What is the O'ist view on the death penalty?

[Objectivist]

Nice response AutoJC!

[Objectivist]

I oppose the death penalty.

In one sense, it is morally legitimate to execute murderers. A murderer is a direct threat to my ultimate value, my life. If somebody is, in fact, a murderer, then it is in my rational self-interest for him to be dead. A murderer has no right to life as he has abdicated himself from the sphere of human rights by violating the rights and destroying the ultimate value of his victim. Strictly on moral grounds, there appears to be no doubt that the death penalty is a good thing. However, the simplicity of the moral argument is deceptive. The hard question is not a purely moral one, but an epistemological one. How do we establish standards of evidence that ensure that we don't execute innocent persons as murderers? When we make a mistake, for whatever reason (in the investigation, the trial...), an innocent person is falsely convicted of murder. To make this irreversible sentence of death, the evidence has to stack up to a new legal standard; absolute proof (not just "beyond a reasonable doubt."). No system of justice has ever established such standards, and I am doubtful that we can. To get the evidence for this kind of proof could cause all kinds of legal difficulties for law enforcement without violating our rights against search and seizure, speedy trials, trial by jury; ultimately our right to our private life and not to harassed by the government. Also, a misplaced trust is given to every single person who takes part in the investigation and trial. There are simply too many uncontrolled variables in a justice system, much like an economic system. Perfection in a justice system is not measured by the ability to find absolute proof, but the ability to protect peoples rights. An alternative punishment for murder, life in prison, serves the purpose of protecting me from murderers without invoking the risk of doing irreversible harm. This, in very brief summary, is why I oppose the death penalty.

Insults or arguments?

I'm betting on insults.

[AutoJC]

Today's criminal justice system, as explained to you above, has available to it the most advance forensic tools to minimize the risk of imposing capital punishment upon those who are innocent.

It is interesting to note that on the ARI Site's FAQ that Rand herself "had no position on the death penalty, yet she mentioned that "capital punishment was justifiable."

Hmmmm.....

[Objectivist]

Today's criminal justice system, as explained to you above, has available to it the most advance forensic tools to minimize the risk of imposing capital punishment upon those who are innocent.

Minimize isn't enough. Eliminate would be what it would take, which is impossible.

Like I have said to rationalcop, I think anyone who thinks that sacrificing an innocent man's life for the sake of personal comfort or enjoyment or "sense" of security, to be a completely EVIL, irrational, piece of (substitute 4 letter word for) garbage!

It is interesting to note that on the ARI Site's FAQ that Rand herself "had no position on the death penalty, yet she mentioned that "capital punishment was justifiable."

Hmmmm.....

The Argument from Intimidation/The Argument from Rand is God

Please come up with something on your own.

Start by addressing my posts. Explain to me why it is rational to sacrifice a few individual's lives for a personal sense of security, or personal comfort, like air conditioning.

Edit to say: This time try to focus on "SACRIFICING AN INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL LIFE FOR PERSONAL COMFORT"

Edit again to add: It is irrelevent, but Ayn Rand also said that capital punishment was legaly dangerous! Failed to include that didn't you?

[AutoJC]

The Argument from Intimidation/The Argument from Rand is God

Actually, Objectivist, that argument was in no way meant to intimidate.

It was meant to make a point you might find of interest.

Don't you think it interesting that Rand did NOT actually have a firm position on the death penalty?

Rest assured, I do not deify Ayn Rand. I do have profound respect for her writing talent, her books, and her philosophy. I have similar respect for Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burnham, and Frank Lloyd Wright as architects and the best my particular field has to offer.

[nimble]

i think it shows that Rand has the same conviction i do. I think it is moral to have capital punishment, i just cant justify its use in a flawed system.

[dondigitalia]

"I want to state, for the record, my own view of what is called 'hard-core' pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting."

--Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 23,  August 13, 1973.

That is Ayn Rand's personal opinion pornography, not a part of her philosophy. I happen to disagree with her opinion, and I see no real moral problem with pornography. But that's off topic, so I won't comment further.

I've abstained from posting in this thread so far (mostly because others had already made the points I would have made). I agree with most of the contributors: The death penalty IS morally justifiable, but may not be the best way to go considering the current state of our legal system. I have no other points to offer in addition to those that have already been made.

[DavidV]

Will the Admins do something about this F-ing idiot. He's giving me a headache.

He's destroyed this thread.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to give “Objectivist” a proper thrashing, so I will say this: behave or you will be banned. If you have any questions about how to behave in a civilized and respectful manner, message me privately.

[dondigitalia]

Ok admin, you should try to be more objective in determining who is misbehaving.

I write this with the utmost respect of anyone that reads it:

"SACRIFICING AN INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL LIFE FOR PERSONAL COMFORT" is the argument that has not been addressed.

I wouldn't advise arguing with GC. He is the owner of OO.net and makes no hesitation in exercising his property rights.

As to your second paragraph: Several people have agreed that the death penalty is moral only under cirumstance's where guilt is 100% certain. Whether such certainty is currently possible under our legal system is for the Philosophy of Law to decide and is not covered under Objectivism, although Objectivism does outline the correct methods that should be used for Philosophers of Law to make a proper decision. All of this HAS, in fact, been addressed.

