The Death Penalty

[Jake_Ellison]

Ayn Rand defined justice in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" :

Now, do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a man’s character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion? Yes. That concept is “justice.”

In Galt's Speech, she also said:

"...every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly..."

"...to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit."

Keeping that (and Objectivist philosophy in general) in mind, my first question is:

Is capital punishment moral?

I have other questions, that we should only answer after we establish the morality of capital punishment:

Should we use the death penalty?

If so, in which cases? (I think it's safe to assume the two possibly relevant criteria are the nature of the crime and the evidence that proves guilt. So please try and keep answers in this frame, or if not, mention the additional criteria.)

Edited November 28, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[LovesLife]

Keeping that (and Objectivist philosophy in general) in mind, my first question is:

Is capital punishment moral?

The initiation of the use of force is an attempt by the aggressor to deny his victim of their right to life.

Responding with lethal force against an aggressor is therefore moral.

Once the aggression has been stopped, as through arrest, is it moral to kill the aggressor?

I think the answer is of a type that bothers many people: "it depends." Specifically, it depends on the context.

I have other questions, that we should only answer after we establish the morality of capital punishment:

Should we use the death penalty?

If so, in which cases? (I think it's safe to assume the two possibly relevant criteria are the nature of the crime and the evidence that proves guilt. So please try and keep answers in this frame, or if not, mention the additional criteria.)

If the person in question has a high risk of continued initiation of force (such as by their own admission, or as demonstrated from multiple offences), then yes, I think killing them is definitely moral, as a form of self-defense. The current alternative of life in prison is forcing his victims and others who weren't involved in any way to pay for his care for the rest of his life; we are sacrificing ourselves to people who have hurt us.

If they are not at risk of continued aggression, then I think killing them is not warranted. In that case life in prison is also not warranted. In fact, I would argue that no prison time at all is warranted (the idea of "punishment" seems vague and not Objectively supportable to me, although restitution certainly is).

The in-between cases, where the risk of future aggression is uncertain, are the difficult ones. It seems to me that the only way to rationally address them is on a case-by-case basis.

It also seems to me that the opinion of the person or persons who were damaged should be heavily factored into the final decision.

[Jake_Ellison]

I think that the "Is capital punishment moral?" and "Should we use the death penalty?" questions can both be answered with yes or no, followed by argumentation.

Loveslife:

My interpretation of your answer is "No" on the first question (you wrote:

the idea of "punishment" seems vague and not Objectively supportable to me....

If they are not at risk of continued aggression, then I think killing them is not warranted.

, but then, strangely, you answered the second question with "yes", on practical grounds, and because you don't seem to believe in prisons. (you said:

If the person in question has a high risk of continued initiation of force (such as by their own admission, or as demonstrated from multiple offences), then yes, I think killing them is definitely moral, as a form of self-defense. The current alternative of life in prison is forcing his victims and others who weren't involved in any way to pay for his care for the rest of his life; we are sacrificing ourselves to people who have hurt us.

- That sounds like a pro death penalty stance to me)

[Jake_Ellison]

It also seems to me that the opinion of the person or persons who were damaged should be heavily factored into the final decision.

Would such a decision constitute justice? (as defined by Ayn Rand: judging a man's character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of factual evidence available)

[RationalBiker]

Here's a link to an earlier thread on the Death Penalty. It is quite lengthy but presents a variety of views on the matter. My position is stated throughout, but did 'evolve' slightly toward the end. While there were many great responses, and some not so great (IMHO), I have to give special 'props' to the late Stephen Speicher for his thought-provoking posts to me.

[DavidOdden]

The answer to your question requires an answer to the logically prior question: is punishment moral? If you conclude that punishment itself is immoral, then this specific instance of punishment would have to be immoral. OTOH, if punishment is moral, capital punishment can be moral. The answer to that question, IMO, is "yes, punishment is moral". The death penalty has a special status, that it cannot be rescinded once carried out, therefore it is mandatory that guilt be certain, not merely probable. Other than that, one must observe proportionality (that is, the punishment must befit the crime, hence life in prison is not a fit punishment for stealing a loaf of bread). Rationality means ("The Objectivist Ethics" p. 28) "that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects". Justice requires that "one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit": a man whose acts are evil deserves the consequence of his actions.

The question that I don't think has a clear answer is which acts deserve capital punishment. I do not think that simple first degree murder per se justifies execution as opposed to long-term imprisonment. What I think must be additionally present is a profound depravity in the act, as exemplified by Ted Bundy or Timothy McVey.

[D'kian]

Keeping that (and Objectivist philosophy in general) in mind, my first question is:

Is capital punishment moral?

