Capital punishment, crime, punishment etc...

Questions about Objectivism
1

We are going over these topics in my discussion class, Government and the Economy (lead by the “resident communist”) and I realized I put a lot of thought into these subjects that was my own.

I’m not really for sure what Objectivism says about these things, or what you guys think. What do you think about the death penality? I used to be for it until, LaszloWalrus actually made a good arguement against it.

Gun control is a big thing we were talking about too, but I know where I stand on that.

Something people have brought up is that America has a higher crime rate and is more violent then Europe. I don’t know if that’s true or how that’s true. What does everyone think about the crime rate in their countries and whats causing it?

2

I’m not really for sure what Objectivism says about these things, or what you guys think. What do you think about the death penality?

Here is all that Objectivism has to say about it. Rand herself did not write on the topic. Nathaniel Branden, in “Intellectual Ammunition Department,” The Objectivist Newsletter 2:1 (January 1963), p. 3, said

There are grounds for debate – though

not

out of sympathy or pity for murderers.

If it were possible to by fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes;

that

is the problem. There have been instances recorded where all the available evidence pointed overwhelmingly to a man’s guilt, and the man was convicted, and then subsequently discovered to be innocent. It is the possibility of executing an

innocent

man that raises doubts about the legal advisability of capital punishment. It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisonment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death.

which is online here. The point is that the only philosophically coherent argument against capital punishment is based on the possibility of error.

3

What do you think about the death penalty?

I am for it as long as evidence of the perpetrator’s guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it’s ridiculous to burden taxpayers with the cost of keeping the worst offenders alive and healthy. In addition, I think the victim and their family deserve justice, and in some cases, the death penalty is the only way to assure that.

Gun control is a big thing we were talking about too, but I know where I stand on that.

This reminds me of a humorous Ted Nugent quote I heard not long ago… “I don’t like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders.” :slight_smile:

What does everyone think about the crime rate in their countries and whats causing it?

I think America has greater crime rates than other “Westernized” countries because the poor in America have a sense of entitlement and seem to think that no American should have to live like they do. I think so many of them are uneducated and lost in their own despair, that they become desperate and turn to lives of crime. (And I don’t think they realize that they live better than the poor of any other nation…they fail to realize how good they have it and focus only on what they don’t have.)

Tribalism is not helping either. When one race feels persecuted against, they are going to feel as though another race owes them something, and eventually, they are just going to try and take what they feel is rightfully theirs. Whether it’s Crips, Bloods or MS13, they’re all a problem and bad philosophy is causing them to hurt themselves, their communities and their families.

And then, of course, you have the war on drugs. I don’t know what the exact numbers are, but a very high percentage of all crimes committed in this country involve illegal drugs or their use.

4

I think America has greater crime rates than other “Westernized” countries because the poor in America have a sense of entitlement and seem to think that no American should have to live like they do.

That’s not a uniquely American affliction. Lots of people the world over think they’re entitled to all sorts of things, and if it takes crime to obtain them then so be it. I’ve a very vivid memory of a Mexican car thief who tried justifying his actions with “Why shouldn’t I have a nice luxury car?”

And then, of course, you have the war on drugs. I don’t know what the exact numbers are, but a very high percentage of all crimes committed in this country involve illegal drugs or their use.

I assume again you mean in America. It’s true, but also in other countries. You may have heard about drug dealing gangs in mexico executing people left and right. the president has had to sic the army (such as it is) after them. Many of the drugs they run wind up in America, sure, but there’s a large internal market as well.

Naturally drugs ought to be legalized everywhere.

Still, that’s only part of the problem. If we look for “root causes” we’ll find that criminals are the cause of crime. That is, as long as people feel entitled to initiate force to get what they want, we’ll have crime. That’s not going to end any time soon, but as experience has shown it helps not to tolerate criminals and their crimes. This has been rpoven to work just about everywhere it’s been tried. I wouldn’t even argue or belabor the point.