[Objectivist]

I wouldn't advise arguing with GC. He is the owner of OO.net and makes no hesitation in exercising his property rights.

\

On what kind of a discussion forum can you not argue?

The people who hold that the death penalty should be used now, have not addressed my last point. Their position contradicts some of the fundamentals of objectivism, which I hold as irrational. They want to sacrifice other's rights for themselves. This has NOT been addressed. I don't appreciate GC's unsupported claims. However it is his site, and his rules, and I respect these facts. As the Owner he can tell me himself not to argue with him, and I will not. I respect his rights to this site, the question is, will he respect an innocent man's right to life?

[RationalBiker]

I am tenetively reentering this thread in the hopes that it will be more civil and mature.

To address Objectivist's point of:

"SACRIFICING AN INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL LIFE FOR PERSONAL COMFORT"

Recoqnizing a potential risk does not equal sacrificing. As with the establishment of anything, there is risk. For instance, in the establishment of a government, we would still run the risk of putting corrupt people in office. This level of corruption extends all the way to the level of taking innocent lives. Does this mean we wish to sacrifice innocents or condone corruption in our government? No. Does that mean we should not institute a government? No. It means that the best measures possible should be taken to avoid it, without discarding it all together. I may want to climb mountains with my friends, but that doesn't equate to wanting to sacrifice myself or my friends because there is a risk that we may fall and kill ourselves.

The idea of "sacrificing" an innocent man to the death penalty is on par with the idea of "sacrificing" an innocent man to a cold-blooded killer. Neither are sacrifices, but both are risks. I don't want to see either of these scenarios happen, but the risk is there that they will. However, I believe the likelihood of the cold-blooded killer killing an innocent is far greater. The cold-blooded killer is not submitting his "judgement" to kill to an (hopefully) objective third party for review.

The idea of the reliability of convictions has been brought up due to recent the reversal of some death penalty cases. Now before I go on, I want to clearly recognize a finding of guilty is necessary and should occur prior to capital punishment. If "beyond a reasonable doubt" measure is not achieved, one should not be convicted nor put to death. However, there is a distinction between establishing that requirement, and the suspect actually having not committed the crime. According to the following article, only about 1/3 of the overturned cases actually demonstrated the convicted party did not actually commit the crime. In the rest of the cases, the new found evidence only pushed the case back behind the "reasonable doubt" line.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-06-cover_x.htm

This does not mean that innocent men weren't wrongly convicted, but it begs questioning the proportion that has been tauted by anti-death penalty advocates. And these cases are generally overturned many years after the fact, prior to DNA and a number of other greatly improved investigative techniques which should significantly reduce the likelihood of error. Also, these are prior to the public's general awareness of these mistakes have been made, thus potentially ( and more likely ) making people more considerate of their judgement while sitting on a jury in a death penalty case.

Now, I know that it is the position of some people that NO MISTAKE is acceptable. You don't need to repeat that for my benefit. I understand your position. I don't have a problem with people taking that position, although clearly there are those who submit that I'm evil for taking my position. Be that as it may, I think an objective review of my life and accomplishments would suggest strongly otherwise. My position is that the risks present are sufficiently minimal and well enough safe-gaurded that I myself am willing to live under these rules, presumably being just as much at risk as the next guy.

In my opinion, if one has to have a 100% certainty requirement for the death penalty, then there is no point in making the distinction between the moral and political ramifications of capital punishment. In my opinion, it can never be applied perfectly, nor will it ever be applied perfectly. This essentially negates any purpose for having a moral position for the government applying capital punishment. It would not be a position based on reality.

Lastly, as many stated, there is some information on what Rand thought about capital punishment. The comments I have found from various (albeit questionable sources) is similar to that position that others expressed. Morally correct, politically dangerous. However, in one instance, it is suggested that she thought:

However, Rand was rightly concerned that as matter of practical epistemology, it is difficult to know with certainty whether an accused person has truly committed a capital crime. Since a death penalty, once enforced, can never be taken back, she thought in practice it should only be applied in rare cases.

- http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivi...p?QuestionID=12

I don't vouch for the authenticity of this statement, but I would like to know if anyone can point to speaking statements by Rand supporting or refuting this position. It's suggestive that she was not entirely dissuaded from it's application under the current system.

VES

[nimble]

i believe she felt morally compelled, yet knew the potential dangers.

As another point, capital punishment costs more (because of the amount of retrials and special jailing areas involved), why would it even be necessary? If the government would cut back on spending in other areas, prison funding wouldnt even be an issue and we could build more prisons.

[dondigitalia]

In my opinion, if one has to have a 100% certainty requirement for the death penalty, then there is no point in making the distinction between the moral and political ramifications of capital punishment.

I light of this I will clarify what I meant by 100% certainty. 100% certainty does not mean 100% infallibility. It means that 100% of the proper measures have been taken for validating evidence and rationally arriving at a decision. There is always a [remote] chance that an individual can be 100% certain of a conclusion that is later proved to be incorrect.

