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

[stephen_speicher]

According to Objectivism, man can be contextually certain. Does this mean that Objectivists would approve of the Death Penalty on epistemological grounds?

Contextual certainty is not the same as omniscience. The irrevocable nature of an execution demands such a stringent standard of proof for the jurors that, considering the practical issue of assuring that such a standard be met, I would rather err on the judgment of life imprisonment. The idea of killing an innocent man is so horrible beyond the pale, that unless one can establish legal criteria which removes such a possibility, it is better to disallow execution. Certainly this would be the case in today's intellectual environment. Whether or not future legal scholars could establish such a criteria is a matter for those experts in the philosophy of law. Note that, though not stated in these same words, a similar view was expressed in the January 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter.

[DavidOdden]

I agree that there has to be some objective standard. But how is such a standard anchored back in sense-perceptual data, i.e. reality?

You touch on a lot of issues, which I can’t fully address here, so I’ll have to give you the short version. The ultimate root of the “social reality construction” business is the valid assumption that there is a non-volitional causal chain of events between what happens in the world and our sensation. There are well-known cases where what I see is not at all comparable to what you see (since I'm somewhat colorblind), which I’ll set aside for a moment, and other than that, those causal laws which will cause me to see a dog will also cause you to see a dog under the same circumstances. Given a few other conditions - if they are true - then if you say that you saw a dog (let’s say, at a specific place and time), even though I didn’t see the dog, I know that there was a dog at that time and place.

The further conditions are not self-evidently true, and some of the time are clearly untrue. I have to assume (1) that you are telling the truth and (2) that your integration of information, in the form of the conclusion “I saw a dog in that parking lot at noon”, is valid. The legal requirement for multiple witnesses is there in order to overcome reasonable doubts about these two points. Some people are habitual liars and do not warrant the benefit of the doubt, but generally I believe in ordinary circumstances we should assume that (1) is true. But a criminal prosecution is not ordinary, which is why there needs to be corroborating evidence of some claim, and that can take the form of needing two witnesses to an event, if the claimed event is to be considered to be evidence.

Point (2) is basically “were you mistaken?”. That issue cannot be answered in the abstract, but has to be taken on in terms of what is known. There is a growing psychological literature on “fact interpolation”, especially relevant to perceptually challenging circumstances (bad lighting, rapid events, stress levels), which is why 50 witnesses to tragic events such as plane crashes can all be wrong. My feeling is that people do not generally understand the importance of (2) being an potentially invalid assumption.

I don’t doubt that many people would leap to the conclusion that Smith is a murder, but a lot of people including most notoriously jurors don’t understand the concept of reasonable doubt, especially when dealing with volitional beings (i.e. man). The evidence provided here makes it plausible that Smith is guilty, but plausible is not good enough. The reasonable possibility still remains that someone else might have done the murder and framed Smith by planting the gun in his car. So a conviction would be inexcusable in this case, and execution would be inexcusable squared.

The ten witnesses cannot and do not assert “Smith killed Jones”. A decent attorney, who knew that there were 10 witnesses to Smith’s leaving the building would probably stipulate that Smith left that building at that time, eliminating any social reality construction. That leaves the hard forensic evidence.

[Soulsurfer]

Thanks for your nice answers. At this level of my understanding, I see the "social reality construction" as an objectively real phenomena. Of course this doesn't stipulate a construction of physical reality or existence as such (i.e. asserting the primacy of consciousness premises). Rather, what I am referring to here are the most common denominators of sense-data in all forms. This gives rise to situations when an exceptional individual may fall outside of those denominators, in terms of different sense-data, experiences, and thus their rational conclusions based on induction.

The point is that one cannot mix up what is considered reasonable with what is reason as an attribute of the individual, or what is socially constructed reality with what is objective reality. If you have seen the movie "Contact" (based on the book written by Carl Sagan), you can see a good example of this when Dr. Arroway returns from her galactic trip. In her own rational experience of reality, she went through a 48 hour experience (or something like that, I don't remember exactly). An objective proof of this is the 48 hour recording of noise which was saved on tape (a fact later hidden by the government). Yet, the trip according to the experience of an observing mankind lasted only for a few seconds. So when the rational Dr. Arroway reports her experience, it clashes with the experience of others. She has to say "What I am reporting is the truth to me, but I have no external proof to feed your sense-perception with and thus I can't claim that you take my word on blind faith."

I am not saying here that there is no absolute or objective reality; I'm actually asserting the primacy of existence. But I am saying that Dr. Arroway is objective and rational when she concludes that her experience was real -- even though other rational people would think she was confused, evading or reporting fiction. Likewise, I am saying that the earthbound observants (the rest of mankind) are also objective and rational in their conclusion that her trip lasted for a few seconds. I.e., different contexts of experience, different sense-data, but the same relationship to reality.

