The group quoted a supreme court justice as saying it is a cruel form of punishment. While this is only a small point it is worth noting that the supreme court as a whole as decided that lethal injection is not a cruel and unusual punishment. Now this decision is not final and the Court has the ability to reverse this decision. So lets look ourselves as to if we should believe that the death penalty is cruel or even cruel when compared to its alternatives. One objection was that the death penalty is often more cruel than the crimes they committed. They did this by comparing the process of capitol punishment to the murder of the victim. Saying that often the innocent didn't know they were going to die however the one being punished has to know months in advance they are going to die. And somehow this is more cruel than the crime they committed so Capitol punishment is unreasonable cruel. This line of argument I contest is absurd. The reason the crime was so awful was because it was the taking of innocent life. The idea that a person life which was wrongfully taken from them is less cruel than the legal process of punishment for that crime is not only a cruel comparison but misplaced. This idea of length of time the innocent knew of his death and the amount of horror they felt is somehow less than that of the convicted criminal is not a matter of fact but faith. The feelings of the victim at the time of the crime should not be compared with the feelings of regret or despair that the murder feels as a result of his punishment. I would challenge anyone who truly thinks so should try and tell the proposed comparison to the victims of a murder and still think the comparison is not absurd. Furthermore i would contend that the alternatives to the death penalty are equally if not more cruel.
The alternatives to the death penalty are life in prison with and without parole. One of their arguments were that death penalty is unnecessary for self defense and so we should save human life when we can. However if we truly want to defend human life above all else then we must isolate these murderers who are a danger to it. Often leading to life without parole and solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is one of the most cruel punishments unimaginable. It completely removes human dignity and breaks the prisoner down mentally. If we are truly concerned about cruel and unusual Solitary confinement takes the cake. Here is an relevant quote from an article on PBS and the interviewee.
"Stuart Grassian, a board-certified psychiatrist and a former
faculty member at Harvard Medical School, has interviewed hundreds of prisoners
in solitary confinement. In one study, he found that roughly a third of
solitary inmates were “actively psychotic and/or acutely suicidal.” Grassian
has since concluded that solitary can cause a specific psychiatric syndrome,
characterized by hallucinations; panic attacks; overt paranoia; diminished impulse
control; hypersensitivity to external stimuli; and difficulties with thinking,
concentration and memory. Some inmates lose the ability to maintain a state of
alertness, while others develop crippling obsessions. “One inmate I interviewed
developed some obsession with his inability to feel like his bladder was fully
empty,” Grassian told FRONTLINE. “Literally, that man spent hours, hours, 24
hours a day it was on his mind, hours standing in front of the toilet trying to
pee … He couldn’t do anything else except focus on that feeling.”
My question to the group then would be how could the death penalty be a less attractive alternative when compared to this? If we imagine a person who would be tortured day in and day out of the rest of their existence, it would be less cruel to kill them. Of course this is subjective and not based on fact but at the very least this method reduces the people in question to less than human. The constant but dull attack on the human psyche as a result of complete confinement will never leave these people and the end result of death is the same. So it introduces unnecessary cruelty to the process. I will move on to some more quick and small questions and objections.
They briefly discussed that a mentally handicapped person was executed and that this is unfair and cruel, I agree and so does the Supreme Court. Atkins v. Virginia 2002 ruled that execution of mentally
retarded was unconstitutional. However if it still happens not a point against Capitol punishment but for better regulations.
The question of the possibility of killing an innocent is a good concern. However we have many systems in place that have similar dangers yet we do not question the legitimacy of them. We could save a couple of innocents by completely abolishing active police enforcement that sometimes results in innocent death. However we maintain it for the greater good. The same thing can be said for the death penalty. More attractive alternative than life without parole and Solitary confinement, and guarantees the safety of the vast majority. Furthermore there was only data on those released due to DNA evidence, no evidence of an innocent actually dying unjustly.
As for the question of socioeconomic status and race. Any objection to these being used to unfairly decide for the death penalty is also true of all alternatives. Also the data was not whether or not they were convicted, but simply whether the death penalty was pursued. If we eliminate alternatives to an extent it will remove the chance of bias to an extent. Finally the socioeconomic point is no longer that strong with the recent emergence of the public defender.
This will be my final point. There is a distinction between killing and murder.Killing is not the same as murder so the contradiction of the government for killing a murderer does not exist. We have many exceptions in our law when killing someone is permitted or permissible. War, self defense, euthanasia in some states. Our law does not specifically outlaw killing, but murder.
Alright I'll try to respond to these, since we didn't get the chance to during our presentation.
ReplyDeleteOn deterrence:
Firstly, I don't think deterrence by itself is sufficient to justify the death penalty. It can be an aspect of it, but I think the death penalty will inherently require a retributivist justification in addition to any deterrence effect. Otherwise, it would be possible to justify killing an innocent person if we could convince people that they were guilty, or we could have excessively cruel punishments done publicly to really discourage people by pushing into public consciousness more.
