Working with the definition of “collective” as
the political sense of the Rights of the individual being subordinate to the interests of the state, the will of the people, the greater good of the group/society -- whichever suits the reader.:-)
And the original question,
“Is there any real principled objection that could be made from [this] view -- something that does not depend on emotion or on the ambiguities of “social justice” or other identity politics?”
And further working with Ponderer’s list as a jumping-off point,
Perhaps one way of framing the debate might be to address the several bases for the use of the death penalty. Briefly, some of the arguments for it have been: 1) social vengeance (as opposed to individual); 2) general deterrence (fear of punishment); 3) specific deterrence (he won't do it again); 4) "Justice" - having a punishment that roughly equates with the heinousness of the crime (balancing the scales model); 5) Societal convenience (it's cheaper to kill them than to keep them); 6) irredeemability (or the extermination model); and 7) finality (providing "closure" for the victims' families). Opposition, therefore, would logically address each or any of these affirmative bases (or ones that I haven't thought of).
I will offer the following arguments:
Social vengeanceDictionary definition: "infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge."
Although crime does have a general, ambiguous effect on society as a whole, currently law does not provide a remedy for those not specifically involved. For example, the state may charge you for robbing a liquor store in Toledo, but as a member of society hundreds of miles away, I may not sue you for damages. In the same way, “vengeance” is restricted to those immediately harmed, and is not available as a remedy for “the good of the group.”
general deterrence (fear of punishment)Solid proof of the value of the death penalty as a general deterrent to other criminals is sorely lacking; in fact, the opposite tends to be proven.
As a deterrent to the criminal executed – again, this is exacting the highest penalty possible, to prevent a crime not yet committed, and our goal (as citizens and as a country) is to punish crimes AFTER they are committed. There are other means for accomplishing this goal that do not involve the death penalty.
Justice: (Dictionary) the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity.
The death penalty is still the law of the land in many US states, but it is being abolished in other countries at the rate of about 3 per year. Other first-world countries have abolished it more often than not. So while it can be argued that justice as legally defined should be administered, it can also be argued that laws change over time, and that given the actions of other first-world nations, we would be wise to consider revising ours.
Societal convenience (it's cheaper to kill them than to keep them); This argument fails on a number of levels, but the most obvious is this: it would be cheaper to shoot a drunk driver than to put him/her through rehabilitation, but we don’t do it. We do not (yet) value a human life in monetary worth; therefore “it’s cheaper to kill them” is an incomplete calculation.
Irredeemability – Again, we cannot exact the highest penalty in the land on the expectation that someone will commit a future crime. The penalty must be applied on the basis of crimes committed.
finality (providing "closure" for the victims' families). “Closure” is itself something of a fuzzy term. It can also be argued that the death of the criminal does not provide closure; it provides vengeance. Closure – the sense of bringing something to finality – has more to do with the death (assuming the crime was murder) of the victim. “Closure” – if it exists – cannot be imposed from the outside.
NW - thanks for providing me a list from which to work.
All - I have attempted to argue the reasons against from the point of view of a just society. In doing so I've made myself late for work <grin> so I won't be able to respond to anything until later in the morning. But I'll check back as soon as I can.