[Alon]

I used the forum's search engine and found no previous thread on this topic. I am curious to hear opinions of the death penalty.

I do not oppose the death penalty in and of itself but I wonder whether our judicial systems are capable of reaching an entirely objective conclusion on cases so complicated that they require the death penalty. Needless to say, because of its irrevocability, the death penalty must not be issued sparingly and only where the most infallible evidence exists. Because of the infrequent availability of such evidence, I doubt whether the courts should be able to impose irrevocable penalties.

There are cases in which new evidence, which exonerated the accused, came to light after he was executed. From a legal standpoint, are we bound to always doubt the rulings of the (criminal) courts and therefore abolish the death penalty (so that an irrevocable penalty may not be imposed on potentially innocent victims) or accept the appellate courts' rulings with a grim margin of error?

[Bryan]

From a legal standpoint, are we bound to always doubt the rulings of the (criminal) courts and therefore abolish the death penalty (so that an irrevocable penalty may not be imposed on potentially innocent victims) or accept the appellate courts' rulings with a grim margin of error?

You answered this question in the second paragraph of your post:

Needless to say, because of its irrevocability, the death penalty must not be issued sparingly and only where the most infallible evidence exists.  Because of the infrequent availability of such evidence, I doubt whether the courts should be able to impose irrevocable penalties.

There are cases where infallible evidence does indeed exist. Confessions of the criminal and direct eyewitnesses to the crime are examples. There is no reason to abolish the death penalty because of cases where there is some doubt because there are black and white cases where there is no doubt.

[DavidOdden]

I used the forum's search engine and found no previous thread on this topic.

There's something strange with the search function but I found the most recent thread on this that I recall: this thread. Your concerns are exactly correct.

From a legal standpoint, are we bound to always doubt the rulings of the (criminal) courts and therefore abolish the death penalty (so that an irrevocable penalty may not be imposed on potentially innocent victims) or accept the appellate courts' rulings with a grim margin of error?

There is no doubt that John Wilkes Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln, so you are not always bound to doubt the factual finding. I'm not sure how often the insanity defense is successful, though I have the impression that it doesn't generally work (except in sufficiently extreme cases that you really should doubt that there was culpability).

[NIJamesHughes]

There's something strange with the search function but I found the most recent thread on this that I recall: this thread. Your concerns are exactly correct.

There is no doubt that John Wilkes Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln, so you are not always bound to doubt the factual finding. I'm not sure how often the insanity defense is successful, though I have the impression that it doesn't generally work (except in sufficiently extreme cases that you really should doubt that there was culpability).

Recently there was a woman who crushed her childrens heads with rocks and told the officials that god told her to do it. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Here is another example:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/04/children...d.ap/index.html

And here is a list:

http://www.lawkt.com/files/Insanity_Defense.html

[Groovenstein]

My searches for "capital punishment" and "death penalty" revealed two sensible threads to post in. I'm going with this one.

As of now, I oppose the death penalty. I agree that it is morally just but legally dangerous. How legally dangerous? Here's a couple interesting insights I encountered in my research on right to counsel issues.

I start with some basic right to counsel law. The Sixth Amendment states that in all criminal trials, the accused shall have the right to the assistance of counsel for his defense. McMann v. Richardson says that the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Strickland v. Washington (decided in 1984, it's the landmark ineffective assistance of counsel case) set up a two-part test for evaluating effectiveness claims. The defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

One of the many problems is, for capital defendants especially, that Strickland demands that reviewing courts be highly deferential to counsel's performance. Sure, they say the standard is "reasonably effective assistance under prevailing professional norms," but if that's true, the prevailing professional norms are pretty pathetic.

Lawyers have been deemed effective, among many things, where they were drunk or high at trial, where they had zero trial experience, or where they weren't even criminal lawyers! Somebody not a criminal lawyer handling a capital murder case? Geez. About the drunk guys, one lawyer was drunk every day of the trial, and on one of the days was arrested for driving drunk to the courthouse. He blew a .27 that day. (Granted, in that case, the trial court gave the defendant a chance to get a different lawyer, and he refused after the judge told him his lawyer was one of the best in the county, but still.)

I close with some interesting info from "Drunk, Sleeping, and Incompetent Lawyers: Is It Possible to Keep Innocent People Off Death Row?" by Ira Mickenberg, located at 29 U. Dayton L. Rev. 319, 323.

