The Death Penalty
My friend Peter the Public Defender convinced me a few years ago that the death penalty is a disaster as it is implemented in the U.S. Consequently, I'm now in favor of a long moratorium on it until we figure out whether it can be fixed. That is, I'm--somewhat reluctantly--against the death penalty in actual practice here and now.
I tend to be at odds with most death penalty opponents, however, because so many of them seem to be against the death penalty in principle. Normative ethics isn't my area, and this is a particularly thorny problem, but--to cut to the chase--there is simply no doubt in my mind that some people have earned execution. Whoever tortured and killed the Harvey family in Richmond, for example. Even if flaws in the system force us to suspend executions, it is abundantly clear to me that some people deserve death, and, ideally, would get it.
Among the people I know, those who are against the death penalty have some tendency to be those who have no very direct experience with heinous crime. This is one of the points made recently in Newsweek by Olga Polities. Looking in from the outside, such people don't really seem to understand what they're talking about, don't really seem to understand the enormity of the crimes in question.
The flames of this debate will almost certainly be fanned when Saddam swings for his crimes. In this case there is no question that he is guilty of mass murder, so there are no practical or epistemic questions to get in the way. It'll be rather as if we'd caught Hitler in '45. It will be interesting to see how liberals react when this happens. I'd like to make a prediction, but I just don't have one. Will my fellow liberals recognize the justice of the sentence--or at least its plausibility? Such unsual cases are interesting because they often reveal hidden disagreements of a particularly deep and important kind. If significant numbers of liberals come out against execution for Saddam, this will suggest to me that my disagreements with contemporary liberalism may be more profound than I have suspected. And it will certainly suggest something similar to many other relatively centrist, relatively independent voters.
My friend Peter the Public Defender convinced me a few years ago that the death penalty is a disaster as it is implemented in the U.S. Consequently, I'm now in favor of a long moratorium on it until we figure out whether it can be fixed. That is, I'm--somewhat reluctantly--against the death penalty in actual practice here and now.
I tend to be at odds with most death penalty opponents, however, because so many of them seem to be against the death penalty in principle. Normative ethics isn't my area, and this is a particularly thorny problem, but--to cut to the chase--there is simply no doubt in my mind that some people have earned execution. Whoever tortured and killed the Harvey family in Richmond, for example. Even if flaws in the system force us to suspend executions, it is abundantly clear to me that some people deserve death, and, ideally, would get it.
Among the people I know, those who are against the death penalty have some tendency to be those who have no very direct experience with heinous crime. This is one of the points made recently in Newsweek by Olga Polities. Looking in from the outside, such people don't really seem to understand what they're talking about, don't really seem to understand the enormity of the crimes in question.
The flames of this debate will almost certainly be fanned when Saddam swings for his crimes. In this case there is no question that he is guilty of mass murder, so there are no practical or epistemic questions to get in the way. It'll be rather as if we'd caught Hitler in '45. It will be interesting to see how liberals react when this happens. I'd like to make a prediction, but I just don't have one. Will my fellow liberals recognize the justice of the sentence--or at least its plausibility? Such unsual cases are interesting because they often reveal hidden disagreements of a particularly deep and important kind. If significant numbers of liberals come out against execution for Saddam, this will suggest to me that my disagreements with contemporary liberalism may be more profound than I have suspected. And it will certainly suggest something similar to many other relatively centrist, relatively independent voters.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:38 PM
7 Comments:
Among the people I know, those who are for the death penalty have some tendency to be those who have no very direct experience with reality. This is one of the points made recently here by a partisan. Looking in from the outside, such people don't really seem to understand what they're talking about, don't really seem to understand not acting on base emotion.
Your link--much like your argument--doesn't work.
Did I advocate acting on base emotion? Gosh, I don't find that anywhere in my post... Musta been an accident...
To make my position on acting on base emotion perfectly clear: I'm against it.
Oh, and that includes fantastically misplaced sympathy for murderers who just look so darned contrite and harmless sitting there in the courtroom... Now that they're not the one's with the guns...
If you've got some new arguments against the death penalty--in principle arguments--then lay 'em on me. I'm willing to be convinced on this issue.
