeited his life to the state and has been put to death.

Considering that my perspective is from a comfort zone of never having a loved one taken from me, I’d prefer to see the most violent offenders simply removed from society and kept behind bars for the rest of their adult lives, or until they are no longer a threat to their neighbors. The state is probably better off staying out of the killing business.

strange that you can still be in favour of war though.

ah well

Besides being ineffective, unnecessary, and overly expensive, it is unfairly applied and quite irreversible if executed by mistake. If someone could come up with a comprehensive fix for all these minor discrepancies, I'd have no difficulty supporting the death penalty.

I agree with your idea about “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. I have served on enough juries and heard enough horror stories from friends who have also served, to be extremely wary about jury decisions that the doubt is small enough to execute a human being. The cliches are not urban myths: I have actually heard another juror say: "He wouldn't be here if he wasn't guilty." My wife has actually heard: "He may not have done this crime, but sending him to jail will teach him a lesson so he won't commit a crime in the future."

I also have great reservations about the value of most "eye witness" identifications by strangers to the accused. In most cases, all they can really say is "The guy who I saw committing the crime looks like this guy at the defendent bench." But that is never how the question is asked or answered in court.

On the other hand, there are a few cases where there is zero doubt. For example, when the police interrupt a bank robbery/massacre and capture a wounded suspect at the end of a shoot-out. Or a case in which a serial kidnapper/rapist/murderer is caught in such damning and pathological circumstances that the world would just be a better place without them. (EG. Jeffrey Dahmer) In a case like that, I could sentence someone to death. Perhaps that comes from personal experiences killing dangerous animals like rattlesnakes, where I had to decide that death was the only [but regretable] option.

Schlack,

Now why would you say I’m pro-war? Is it because I disagree with your biased interpretation of American foreign policy?

Besides that, is this thread about war or capitol punishment?

you're not pro war? er ok. apologies. i will remember, i just hope you do.

i thought this thread was about the state killing individuals, i just broadened it slightly to non-citizens in another country. i was marvelling at the apparent inconsistency between being agaisnt the state killing a convicted criminal and for the state killing innocent citizens of other states (even if not intentionally, they're still dead). ok for state to kill, not ok for state to kill.


off topic

Biased? me? no my friend im just offering balance to the lesser advertised aspects of US foreign policy.

issodhos, again you have framed this thread in a way that I cannot see how anyone can answer it.

Who among us is a socialist?

Collectivist? How brutal do you want it?

How about: a person convicted of a capital crime is allowed enough time between conviction and execution as a prisoner, that the state is able to assess their will to live, even under the harsh and unforgiving terms of prison. If the prisoner's behaviour indicates they will strive to remain alive, and they are adverse to punishment, reacting normally with a willed effort to avoid it, it is a waste of a valuable resource to execute, when instead they can be compelled to work themselves to death for the betterment of the state.

Is that hive-minded enough for you?

That moral equivilence gambit gets old. "Mal is attempting to discuss state killing in the context of capital punishment -- not in the context of war. If you also oppose capital punishment perhaps you should consider it "common ground" between you and "Mal.
Yours,
but, one tired and cranky Issodhos:-)