Yes. It is not necessarily appropriate, but it is moral.

I have other questions, that we should only answer after we establish the morality of capital punishment:

Should we use the death penalty?

If so, in which cases? (I think it's safe to assume the two possibly relevant criteria are the nature of the crime and the evidence that proves guilt. So please try and keep answers in this frame, or if not, mention the additional criteria.)

Criminal jutice has several purposes. One of them is retribution, the idea that a criminal must pay for his crime. It is sensible to set up retribution in kind with the crime commited. Thus stealing an apple merits a lesser punishment than stealing a car. If we proceed in increments, then for murder the appropriate punishment is death.

No one has a right to commit murder. There is a right to kill, though, of sorts. It is rightful to kill in self-defense or in defense of a third party, this includes up to a point the right to kill enemy combatants in time of war.

s to when is capital punishment appropriate, I'd reserve it for all cases of first-degree murder (that is when a person consciouslya nd deliberately chooses to kill another person and takes the willful action to do so), and some lesser crimes when there is an intent to destroy someone's life.

The last is more complex. Let's say aphotographer is so jealous of a colelague he pokes his eyes out. The intent is clearly to destroy or ruin the victim's life. The problem is that there may be no rigorous standard by which to judge such things, and that determining intent cannot always be achieved (inferences don't count).

I would accept, though not demand, the death penalty for some repeat offenders when the crimes are henious or brutal. Rapists, for example, child abusers, assault int he first degree and so on.

Now, one objection to the death penalty is the degree of certainty required for a positive sentence. That is, you'd best be damned sure you're killing a guilty man. There have been many well-documented cases of innocent people punished, some even with death. Morally it is preferable to, as the saying goes, let a dozen guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.

To begin with the prosecution should state it seeks the death penalty from the outset (I think this is already done in some US jurisdictions). Next in order to win a death sentence, the prosecution should be held to a standard that goes beyond a reasonable doubt. What that standrad is, I'm not yet sure. I won't say "beyond any doubt," because doubt can always be found (especially unreasonable doubt). But it would include such things as a reliance on phisical evidence and credible testimony.

I'd also proppose a lot of latitude in appeals, a long time between sentence and execution (say 3 to 5 years at least) in order to give the convicted a chance to appeal, and adequate legal representation when the defendant resorts to a court-appointed lawyer (and only then; if he hires an incompetent lawyer, that's his affair).

[aeinste1n]

Keeping that (and Objectivist philosophy in general) in mind, my first question is:

Is capital punishment moral?

I have other questions, that we should only answer after we establish the morality of capital punishment:

Should we use the death penalty?

The answer is yes, the death penalty is moral. Punishment itself is a neccesary and just action not only because the criminal is recieving a loss of rights as equal to his offense as possible, but also as a neccesary action to prevent the destruction of more innocents' rights either through deterance or imprisonment. In any trial the criminal is sentanced to a punishment that neccesitates at least one of his rights is taken away. Sometimes the number is higher, depending on the crime. Taking away all of his rights is just one more step that can be made if that person has committed a crime that would merit such a punishment.

So yes, the death penalty is moral and it should be used if that is what needs to be done to achieve justice. However having a general code that roughly outlines when it could be used is probably within a society's best interests.

[aeinste1n]

\ The death penalty has a special status, that it cannot be rescinded once carried out, therefore it is mandatory that guilt be certain, not merely probable.

The Death Penalty holds special status because it removes every single one of a criminal's rights, not because it can't be rescinded. No punishment can be taken back because it is impossible to change the past. If we put someone in jail we cannot later un-put him in jail, he has already recieved the punishment. Every court ruling should be certain of guilt before they go about punishing people.

Sorry, that was very nitpicky of me. I agree with the rest of your arguements though.

[RationalBiker]

No punishment can be taken back because it is impossible to change the past.

But all other punishments can be compensated for, potentially at least. Death is final.

[RationalBiker]

So yes, the death penalty is moral and it should be used if that is what needs to be done to achieve justice. However having a general code that roughly outlines when it could be used is probably within a society's best interests.

Not to stray too much from the topic, but societies do not have interests (or rights), individuals have interests (and rights). The concern of the law should be to protect individual rights, not look out for "society's interests".

[fletch]

There have been many well-documented cases of innocent people punished, some even with death.

Is there a case where this has happened in the US? To my knowledge, there is not.

As for the death penalty, I think the US has struck just about the right balance. It is not handed out indiscriminately, but is reserved for the worst of the worst. Like this guy, the poster boy for Capital Punishment:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3520178&page=1

As to what John Couey deserves for what he did, I dont think even execution is punishment enough.

