Death Penalty: Is it Moral in Some Contexts, Should it be Allowed?

[DavidOdden]

You can be reasonable certain of past events based on evidence, but is that a sufficent standard for executing a convicted criminal?

Certainty is always based on evidence. That is what the concept "certain" is all about.

[Black Wolf]

Can you define "one chance" in mathematical terms? (one is a number, so you are in fact appealing to math, you should define your terms) Is it a 1% probability? 0.1% probablity? 0.01% probablility? And how do you calculate it?

What I'm getting at is that you're wrong, there isn't always a possibility that we're wrong, there are cases in which we're right.

...Huh?

That is prior commitment to philosophical skepticism even before examining the particulars of any case.

...Huh?

[Grames]

...Huh?

Raising doubts for no reason, arbitrarily, claiming with certainty that certainty is impossible in principle, that is philosophical skepticism. It is wrong.

[mrocktor]

Dave, thank you very much for that detailed reply.

I definitely agree with you that the conditions for conviction have to be changed towards finding positive proof as opposed to not "finding" doubt.

[Black Wolf]

So, here's a question I have: Why do we NEED the death penalty?

[Jake_Ellison]

So, here's a question I have: Why do we NEED the death penalty?

Because of people who deserve it.

[Black Wolf]

Because of people who deserve it.

So, it's a question of reciprocation.

What crimes would warrant the death penalty? I remember Ayn Rand did say that death penalty should be reserved for rare cases. What would those rare cases be?

[DavidOdden]

What crimes would warrant the death penalty?

For starters, it should only be possible as punishment for murder.

[Jake_Ellison]

So, it's a question of reciprocation.

What crimes would warrant the death penalty? I remember Ayn Rand did say that death penalty should be reserved for rare cases. What would those rare cases be?

Reciprocation would imply raping the rapists, crushing hit and run killers in fiery wrecks etc.It's not really a question of reciprocation, it's a question of both deterrent and elimination of a problem. (the problem being the murderer who has no restraint from murdering)

The crimes that warrant it are the murders where there is no doubt about the murderers guilt and depravity. I'm not sure how rare or frequent that is, I don't work around such people, nor have I studied them, but it clearly exists. (while one murder may or may not be proof enough that one has taken the path of preying on his fellow humans, depending on the circumstances, serial killers, mass murderers have proven that sufficiently)

[Mixon]

Let's approach this from the opposite angle and assert that it is possible to know everything with absolute certainty, even events that occured in the past. Yet we still do make errors of knowledge right?

Now in the course of convicting criminals and sentencing them to death, over time it reasonable to assume errors of knowledge still occur, yes? Eyewitnesses can make mistakes, Lab technicians make errors, and occasionally overzealous law enforcement personnel plant evidence because they "feel" an individual is guilty. So in the course of executing convicted men, it's reasonable to assume you're going to kill a few innocents along with the guilty, right? Just like in the course of lending money, they're a few who end up not paying. You try to use credit models to minimize this but it still occurs because you can't know the course of future events. Is that a sacrifice? Wouldn't we be sacrificing innocent lives to execute the guilty?

My argument is that we cannot be absolutely certain about past and future events in the same way we can be absolutely certain about the laws of nature or logic. This is due to the problem of errors of knowledge. Hence, no legal system can exist in which knowledge of guilt or innocence would be absolute. But these errors of knowledge are correctable to some degree, provided you don't use capital punishment.

[mrocktor]

My argument is that we cannot be absolutely certain about past and future events in the same way we can be absolutely certain about the laws of nature or logic.

And the Objectivist position is "yes we can". I recommend "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", if you are interested in the philosophical issues of knowledge and certainty.

Past event: I was born in 1979. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.

Future event: The sun will rise tomorrow morning. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.

Edited December 9, 2009 by mrocktor

[DavidOdden]

Eyewitnesses can make mistakes, Lab technicians make errors, and occasionally overzealous law enforcement personnel plant evidence because they "feel" an individual is guilty.

On this last point, we can generalize your claim to reach the following conclusion -- since one can imagine that some individual (law enforcement or otherwise) can always manufacture false evidence including fake forensic data and invented testimony, then it is impossible to have knowledge with certainty about any legally-relevant event. That is, we must be epistemological skeptics w.r.t. law.

My argument is that we cannot be absolutely certain about past and future events in the same way we can be absolutely certain about the laws of nature or logic.

Your rationale would in fact lead to the conclusion that you cannot be certain about laws of nature. The validation of any empirical claim requires some kind of observational proof, and you can always imagine that the evidence has been forged (in some cases such as AGW you can even prove it).

As for the idea of "being absolutely certain of the laws of logic", I can't imagine what you mean by that. I think you're confusing the objective concept of a claim being certain with the subjective concept of a person being certain, and applying the latter concept to logic. If you're hoping to apply the former, you should first enumerate "the laws of logic" and give the definition of "certainty", where you will see that you've simply stated an arbitrary tautology.

[Mixon]

And the Objectivist position is "yes we can". I recommend "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", if you are interested in the philosophical issues of knowledge and certainty.

Past event: I was born in 1979. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.

Future event: The sun will rise tomorrow morning. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.

