Death penalty rests on three arguments:
1) Retributive justice or eye for an eye
2) It is cheaper to execute someone than keep him alive indefinitely
3) It is a deterrent for criminals
The first point is subjective and the last two can be objective. The first point relies on jurisprudence and philosophy. As such there is no clearly correct position. Every side has got rational arguments for their position. The supporters argue that the punishment ought to fit the crime, for murder this means death. Others say that two wrongs do not make a right, or that an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. It may be argued that matters of personal preference should not enter rational analysis. As David Hume said the question of what ought to happen cannot be derived from what is factual (Hume's guillotine). Thus the arguments of personal preference of what ought to be a proper ethical position on the death penalty are all in doubt since they cannot be backed up by facts.
It is true that is much cheaper to kill someone and be done with it rather than having to pay for food and accommodation for indefinite amount of time. However our system of justice relies having extremely strong argument for someone’s guilt in order to avoid punishing the innocent. Standards for proving someone to be guilty and fit for capital punishment are very high and actually impose a cost far higher than of keeping someone locked up for life. On a cost-benefit analysis one may not argue that the death penalty is the cheaper argument. One may argue this only when the system of justice is not so fussy about proving someone innocent, but is far less desirable for our society.
It seems to be logical to think that the death penalty is a deterrent for murder. But then people rarely commit murder thinking they will get caught. Most simply fail to account for the risk of the death penalty. Since each murder case is unique with many unique causes, it is statistically hard to analyse the effect of the death penalty on the murder rate. Some econometric analysis shows a negative correlation between murder rate and the use of the death penalty others show the opposite. Same say that whenever death penalty has been suspended the murder rate stayed about the same but others would argue that other circumstantial socio-economic factors played a part in keeping the murder rate down.
All arguments for the death penalty are dubious. Unfortunately most counterarguments are somewhat dubious too. The question returns to jurisprudence and choosing the lesser of two evils on subjective grounds. I think the strongest argument remains that innocent people have been killed in the name of justice. Clearly the system has been shown to be fallible. Thus to avoid killing the innocent death penalty ought not be used at all. Lifelong imprisonment allows new evidence to come forward and a chance to redeem oneself. This is why the civilised countries do not have the death penalty.
1) Retributive justice or eye for an eye
2) It is cheaper to execute someone than keep him alive indefinitely
3) It is a deterrent for criminals
The first point is subjective and the last two can be objective. The first point relies on jurisprudence and philosophy. As such there is no clearly correct position. Every side has got rational arguments for their position. The supporters argue that the punishment ought to fit the crime, for murder this means death. Others say that two wrongs do not make a right, or that an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. It may be argued that matters of personal preference should not enter rational analysis. As David Hume said the question of what ought to happen cannot be derived from what is factual (Hume's guillotine). Thus the arguments of personal preference of what ought to be a proper ethical position on the death penalty are all in doubt since they cannot be backed up by facts.
It is true that is much cheaper to kill someone and be done with it rather than having to pay for food and accommodation for indefinite amount of time. However our system of justice relies having extremely strong argument for someone’s guilt in order to avoid punishing the innocent. Standards for proving someone to be guilty and fit for capital punishment are very high and actually impose a cost far higher than of keeping someone locked up for life. On a cost-benefit analysis one may not argue that the death penalty is the cheaper argument. One may argue this only when the system of justice is not so fussy about proving someone innocent, but is far less desirable for our society.
It seems to be logical to think that the death penalty is a deterrent for murder. But then people rarely commit murder thinking they will get caught. Most simply fail to account for the risk of the death penalty. Since each murder case is unique with many unique causes, it is statistically hard to analyse the effect of the death penalty on the murder rate. Some econometric analysis shows a negative correlation between murder rate and the use of the death penalty others show the opposite. Same say that whenever death penalty has been suspended the murder rate stayed about the same but others would argue that other circumstantial socio-economic factors played a part in keeping the murder rate down.
All arguments for the death penalty are dubious. Unfortunately most counterarguments are somewhat dubious too. The question returns to jurisprudence and choosing the lesser of two evils on subjective grounds. I think the strongest argument remains that innocent people have been killed in the name of justice. Clearly the system has been shown to be fallible. Thus to avoid killing the innocent death penalty ought not be used at all. Lifelong imprisonment allows new evidence to come forward and a chance to redeem oneself. This is why the civilised countries do not have the death penalty.
2 comments:
I absolutely agree with your conclusion. But this solution is only good for countries that can afford lifelong imprisonment.
I think that a man can pay for his life. He can be put to work. He can be educated and trained to become more productive. It is a lie to tell a man that he cannot live because the state is poor and nothing can be done about it.
Post a Comment