"Nationally, far fewer than 1% of all attorneys are ever disciplined for misconduct, suspended from practice, or disbarred. Yet a recent study of lawyers assigned to represent capital defendants in Illinois, Texas, and Kentucky revealed that 30% of those lawyers had at some time in their careers been disciplined, suspended, or disbarred."

Sheesh.

[JMeganSnow]

As of now, I oppose the death penalty.  I agree that it is morally just but legally dangerous.  How legally dangerous?  Here's a couple interesting insights I encountered in my research on right to counsel issues.

I agree with Stanton Samenow's analysis of the death penalty issue as it was presented to me by Jack Wakeland: the death sentence for a capital crime on first offense should be commuted to life imprisonment, however if that individual commits any other capital crimes while in prison (as frequently happens) the suspended sentence should be carried out immediately.

Why do you suppose so many capital defense lawyers are incompetant? Is it because capital crimes are not very glamorous and the rewards for such a defense are miniscule? Is such defense usually carried out on a pro bono basis?

[The Guru Kid]

If a man confessess about a murder he committed, is it objectively justified that he get the death penalty?

From the replies i'm deriving that it is morally just to execute such a person because legally you're as close to certain about the crime as you can get.

[JMeganSnow]

If a man confessess about a murder he committed, is it objectively justified that he get the death penalty?

From the replies i'm deriving that it is morally just to execute such a person because legally you're as close to certain about the crime as you can get.

It depends. A confession alone is actually not completely objective evidence; the perp's confession still needs to be objectively verified somehow. People that confess to murders are (I'm guessing) more likely to ACTUALLY have acted in self-defense than people who try to cover up said murder. There may be mitigating circumstances that contraindicate the death penalty. This is why the philosophy of law is a science unto itself. Philosophy will tell you the principles on which to base your laws and their interpretation. Specific instances are a question for legal professionals.

[Groovenstein]

the death sentence for a captital crime on first offense should be commuted to life imprisonment, however . . .

Hmm. This intrigues me initially. I'll have to give some thought to how the "legally dangerous" element might play out in this context.

Why do you suppose so many capital defense lawyers are incompetant? . . .

I think you've got some of the possible reasons. I haven't done any great empirical research on this, but here are some initial guesses/potential problems.

I would guess that many capital defendants don't have much money. So they get assigned/appointed lawyers who I would guess are getting little to nothing for their time, and thus aren't likely to be the cream of the crop.

It merits investigating about the time part how much time is actually required. Capital cases might involve longer pretrial discovery, higher frequency of insanity defenses (and thus time and expense of acquiring and preparing psychological experts), longer trials, more elaborate sentencing procedures. And that's just to get a verdict and a sentence, nevermind the appeals. I don't know specifically about any of this, it's guesswork right now, but something to look into definitely.

As to the "glamour," I don't know much about that. My guess is that some lawyers wouldn't want to be associated with creeps, but some might want the publicity to draw attention to their practice, or to a cause, etc.

[The Guru Kid]

It depends.  A confession alone is actually not completely objective evidence; the perp's confession still needs to be objectively verified somehow.  People that confess to murders are (I'm guessing) more likely to ACTUALLY have acted in self-defense than people who try to cover up said murder.  There may be mitigating circumstances that contraindicate the death penalty.  This is why the philosophy of law is a science unto itself.  Philosophy will tell you the principles on which to base your laws and their interpretation.  Specific instances are a question for legal professionals.

Yea but that's not the point i was trying to make. Putting aside the circumstances that arise due to misjudgements (which are quite high as someone pointed out) is it objectively moral--as a big picture--to execute someone for a crime?

Many oppositions (i'm hesitant to say most since i haven't actually researched this) come from relegious groups. Their point of view is that since we cannot grant life, we should not be allowed to take it away. Since we're atheists--i hope we all are --we rule out that side of the argument.

Another issue came up in one of the 60 minutes edition that found out that many gang leaders operate even while under maximum security esp. because they have a right to unrestricted mail correspondance. In those cases death penalty sounds a very tempting solution.

[JMeganSnow]

Well, in order to determine whether the death penalty itself is objectively moral, one needs to ask the following question: What is the purpose of a criminal sentence?

There are two inextricably linked purposes to any sentence for a crime. First, to intentionally inflict some harm (in a humane fashion) upon the criminal in order to make concrete the negative consequences of his or her acts, and second to prevent said criminal from causing further damage if possible.

It is from this second purpose that the use of the death "penalty" (I prefer the term execution, it is more accurate) arises, and NOT the first as it is more often supposed.