100% infallibility is unrealistic and inadmissable as a requisite for any moral or legal decision.

Whether our current legal system can provide 100% certainty is something I am unqualified to comment on. If someone else is, I would be interested to hear your assessment.

[dondigitalia]

As another point, capital punishment costs more (because of the amount of retrials and special jailing areas involved)...

Many of the additional costs associated with capital punishment are not direct results of capital punishment. Instead, they are direct results of our appeals system.

Again, it is for Philosophy of Law to decide whether or not our appeals system is proper.

[nimble]

yea i mentioned the appeals system. That was the retrials part of my quote.

[RationalBiker]

As another point, capital punishment costs more (because of the amount of retrials and special jailing areas involved), why would it even be necessary? If the government would cut back on spending in other areas, prison funding wouldnt even be an issue and we could build more prisons.

Justice is about retribution. If one takes a life, one loses his / her life. Not simply that ability to live free in society. Retribution, not retention or restriction.

VES

[nimble]

Justice is about retribution.  If one takes a life, one loses his / her life.  Not simply that ability to live free in society.  Retribution, not retention or restriction.

VES

for a rational individual, i think it might be worse to live without freedom, than to be dead. And retribution isnt always a life for a life. When a criminal steals 15000 from banks, does the justice system charge the criminal 15000 then let him go back out in the streets? I think it is alot more complex than you make it.

[RationalBiker]

I think it is alot more complex than you make it.

I appreciate the expression of your opinion.

VES

[nimble]

hmm, that was an awkward response, i was anticipating a rebuttal. Thank you? I guess?

[stephen_speicher]

I would like to know if anyone can point to speaking statements by Rand supporting or refuting this position.  It's suggestive that she was not entirely dissuaded from it's application under the current system.

I gave this quote in a prior post. It was written by an associate of Ayn Rand, but with her sanction and approval. I have never heard anything by her which contradicts what was written in that article. See the article for the whole statement.

"If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropiate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem.... It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisionment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death."

-- "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment," The Objectivist Newsletter, p. 3, January 1963.

[nimble]

good point, i think that may be the argument from intimidation, but i rarely disagree with Rand, and I am with her on this issue.

[RationalBiker]

hmm, that was an awkward response, i was anticipating a rebuttal. Thank you? I guess?

I stated what I stated within the context of death penalty cases, which is this thread of discussion, not all killings. I understand that not all death penalty cases result in death, and some result in life imprisonment. Perhaps I should not have assumed that you knew that I was speaking within the context of this particular thread, although every other response I have on here has related to the death penalty and / or the application of capital punishment. Therefore, I contend that those who are convicted and given the penalty of death, do in fact deserve death because of retribution, not life imprisonment instead because of the cost issue.

As to what THEIR preference would be in that situation, life or death, I could care less.

I don't think the larceny issue parallels. A person who steals may not be able to practically pay back the appropriate amount. And if it were a matter of paying back, it would be a civil issue, not a matter for the criminal trial, unless that was part of a pleas agreement when someone could pay it back. Criminal judges are not in the business of ordering criminals to recompense monetary value for monetary value. Again, that's a matter for civil suit. However, if convicted of murder and given the death penalty, the convicted party ALWAYS has his / her life to forfeit for retribution.

In short, I do understand the complexity of the issue.

VES

[RationalBiker]

Thanks for pointing that out Stephen. It appears that I have reached my first disagreement with Ms. Rand.

VES

[nimble]

Thanks for pointing that out Stephen.  It appears that I have reached my first disagreement with Ms. Rand.

VES

thats so sad. although i cant say i agree with her on everything either, but is more than often right.

[Objectivist]

I oppose the death penalty.

In one sense, it is morally legitimate to execute murderers. A murderer is a direct threat to my ultimate value, my life. If somebody is, in fact, a murderer, then it is in my rational self-interest for him to be dead. A murderer has no right to life as he has abdicated himself from the sphere of human rights by violating the rights and destroying the ultimate value of his victim. Strictly on moral grounds, there appears to be no doubt that the death penalty is a good thing. However, the simplicity of the moral argument is deceptive. The hard question is not a purely moral one, but an epistemological one. How do we establish standards of evidence that ensure that we don't execute innocent persons as murderers? When we make a mistake, for whatever reason (in the investigation, the trial...), an innocent person is falsely convicted of murder. To make this IRREVERSABLE sentence of death, the evidence has to stack up to a new legal standard; absolute proof (not just "beyond a reasonable doubt."). No system of justice has ever established such standards, and I am doubtful that we can. To get the evidence for this kind of proof could cause all kinds of legal difficulties for law enforcement without violating our rights against search and seizure, speedy trials, trial by jury; ultimately our right to our private life and not to harassed by the government. Also, a misplaced trust is given to every single person who takes part in the investigation and trial. There are simply too many uncontrolled variables in a justice system, much like an economic system. Perfection in a justice system is not measured by the ability to find absolute proof, but the ability to protect peoples rights. An alternative punishment for murder, life in prison, serves the purpose of protecting me from murderers without invoking the risk of doing irreversible harm. This, in very brief summary, is why I oppose the death penalty.</span>