[D'kian]

Is there a case where this has happened in the US? To my knowledge, there is not.

Look up the website of the Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[fletch]

Look up the website of the Innocence Project:

To the best I can tell, that site lists the names of those convicted of crimes they did not commit but were exonerated before execution. My question was has anyone been executed who was later found to be innocent? To my knowledge, that has not happened in the US--or at least not been demonstrated to have happened.

I agree with the idea that the standard of certainty for DP cases should be higher, and I think the fact that most people convicted of murder do not receive the death penalty may be evidence that it is. But there are certainly people on death row whose guilt is not in doubt. The case I linked in my previous post is an example where the guilt of convicted is without question.

[DavidOdden]

The case I linked in my previous post is an example where the guilt of convicted is without question.

Can you summarize your arguments that his actual guilt is beyond question? I assume you've done the necessary research on confessions.

[fletch]

Can you summarize your arguments that his actual guilt is beyond question?

First of all, he confessed. That confession lead police to the body. That body was buried behind the trailer he was living in. The murdered girls fingerprints were found in a closet in the murderers home. Then there was DNA from the girls blood and his semen found on a matress in his bedroom.

What more do you need, a video?

[DavidOdden]

What more do you need, a video?

No, I needed a clear statement of the facts which constitute proof of guilt. You have to establish actual guilt first, and consider the horror of the crime only in connection with punishment and not guilt. I don't find the objective forensic evidence on the webpage that you mentioned, and the supposed confession isn't sufficient if we don't have the full context to know whether it is an actual free admission of guilt. The body was found 150 yards from the victim's home. The point is that there is a real difference between proof certain and a compelling argument that a claim is very probably true, and that the specific details are crucial in determining if you have actual proof. Her blood on his mattress would, in this context, constitute such proof.

[Jake_Ellison]

First of all, he confessed. That confession lead police to the body. That body was buried behind the trailer he was living in. The murdered girls fingerprints were found in a closet in the murderers home. Then there was DNA from the girls blood and his semen found on a matress in his bedroom.

What more do you need, a video?

Ok, that guy's guilty, and he should be killed as soon as possible.

Let's get back to the people who were exonerated while on death row. These are people who were convicted and sentenced to death, and the it took an extraordinary event, or find, for them to be exonerated. Is such an event reasonably certain to happen, for every innocent man sitting on death row?

I think it's pretty obvious that that's not the case, and the existence of these cases means that there are also people wrongly convicted, who end up executed. I'm not saying abolish the death penalty, but there should be even more care when a parson is sentenced to death. There are two possibilities:

1. A different, higher set of standards, when establishing guilt. This would mean that prosecutors would likely only go for the death penalty when they have a slam dunk case. Otherwise they'll just ask for life in prison, in order to not risk letting killers go. (or lose the case)

2. A new trial, with higher standards, after someone was already sentenced to death, just to make sure.

[fletch]

No, I needed a clear statement of the facts which constitute proof of guilt.

Sorry, David, my mistake. The link I provided did not include the actual evidence produced at trial.

[mdegges]

Criminal jutice has several purposes. One of them is retribution, the idea that a criminal must pay for his crime. It is sensible to set up retribution in kind with the crime commited. Thus stealing an apple merits a lesser punishment than stealing a car. If we proceed in increments, then for murder the appropriate punishment is death.

 

I read an interesting paper about this retributive model (which the author says is based on the writings of Kant and Hegel). This paragraph in particular stood out to me as a good argument for the death penalty:

 

 

-Igor Primoratz, A Life for a Life

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Yes, capital punishment is moral- either in retribution (convicted murderers) or preemptive action (violent psychopaths; jihadis).

Retributively, murder is the ultimate violation of individual rights and MUST be answered with death, out of respect for the victim. Ie:

ALL OF THE REASONS WHICH MAKE MURDER AN ATROCITY, MAKE THE DEATH PENALTY MANDATORY (so long as their guilt is proven).

Preemptively, a will-be murderer (ESPECIALLY the insane) is no different from a man-eating lion, except for the fact that lions lack opposable thumbs.

So in those cases, WHEN there's no reasonable doubt, the death penalty is absolutely moral and completely necessary.

---

However, i don't think any other crime should carry such a penalty; not even rape.

With regards to rapists, if one wished to prevent a man-eating lion from ever mauling anyone ever again, one need only remove its claws. . .

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Fletch: you're right; death was too good for that monster.

Jake: i especially like your idea about a double trial, just to be sure. Its elegant.