In the case of petty theft, burglary and the like the individual (usually) retains enough grounding in reality that the first purpose of sentencing is of primary importance. <ethods such as counseling and re-education are appropriate (not mandatory, simply appropriate) to assist the criminal in re-learning how to live in civilized society. Such individuals CAN fix their poor premises, although it may take varying amounts of time and effort on their part.

However, violent criminals (rapists, murderers and the like) have progressed so far down the road to the annihilation of what enables them to even comprehend a civilized mode of life that they cannot (usually) be "re-habilitated". They are no longer a rational human being or even a human being, they have descended to some sub-animal, rabid, crazed method of living. Thus the second purpose of sentencing becomes paramount. In this case the death penalty is justified simply because it is the only way to prevent them from harming other individuals. Placing them in permanent solitary confinement is not a humane option.

The reason that (above) I suggested (based on what Mr. Wakeland said, with which I agree) that the sentence for the first offense should be commuted to life imprisonment is to prevent such cases as an innocent man being executed wrongfully. If he displays further murderous tendencies in prison the point of this becomes rather moot and the sentence is carried out.

[gags]

Putting aside the circumstances that arise due to misjudgements (which are quite high as someone pointed out) is it objectively moral--as a big picture--to execute someone for a crime?

I don't see a moral problem with the proposition that someone who is willing to take another person's life (assuming there are no mitigating circumstances) should have to forfeit his own life.

Here's a more provocative question: Should serial (more than one actual conviction) child molesters be given the death penalty? In many cases, child molesters literally destroy the lives of their young victims, causing them to have serious psychological problems for many years to come. Furthermore, there seems to be little evidence that hard-core molesters can ever be cured or rehabilitated. Most of them continue to harbor their desires after being punished, and their recidivism rates are quite high. Even molesters who were chemically castrated have been known to repeat their offenses.

Given the incurable nature of pedophiles as well as the terrible impact of their crimes, I'd like to see serial molesters given the death penalty.

[Scott_Connery]

The only problem with executing molesters/rapists etc is that this removes the incentive to leave victims alive.

If you rape someone, and know you will get the death penalty if convicted, you might as well kill them so they can't testify against you.

I think that it is morally appropriate to execute people for a wider range of crimes than is current, but there are unintended consequences.

[The Guru Kid]

However, violent criminals (rapists, murderers and the like) have progressed so far down the road to the annihilation of what enables them to even comprehend a civilized mode of life that they cannot (usually) be "re-habilitated".  They are no longer a rational human being or even a human being, they have descended to some sub-animal, rabid, crazed method of living. . . .  the death penalty is justified simply because it is the only way to prevent them from harming other individuals.  Placing them in permanent solitary confinement is not a humane option.

You make a good point there. Criminals such as serial killers and pedophiles are so warped and deviated from the societies paths that the one would have to permanently place them away from society.

In a strange way, execution is a more humane method of doing so than imprisonment for life.

[Edited to reduce quote length. Please review forum rules on quotations. Thanks.]

Edited May 25, 2005 by Groovenstein

[DavidOdden]

I do not see any case for arguing that a person who murders or rapes is necessarily morally irredeemable or that a burglar is necessarily not. Many thieves are in fact irredeemable, and not all murderers are "pattern" murderers. A reasonable first step for distinguishing the two kinds of criminals would be repeated offenses (in the obvious sense, and not just in the technical sense that allowed Scott Peterson to be put on death row). The question has to be answered, though, whether repeated thieves should not also be executed. The basic principle is the same, that some people have strayed so far from reality that they are permanently damaged goods from a moral POV, in using force repeatedly to life off of the lives of others. I don't see any reason to believe that a serial thief is any more deserving of remedial lessons in morality than a two-time murderer, and therefore less deserving of irrevocable justice than a killer. In addition, though, it is wrong to tie the second offense issue to the epistemological problem of erroneous convictions. Above all, there must be absolute certainty of guilt, not just "a credible case" as in the Peterson case, and this is true both of a first trial and a second trial.

Perhaps lifelong solitary confinement is inhumane: but who really cares if they are in solitary or not, as long as they are permanently away from civilized society.

[Groovenstein]

Perhaps lifelong solitary confinement is inhumane: but who really cares if they are in solitary or not, as long as they are permanently away from civilized society.

I'd rather have them doing hard labor than being in solitary. Save those of us who aren't pieces of poo a little bit of money.

[Hal]

I think we have to move beyond the stage of needing to invent non-sense like "people are irredeemable!!!"/"A person who has murdered can never remove this stain from his character!" in order to justify the punishment of offenders. The most important thing is to decide what the fundamental purpose of a legal system should be; if it is primarilly for retribution/detterence/revenge, then I dont think there is any real objection to the death penalty (or at least something similar - I think would be better if we could give people some kind of 'injection' that renders them unconscious indefinetely and then just store them in a large warehouse, since that would a) save a lot of money, and allows the possibility of releasing them if they turned out to be innocent). However if the purpose of punishment is going to be reform (ie state sanctioned brainwashing) then there may be reasons to oppose it. I'm firmly in the first camp though, so this doesnt really affect me.

