I know I'll be preaching to the choir here, but I'm now opposed to it.
I used to support it, even defending it through debate, but In the last year or two I have become uneasy about supporting it.
My main problem with Capital Punishment is that not all who are executed are actually guilty. This has been demonstrated time and again throughout history, and still happens today. You can free a prisoner who has been wrongly convicted, but you can't take back an execution.
Another problem I have with the death penalty is that it is killing another human who presents no threat. Someone who is locked up in a federal prison isn't going to harm anyone. The only time it is justified to kill is in self-defense, and killing someone who is behind bars in a high security jail is not self-defense.
Even if one would negate the other two, the death penalty is pointless. What worth is it to kill someone? I also think that life in prison, with few freedoms, spent thinking about one's actions, is worse than death. Executing terrorists and other extremists only advances their cause by making them appear to be martyrs.
For these reasons, I'm against Capital Punishment, and would like to see it abolished throughout the country, starting at the state level.
Also, here is a quote, and something to think on:
-Martin Luther King JR. 1967
You know, every other day I see something posted on RPF that makes me say "This is why I support the death penalty." The odd thing? The thing in question is almost always perfectly legal under our screwed up law system. I'd settle for all the people in question being jailed for life. In fact, I'd be thrilled with that outcome. Ultimately, supporting the death penalty is a nice way to make an ultimate statement of rage.
I honestly barely care about "common" criminals anymore. I'm much more concerned about the people that should, but never will, be tried at the second Nuremberg.
My views have somewhat been evolving on this in that I'm definitely more hesitant about the death penalty than I would have been even a year ago. On principle, I'm in favor of it for murder, every time. In practice, the threshold for guilt at which I would be comfortable with the irreversible punishment is rarely, if ever, reached.
Of your reasons, the "No threat" criterion seems the least important to me. The murderer already killed an innocent person. As such, he is logically incoherent if he tries to declare that his execution is immoral. Stephan Kinsella explains this concept MUCH better than I am capable of. If I get a chance to dig up the article I'll post it. Otherwise, just look for "Estoppel" along with Stephan Kinsella's name, and you should be able to find it.
On the other hand, a murderer DID NOT imprison someone for life, and as such, he is not estopped from protesting this as being immoral. I don't necessarily care what he thinks to a particularly high degree, but there's still no logical coherence that I can see between murder and life imprisonment. I do see one with murder and the death penalty.
All that said, all your arguments about innocents being harmed are pretty much why I'm uncomfortable with it from a pragmatic perspective.
Revenge may feel good. On occasion may even be justified. But:
- Our criminal justice system is just not that accurate to allow it such irrevocable steps.
- I don't want the government to have that power
- There is no deterrent power to capital punishment
- The cost of the added legal process is just too high
- It can lead to bad outcomes when cops and prosecutors use it as a threat to bully innocent suspects to guilty pleas that are not justified.
Yeah, I'd probably agree with you, except on maybe the third point. I believe a consistently applied death penalty would have much more of a deterrent effect than the few times we use it now. I don't honestly think the cost in tax dollars and innocent life is worth it, so I fundamentally agree with what you're saying, but I do think it is POSSIBLE to create a capital punishment system that does indeed deter crime. That's not the be all, end all though. I have no doubt torture for theft would discourage theft, but its still wrong to torture, and its certainly disproportionate punishment. I want to live in a society where the punishment fits the crime, not one where everyone is scared to jaywalk because they might be executed.
On principle I still support the death penalty for murder. The idealist in me wants to see a system where it is applied in the really obvious cases (Usually ones where ex post facto laws should be applied [even though that's unconstitutional. I know and I don't care, the NAP is absolute and should be applied against our political leaders and a few others when appropriate, even when the law protects their aggression], but there are some other cases with serial killers that are pretty obvious as well) and quickly and cheaply at that, while it (Capital punishment) is not even considered at all for less certain cases. That said, I don't really trust the government with the power to decide. So I guess as a pragmatic matter I pretty much agree with you guys, at least until we get to a point where we have a libertarian state that can actually deal with these kinds of problems effectively. I just don't agree so much on the philosophical end.
One difference between the liberal and conservative mind, is that a liberal would prefer to see a hundred guilty go free rather than let just one innocent be punished, while a conservative would allow for the occasional innocent to be locked up to prevent one hundred guilty out on the streets to destroy the lives of one hundred other innocents. That is, you worry about the rights of the accused, while I'm concerned with the pain and suffering of the victims.
Naturally, reasonable people may disagree.
A murderer in prison doesn't represent "no threat". True killers continue to kill, even while incarcerated. They murder other inmates, guards, prison personel, visitors, and occasionally they escape and murder civilians on the outside.
And unfortunatly, "life in prison" usually means 7 to 12 years. They often get out again.
Our discussion might explore what constitutes adequate punishment for murder. We should define our terms. I would advocate execution for First Degree Murder, and especially mutiple murder, deliberate, unjustified and cruel. No lesser crime.
That the justice system cannot ascertain absolute, metaphysical guilt should not prevent us from punishing the reasonably guilty. I think we agree that the guilty should be punished - just how far do we go?
I think we should limit discussion to domestic crime, talk of international terrorists and martyrdom takes us down the road to extremism.
Yeah, fixing "Life" to truly mean "Life" would be a start. And yeah, there's always a risk. I'm not against the death penalty on principle (although I think I am in most situations from a pragmatic standpoint). Honestly, if "Life" actually meant "Life" that would remove most of my objections to the anti-DP argument other than the purely theoretical ones.
IDEA: What if we picked an island somewhere that we own and made it entirely for murderers, rapists, and other serious criminals? Send them there and leave them there for life. If they survive and thrive, great, if they kill each other, who cares, the only thing they cannot do is leave the island. If they do manage to escape, the common law "Outlaw" concept would apply.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with anything in the OP, yet at the same time my passion level is somewhere below my like for brands of cereal. I guess I have no issue with it in principle (
some people should totally die) but not in practice.
Yeah, I'm probably pretty close to where you're at. I've evolved significantly on this in the past year.
If the death penalty is too terrible to be ethical, then why should we impose an even worse fate?