I appreciate the recommendation and should add that I have no background in philosophy. Let me clarify again though, I am not saying one can be certain of no past or future events. I am skeptical that one can be absolutely certain of all past and future events. In other words, there exist some past and future events of which we cannot be 100% certain.

Past Event: I was born in 1981. I am absolutely certain of that. Can you be absolutely certain of that?

Future Event: I am 99.9999999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow as well. Unless I were in certain parts of Alaska:) I'm certainly banking on it. It's definitely on the lowest of the low in order of probablity of non-occurence.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Mixon

[Mixon]

On this last point, we can generalize your claim to reach the following conclusion -- since one can imagine that some individual (law enforcement or otherwise) can always manufacture false evidence including fake forensic data and invented testimony, then it is impossible to have knowledge with certainty about any legally-relevant event. That is, we must be epistemological skeptics w.r.t. law.Your rationale would in fact lead to the conclusion that you cannot be certain about laws of nature. The validation of any empirical claim requires some kind of observational proof, and you can always imagine that the evidence has been forged (in some cases such as AGW you can even prove it).

As for the idea of "being absolutely certain of the laws of logic", I can't imagine what you mean by that. I think you're confusing the objective concept of a claim being certain with the subjective concept of a person being certain, and applying the latter concept to logic. If you're hoping to apply the former, you should first enumerate "the laws of logic" and give the definition of "certainty", where you will see that you've simply stated an arbitrary tautology.

Again, I must confess my lack of knowledge regarding philosophy. Maybe there is an easier way. Answer this for me. If I execute an convicted criminal who is innocent, is it a sacrifice? or have I committed an immoral act by initiating the use of force?

[Black Wolf]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence...er-murder-rates

Can it really be considered a deterrent if homicides are generally lower in states without the death penalty?

[Jake_Ellison]

Can it really be considered a deterrent if homicides are generally lower in states without the death penalty?

Yes.

[Black Wolf]

Yes.

In what way? Has there been evidence that it works as a deterrent?

[Jake_Ellison]

In what way?

In what way is yes the answer to your question? Logically. "The death penalty isn't a deterrent" is not the logical conclusion of that statistic you mentioned, so the death penalty could be a deterrent, even if your statistic is true.

Has there been evidence that it works as a deterrent?

Yes, thousands of years of human history, looking at how people behave, and even plain introspection, all tell me, without any doubt, that people usually prefer to avoid death and punishment in general: therefor punishment is a deterrent for crimes, and the greater the punishment, the greater the deterrent.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[DavidOdden]

Can it really be considered a deterrent if homicides are generally lower in states without the death penalty?

From looking at the data, you ought to be able to see that there really is no credible correlation between having the death penalty in a state and the homicide rate. I suggest you look at the raw data more closely. Look at the causes of himicide rates instead.

[RationalBiker]

In what way? Has there been evidence that it works as a deterrent?

The problem with measuring the deterence factor of any law is that a successful measurement requires you to know what did not happen, not what did happen. You can't simply look at whether a state has the death penalty and has a higher or lower murder rate versus a state that doesn't have one. You need to know how many murders didn't happen that otherwise would have in the presence (or absence) of such law. I've never seen a statistic that captured that information.

From my own consideration, I don't really care whether or not it is a deterence, I care whether or not it is a just and moral consequence (or punishment) for the crime committed. In my opinion, it is a just and moral consequence for some crimes. The issue is more of practicality in determining with certainty (not simply beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant committed the crime.

[Black Wolf]

In what way is yes the answer to your question? Logically. "The death penalty isn't a deterrent" is not the logical conclusion of that statistic you mentioned, so the death penalty could be a deterrent, even if your statistic is true.

Yes, thousands of years of human history, looking at how people behave, and even plain introspection, all tell me, without any doubt, that people usually prefer to avoid death and punishment in general: therefor punishment is a deterrent for crimes, and the greater the punishment, the greater the deterrent.

Perhaps I should rephrase: Is there evidence that the death penalty works as a better deterrent than life in prison?

[Grames]

Perhaps I should rephrase: Is there evidence that the death penalty works as a better deterrent than life in prison?

No. And life in prison is no deterrent either. And since there are no deterrents, therefore there should be no laws. (Now there is some foolproof logic!)

[Black Wolf]

No. And life in prison is no deterrent either. And since there are no deterrents, therefore there should be no laws. (Now there is some foolproof logic!)

That's not what I said. Challenging the deterrence in the death penalty =/= Implying lack of deterrence means that death penalty should be removed.

[Jake_Ellison]

You're looking for statistics to prove your theory, and you're missing obvious evidence because of it. The threat of deadly force is the most common deterrent that's ever been employed to prevent people from doing things, throughout history. In fact, it is the basic premise behind most acts of force. Claiming that people don't prefer living to dying is claiming that armed robbery (or the use of guns to arrest people for that matter) is impossible.

[freestyle]

That's not what I said. Challenging the deterrence in the death penalty =/= Implying lack of deterrence means that death penalty should be removed.

That logic holds only if your premise is that the purpose of a death PENALTY is deterrence.

As I read it, the primary purpose is PENALTY.