But why do people tolerate crime anyway? Why do people sympathize with criminals to the point of defending them?

Part of the answer is empathy. A mere belief or feeling that one is entitled to a “nice luxury car” is not enough to make one a car thief. there has to be something else. A liking for violence, perhaps, or enjoyment in the feeling that you might get caught at any time. So most people, even if very altruistic, won’t turn to crime. But they will feel empathy for those who do (the classic “I approve of your ideals but not of your methods” tripe). And that translates into viewing criminals as victims rather than victimizers.

On the other hand, is theft still theft if it is legal? In other words, what about taxes? What about appropriating other people’s money through the force of law? Meaning many people who wouldn’t mug strangers in the street for money feel justified in forcing millions to pay them money through taxes. The actual use of force is, perhaps, one step removed. That’s why most politicians inclined to be overly lenient on criminals are also big for welfare in any shape or form.

Edited to add:

I favor capital puinishment, but do worry about the posibility of sending innocent people (at least innocent of murder) to their deaths.

One possible answer would be a board of review for capital cases. Once the veredict is in, the board would review all the evidence and interview witnesses (if any), including evidence and witnesses that migth ahve been excluded from the trial by the presiding judge. The board would only have the power to confirm or revoke the death sentence, not to overturn the veredict. A revoked sentence would be commuted to life in prison without parole. This would be entirely separate from any appeals concerning either the veredict or sentence.

Setting up rules for such a board is not an easy undertaking.

5

I’m not really for sure what Objectivism says about these things, or what you guys think.

HERE is what the ARI says in response to the question: “What was Ayn Rand’s view on capital punishment?”

Maybe someone has heard her in a Q and A somewhere answering it directly? I don’t know. I can’t remember that I have, but I haven’t lisened to a lot of the material.

6

On the other hand, is theft still theft if it is legal?

Perhaps you only asked this rhetorically, but just in case here’s my response.

The concept of ‘theft’ and its subsequent moral evaluation are still valid regardless of legality. Taking another person’s property without their consent is an initiation of force. You can make the distinction between the legal term (usually larceny), which obviously relies on the law, and the concept of theft, which relies solely on the principle of justice. Just (and rational) ways to treat other people are not conceptually affected by the lack of law or the passage of law. However, the passage of law does allow pragmatists to have their way. So as we obviously know, the pragmatists can steal all they want under the color of law and not be subject to any legal sanction. Despite that, theft remains an unjust way to treat other people so those who steal from us are still fair game for our moral evaluation.

7

Perhaps you only asked this rhetorically, but just in case here’s my response.

If there’s such a thing as a half-rhetorical question then that was it.

As for the rest, I agree. Taxes are plain and simple theft, but few people see it that way. Some may favor lower taxes, and almost all will favor an easier tax system, but nearly everyone will say taxes are necessary.

8

I am for it as long as evidence of the perpetrator’s guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it’s ridiculous to burden taxpayers with the cost of keeping the worst offenders alive and healthy. In addition, I think the victim and their family deserve justice, and in some cases, the death penalty is the only way to assure that.

I don’t support it, at the moment, because of the “killing an innocent” thing. It’s not a burden on tax dollars to keep dangerous people in jail, in fact, that’s probably the best way to spend your tax dollars.

It’s about justice, and we can’t be just if we end up taking an innocent man and putting him through the same treatment as a guilty man and kill him. It’s not worth it. Every innocent person killed is worth more then 100 guilty men killed. Plus, murderers aren’t the majority of prisoners, to the best of my knowledge. I think it also opens up a can of worms, if you give your government the ability to kill, where is the line they draw for killing? I think you will end up with lynch mobs too, because, why wait for the courts to decided who is innocent or not? Joe Blow said John Doe did it, so lets go kill John Doe.

Putting the dangerous person in a place where they won’t be dangerous is the best we can get right now. At least, that’s what I think, I might change my mind but I haven’t heard really convincing arguements.