Winston,
At the risk of oversimplifying, I think it depends on your opinion of the justice system's mission.
My understanding is that there are four potential purposes of the justice system:
1. Specific deterrence (assuring that the perpetrator does not harm again).
2. General deterrence (creating a disincentive in the population to commit crimes).
3. Rehabilitation of criminals.
4. Retribution.
I'm of the opinion that it is only with the latter in mind that a good case can be made for CP.
In the case of #1, lesser means will suffice. There is no empirical evidence that #2 is served by the death penalty. And #3 is self-evident.
So since I don't believe retribution to be the purpose of the justice system, I am opposed to the death penalty.
Standing only for myself - so this is not any gauge of your rift with contemporary liberalism per se - I oppose the unnecessary (i.e. not critically defensive) killing of any human being primarily on non-rational grounds. That is, it deeply offends my sense of morality. Your mileage may vary.
Look at it this way. If you approve of killing the perpetrators of particularly heinous crimes, why stop at killing? Why not, say, torture them as well? My answer would be that to inflict torture on another diminishes me as a human being - and, I take killing people the same way too. It’s just that simple.
So yes, I would oppose the execution of Saddam Hussein.
I mostly agree with the comments made by LC and EB, but I think there's a further wrinkle having to do with the use of Hussein as an example (as a disclaimer, I'm personally against the death penalty for normative reasons, so possibly that's playing a role in the discussion below).
A number of aspects of the case make me deeply uncomfortable -- for example, the defense was given less than two months to review prosecution materials gathered over two years, and the choice of starting with Dujail strikes me as problematic on a number of grounds, even before one considers the deplorable assassination of defense counsel, and allegations of government pressure to reach a speedy verdict (note that the chief judge appears to have just submitted his resignation in protest against government interference).
While I think it's best at this point to reserve judgment on the fairness of the trial until a bit more information is publicly available, I think there's a strong possibility that if Hussein is sentenced to death, reasonable people could conclude that the process which convicted him did not afford him due process of law.
In such an event, I think there are strong grounds for principled opposition to the sentence as applied. I certainly hold no brief for Hussein, and he is inarguably guilty of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. But to say that his execution after a flawed procedure is justified simply because he's clearly guilty is a fundamentally dangerous proposition, inasmuch as it bespeaks a total contempt for the rule of law. As such, if widespread liberal opposition does materialize, I'm not sure it will indicate what you suggest it might.
My link wasn't meant to work - just look at it - as indicated by "some partisan". I think it's in fact the case that most DP supporters are in it for emotion, and the argument you present isn't any better than "I think blah".
The DP is not a deterrent; it distorts the judicial and penal systems; it's unjustly final. It is applied in a racist, classist, inconsistent way; it has to be hidden from public view; it perverts the medical profession; it causes damage to those who carry it out. It puts us in a class with awful govts like NK and Iran and China.
I make no claim that the following three questions are exhaustive:
1. Ideally, could death be a moral penalty?
2. Is it practical to administer with perfect accuracy?
3. Is it practical to administer fairly?
I think these are ordered so that answering 'no' to any moots those that follow.
Death penalty opponents often answer 'no' to 1 and explain that murder is not a just punishment of murder. This argument is bogus. No one argues that we may not morally imprison for kidnapping or fine for theft. (Wingnuts call taxation theft, which is a claim similar in structure to the death penalty opponents' claim that the death penalty is murder.)
It's also very clear to me that the perpetrators of some heinous or repeated crimes deserve to die. (This is an emotional statement, though, not an argument.)
The answer to question 2 is easy. Even though DNA did not exonerate Virginia's now-executed convict, there have been so many death row exonerations that it's impossible to maintain that there could be a zero error rate. Eye-witness ID of a stranger is often worthless. (Note: We're currently treating DNA as the holy grail of evidence, but if you've ever discarded a used condom, your DNA could go places you've never been.)
That means I don't have to answer 3, but I will. Race still matters. Class matters, too, perhaps even more - see O.J., Robert Blake, etc. Rich people may do time, but they don't get executed.
As for Saddam, I expect the Iraqis to kill him, and I don't really object, but this circumstance is certainly unusual.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home