In any case, I think allowing the government to torture people, be it physically with whips and branding irons or mentally with 'permanent solitary confinement', is a terrible idea no matter what.

On a sidenote, if anyone thinks the statement "a person is morally irreedeemable" means anything more than an emphatic way of saying "I would never be prepared to forgive that person", then I'd be curious what it was.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

However, violent criminals (rapists, murderers and the like) have progressed so far down the road to the annihilation of what enables them to even comprehend a civilized mode of life that they cannot (usually) be "re-habilitated".  They are no longer a rational human being or even a human being, they have descended to some sub-animal, rabid, crazed method of living.  Thus the second purpose of sentencing becomes paramount.  In this case the death penalty is justified simply because it is the only way to prevent them from harming other individuals.  Placing them in permanent solitary confinement is not a humane option.

People might tell themselves this in order to make themselves feel better about proposing that others should be killed, but I'm curious what the actual evidence for it is. People are capable of changing radically in a very short space of time - Patty Hearst would be a classic example here. Edited May 25, 2005 by Hal

[y_feldblum]

"Morally irredeemable" means e.g. Toohey as opposed to e.g. Andre. It's an objective judgment.

[Hal]

"Morally irredeemable" means e.g. Toohey as opposed to e.g. Andre. It's an objective judgment.

This isnt an explanation.

"Gronecker" means, eg, Yogi Berra as opposed to Michael Jordan. It's an objective judgement.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Hal

[Hal]

This isnt an explanation.

"Gronecker" means, eg, Yogi Berra as opposed to Michael Jordan. It's an objective judgement.

(to clarify)

What you posted doesnt make it clear whether your conception of 'moral iredeemability' lies in a) your ATTITUDE towards the person, ie whether you would ever forgive him. Don't automatically think of this as subjective - it could 'objective' in the sense that you may say it is objectively correct not to forgive someone under certain circumstances, or the fact that this person is so far corrupted that he could not be rehabilitated (as JMeganSnow suggests). In other words, it is unclear whether you are saying that if the murderer decided to try to 'become a new person', get his life back on track, and atone for his crimes, he would be unable to do this because he is an 'animal', or whether you are saying that even if he successfully done this, you would still claim he is never absolved of his past , presumably because his deed is like a bad stench' that will follow him around wherever he goes, and whatever he becomes.

Similar issues arise when it comes to deciding whether people should be held responsible for crimes they committed a long time ago - if it turned out that someone you knew actually murdered several people 30 years ago but had changed completely since then, do you still think he would be 'morally irredeemable'? Surely the fact he was able to turn himself around IS his redemption, in as much as the term has sense. As I argued in another thread, I dont think theres any meaningful way that someone can be considered 'the same person' as they were 30 years ago, assuming their personality has changed radically.

Edited May 25, 2005 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

I think we have to move beyond the stage of needing to invent non-sense like "people are irredeemable!!!"/"A person who has murdered can never remove this stain from his character!" in order to justify the punishment of offenders.

I think we need to progress to that stage. There are only three significant questions regarding disposing of guilty people. First: how can we make the victim whole? Jail time does not make the victim whole, and reparations must be the highest priority. Second: is the person a danger to civilization (which justifies segregation)? Third: is the person redeemable? If not, then the choice is between execution and permanent incarceration. I favor permanent incarceration with required labor -- a variant on Groovenstein's hard labor proposal (simple, "labor" which might be making license plates of sewing shoes or whatever).

The most important thing is to decide what the fundamental purpose of a legal system should be; if it is primarilly for retribution/detterence/revenge,

....

if the purpose of punishment is going to be reform (ie state sanctioned brainwashing)

...

By punishment I assume you mean actions that go beyond making the victim whole. Then the primary purpose is neither of your proposed purposes: it is to remove them from society, thus protecting the rights of innocents.

On a sidenote, if anyone thinks the statement "a person is morally irreedeemable" means anything more than an emphatic way of saying "I would never be prepared to forgive that person", then I'd be curious what it was.

It means that there is solid reason to believe that a person will never change his immoral patterns of behavior. People who are in the position to forgive or not forgive (the victims and their families) are not in a position to make such a judgment, since this is emphatically not an emotional question. It is essentially a psychiatric issue, which should be pursued with scientific dispassion.