I think America has greater crime rates than other “Westernized” countries because the poor in America have a sense of entitlement and seem to think that no American should have to live like they do. I think so many of them are uneducated and lost in their own despair, that they become desperate and turn to lives of crime. (And I don’t think they realize that they live better than the poor of any other nation…they fail to realize how good they have it and focus only on what they don’t have.)

I make similiar conclusions. Crime is related to culture, that’s for sure. I don’t like the “sense of entitlement” idea. No offense, but it makes me think of all these rich Republicans (I say Republican because rich Democrats don’t say these things) who inherited most of their money, had their parents pamper them their whole life and never knew what it was like to suffer in poverty, to not know where your next meal is coming from. I think they have the same “sense of entitlement” because they feel entitled to their parents wealth, or they don’t understand the value of wealth because it’s always been there for them.

That’s not an arguement, but it’s the reason I always feel hesistant in saying someone has a “sense of entitlement.”

Whether it’s true or not, I don’t know.

There are a lot of factors in a culture that can contribute to crime. Maybe everyone puts this emphasis on the things wealth brings, but never on how you actually create the wealth? The ends justify the means in a way. It doesn’t matter where you got the nice luxury car, if you earned it, if it was handed to you for no reason or if you stole it. All that matters is that you have it and people see you with it.

I blame superficiality and collectivism. Which brings up another point you made…

Tribalism is not helping either. When one race feels persecuted against, they are going to feel as though another race owes them something, and eventually, they are just going to try and take what they feel is rightfully theirs. Whether it’s Crips, Bloods or MS13, they’re all a problem and bad philosophy is causing them to hurt themselves, their communities and their families.

MS13… They are a huge problem. The Bloods and Crips were just territoral primitive bastards, but MS13 is sick and pure evil. Their stated goal is to be the most violent street gang the world has ever seen. They want to spread violence. (I read this on Wikipedia).

The tribalism is another sign of rising collectivist mentality in our culture, I think.

And then, of course, you have the war on drugs. I don’t know what the exact numbers are, but a very high percentage of all crimes committed in this country involve illegal drugs or their use.

Legalizing drugs would eliminate alot of these problems I think, but we won’t know until we try.

9

I think it also opens up a can of worms, if you give your government the ability to kill, where is the line they draw for killing? I think you will end up with lynch mobs too, because, why wait for the courts to decided who is innocent or not? Joe Blow said John Doe did it, so lets go kill John Doe.

I totally disagree. I don’t think it would be a silppery slope like that at all. You give the government via a system of laws the ability to punish wrongdoers. If that punishment involves killing them, it is to be decided by trial, or due process. All is subordinate to an objectively based system of laws (from an objective theory of values), and punishment/consequences for breaking them.

Besides, the government already has the ability to kill via military…

10

I think it also opens up a can of worms, if you give your government the ability to kill, where is the line they draw for killing?

Given that a number of states in the US still have and actually use capital punishment, and have had it for a number of years, where is your evidence that they are redrawing lines to kill more people?

11

It’s not a burden on tax dollars to keep dangerous people in jail, in fact, that’s probably the best way to spend your tax dollars.

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I wanted to pick on this one statement. :slight_smile:

I would like someone to tell me how it’s not a burden on me, as a tax payer, to have to pay to keep this offender alive and healthy when he is so clearly not worthy of living. What he and his accomplices did to these two girls is not only nightmarish and inconceivable, it is certainly the epitome of a crime that is worthy of the death penalty.

As an aside, to make matters worse, it looks like one of the men will get off his death penalty conviction because he was never informed he could consult with the Mexican consulate, and another offender had his sentence reduced to life because he was 17 at the time of the crime. I don’t know about you all, but when I was 17 years old, I knew far better than to do something like this to someone.

If you care to read more horror stories from the Texas Criminal Justice Department, you may find them here and I’m sure they’re all the evidence you will need to conclude that it is a waste of tax payer money to keep many of these men, and women, alive and healthy. (The website is actually pretty interesting for any of you interested in real life crime stories. You can find information about last words, last meals, details of the offenses, offenders, etc.)

12

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I wanted to pick on this one statement. :slight_smile:

I would like someone to tell me how it’s not a burden on me, as a tax payer, to have to pay to keep this offender alive and healthy when he is so clearly not worthy of living. What he and his accomplices did to these two girls is not only nightmarish and inconceivable, it is certainly the epitome of a crime that is worthy of the death penalty.

As an aside, to make matters worse, it looks like one of the men will get off his death penalty conviction because he was never informed he could consult with the Mexican consulate, and another offender had his sentence reduced to life because he was 17 at the time of the crime. I don’t know about you all, but when I was 17 years old, I knew far better than to do something like this to someone.

If you care to read more horror stories from the Texas Criminal Justice Department, you may find them here and I’m sure they’re all the evidence you will need to conclude that it is a waste of tax payer money to keep many of these men, and women, alive and healthy. (The website is actually pretty interesting for any of you interested in real life crime stories. You can find information about last words, last meals, details of the offenses, offenders, etc.)

It’s worth my money because I’d rather have them in jail then out on the streets.

Imagine this, a man gets put in jail and recieves the sentence for the death penalty for killing a little girl. The family, the people hurt, want him dead as soon as possible. So, they wait for the day the man is sentence and watch him get killed so they can finally feel better about the girls death. Two months later, DNA evidence and a new witness reveal that the person they just killed had nothing to do with the murder.

Now what? The killer is still out there and the family just used the government to lock up an innocent man and take his life away so they can feel better. The sucessively sacrificed someone for their emotional satisfaction.

Are you willing to run that risk?

Also, what does it accomplish anyways? You could say justice. But, things still don’t change. Texas kills more people in any other state and they still have murderers and criminals running amock. It doesn’t deter these people at all.

It’s also a costly procedure to kill someone, to get to the point where you have all the evidence, the paperwork involved, all the committees and reviews that would have to be done…

Given that a number of states in the US still have and actually use capital punishment, and have had it for a number of years, where is your evidence that they are redrawing lines to kill more people?

I never stated that anyone is redrawing the lines, only that they could be redrawn if the wrong people come into power.

Going off what K-Mac said, if it’s a waste of money to have these people in jail – we should just kill them.

Why don’t we kill child molestors, rapists, drug smugglers, theives, con men…

We are paying to keep them alive, so why don’t we just kill them? Why have prisons at all? Lets just grab people off the streets when we think they’ve done something wrong, maybe take them to a judge, and then bring them out back and hang them.

It’s a slippery slope, and I’ve seen people like Evangelicals claiming we need to use capital punishment for gay people, and treat sodomy like a crime (it already is in some states) and some Environmentalists urging the use of the death penalty for serious environmental offenders… Do we want to give these people the power to abuse it?

Texas kills the most people, “(Texas conducts more executions than any of the other U.S. states, with 400 executions between 1976 and 2007 and since the Death Penalty resumed in 1982)” – Wikipedia article on capital punishment. That is not a lot, not enough to worry about wasting money to keep them alive, especially considering that some of them actually might be innocent.

13

I never stated that anyone is redrawing the lines, only that they could be redrawn if the wrong people come into power.

(snip)

It’s a slippery slope, and I’ve seen people like Evangelicals claiming we need to use capital punishment for gay people, and treat sodomy like a crime

Okay, you say that it’s a slippery slope, but there’s no evidence of that in areas where Capital Punishment is legal and used, that’s my point. Your slippery slop argument has no backing at this point because as a matter of practice nothing is slipping.

Personally, I agree with the Death Penalty on moral grounds regardless of whether it may or may not be a slippery slope in the future. It’s just punishment for certain crimes in principle and if the slip starts to occur, we address it then.

I do agree with a higher standard of guilt more consistently applied is necessary before executing someone, but I don’t discard what is otherwise a moral and proper punishment for maliciously depriving another human being of ALL of their rights.

Do we want to give these people the power to abuse it?

But you have admitted you don’t have evidence that it’s being abused in places where it is legal and used, that no redrawing of the lines is occuring.

As to deterence, I don’t care if the death penalty is a deterent or not. I care that each individual perpetrator receives a just punishment commensurate to the crime they committed. The parity for death is death. Whatever side effect that has immaterial to the principle of justice.

The only possibility that deterence even has a chance to have an impact on crime is if you meet the following factors;

  1. The punishment is commensurate to the crime;

  2. The punishment is consistently applied in virtually every case;

  3. The punishment is known by potential offenders.

I would say that our current justice system has significant problems in 1 and 2 and some problems in 3.

As I have discussed this before with others several times in the past, the only objection that I’ve seen you state that I consider somewhat legitimate is linked to 1 and 2. The sometimes whimsical nature of a jury does cause issues with the proper and consistent application of the death penalty, so as a practical matter it’s dangerous. The rest of it, deterence, cost, slippery slope, etc. is not in the picture, at least not in my view.

Edit to add one more point.

Are you willing to run that risk?

I learned early on that this is really not a pertinent consideration for the vast majority of people. Your chances of being murdered in most places is very, very minute. It’s easy (at least for me) to answer yes, but in doing so one ignores the principle involved. What level of risk one is willing to assume varies from one person to the next. I deal in a business (i’m a cop) where I have a reasonably higher chance than a lot of other people of being murdered. I don’t worry about it. I also do not worry in the least that I will ever be convicted wrongly of murder. So if it were simply a matter of risk assessment, I’d say “yes, I’m willing to take that risk”. Instead, look at the principles involved instead of trying to crunch the numbers of what would be an acceptable amount of risk to take.

14

I still like the option I heard some time ago. Capital criminals receive a sentence of death that is commuted to life imprisonment for first offense. If they engage in any criminal activity while they are in prison (and it happens), basically any second offense, the sentence of death is reinstated and carried out with all due haste.

Give them some rope and let them hang themselves with it.

15

Two months later, DNA evidence and a new witness reveal that the person they just killed had nothing to do with the murder.Going off what K-Mac said, if it’s a waste of money to have these people in jail – we should just kill them.

That’s why I think there should be clear evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in death penalty cases. I do not think men should be put to death unless it can be proven they were indeed guilty of the crime, of course. And we’re talking about capital offenses here, not drug pushers and petty thieves. I certainly don’t think we should kill them all, and I don’t recall saying as much.

I still like the option I heard some time ago. Capital criminals receive a sentence of death that is commuted to life imprisonment for first offense. If they engage in any criminal activity while they are in prison (and it happens), basically any second offense, the sentence of death is reinstated and carried out with all due haste.

Give them some rope and let them hang themselves with it.

Hmm, interesting.

16

According to a 1990 study, the total cost to build a maximum-security prison cell is $63,000, which breaks down to approximately $5,000 a year in principal and interest. The annual cost to maintain an inmate in this cell is approximately $20,000 a year. Together, these costs mean an annual expenditure of $25,000 to incarcerate an inmate. Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million—less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145 before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her.

Other studies have reached similar conclusions. According to a study by the Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission released in 2002, executions cost the state 38 percent more than the costs of keeping an inmate incarcerated for life. Similarly, a 1993 study at Duke University showed that between 1976 and 1992, the state of North Carolina spent in excess of $1 billion on executions or $2.16 million per execution. Moreover, in January 2003, the California governor approved the construction of a $220 million state-of-the-art death row.

17

Those studies always neglect the costs of the endless apeals that people with life sentences file. They do include them on the costs of executing people though.