Secondly, I would still maintain that it is immoral to use somebody as means to end, regardless of their own moral character. In this case, it is using someone as a means to an end to deter somebody from killing.
Thirdly, I'm not sure the deterrence concept can be justified theoretically, which I think important considering the ambiguity of the data in support or against it. While it seems intuitive that criminals might be scared away from committing crimes, I'm not really sure this is actually the case. I think most criminals don't believe that they will get caught, don't care about the consequences of their actions, or are not even thinking about the consequences because they're doing something in the heat of the moment. I find it unlikely that somebody would pass the threshold of deciding to kill somebody for various reasons, but then change their mind because they're afraid of being sentenced to death. It seems like the death penalty only scares people who weren't planning on killing people anyways.
On cruelty:
Firstly, I would question whether or not cruelty or horrible nature of an action is really dependent on the moral standing of the victim. Not only is nobody 100% innocent, but it doesn't seem morally ok to torture somebody just because they're not a good person. Its one thing to consider guilt and innocence when justifying something like killing in self defense, its another to put those into play when considering justifying killing for the sake of itself or for the sake of punishment.
On whether or not the death penalty is more cruel than the crimes committed: I'm not saying that this is always the case. I'm only saying that it isn't really the case that this is an 'eye for an eye,' perfectly equal punishment. Frankly, often times victims are killed relatively quickly, and are priorly unaware of the fact of the impending death, with varying amounts of pain (but its not always extremely painful). In the case of the death penalty, somebody is forced to handle severe anticipation of their own death, an inherently terrifying notion most people experience in such situations. Some crimes committed that result in being sentenced to death are certainly comparable, some are likely worse. All I'm saying is there are situations when I think being killed relatively quickly by a serial killer is frankly much less terrifying than having to contemplate one's inevitable death for months or years.
Even though the class is over I will respond to you, you probably don't care anymore but I have been busy so sorry for not responding before.
Delete" I would question whether or not cruelty or horrible nature of an action is really dependent on the moral standing of the victim. Not only is nobody 100% innocent, but it doesn't seem morally ok to torture somebody just because they're not a good person."
I do not agree with this statement simply for the reason if it were true than the justice system would not be in place it seems. Being put into jail is a horrible thing and lets be honest cruel. To have to spend significant portions of your life that you will never get back trapped in a box is not a nice thing. The reason we do such awful things is because the people have committed crimes. Now we could argue whether breaking laws mean you are immoral person but this is obviously true sometimes like when someone is DUI or murders someone out of anger. So it does seem we punish and do horrible things to people depending on their moral standing. No one is 100% innocent, that much is undeniable. But some acts are definitely worse than others and in the context of your argument the statement almost seems apologetic to the murderer. So the idea that the innocent death is somehow not as bad as the murders process of punishment is not true. The innocent death while maybe not 100% innocent should still be valued more.
On the notion of life in prison being more cruel: At face value, this doesn't seem to be the opinion of most convicted criminals. Very few death row prisoners refuse clemency if it is offered, and few convicted murderers declare that they wish they had been sentenced to death. Solitary confinement might be cruel, but I contest the notion that its somehow always necessary to protect life, when I think simply better security, reform efforts, etc. could definitely decrease risk of a criminal murdering another prisoner. I don't have to support torture (solitary confinement) in order to be against the death penalty. But furthermore, the death penalty implies the removal of choice. Consideration of allowing those who have been sentenced to prison for life to elect suicide in a method and time of their choosing is a very different issue (and one that I would actually support). To me, a lot of the cruelty in the death penalty lies in the removal of choice.
ReplyDeleteOn killing innocent people: At pretty much every point in history, we have believed that our standards for evidence were excellent. At society progressed, we mock many of those standards as woefully inadequate. This trend will likely continue. Even with DNA evidence and other tools of modern science, it is difficult to definitively prove a crime. The problem with the death penalty is that its irreversible. Furthermore, I think false confessions could easily be problem in the status quo - its becoming increasingly evident that many individuals who have been arrested are likely to falsely confess to crimes they did not commit because they do not believe that they have a chance in the legal system anyways.
On unjust killings: I don't think the bias issue can easily be resolved. All crimes differ slightly, so it is difficult to create objective standards for what should definitively merit the death penalty. Often times mandatory sentencing laws do more harm than good too, with weird cases resulting in disproportionate punishments based on technicality. While there is still a lack of justice in disproportionate sentencing for other crimes too, I would argue that the death penalty is probably the most severe punishment that one could inflict upon another, which magnifies the injustice. Since our society seems to currently be so (disappointingly) unable to general see past the race of the individuals involved in determining how severe a crime was, it seems like we shouldn't allow this outlet for racism to further perpetuate itself. Furthermore, there are many more opportunities for reform, clemency, and exoneration with punishments that aren't permanent. For socioeconomic discrimination, frankly public defenders have not proven to be an effective solution. Often these lawyers are fresh out of law school, unable to get hired elsewhere, and/or overrun with ridiculous case loads. Obviously this is the case for all public defenders, and I strongly respect those who chose the profession, but nonetheless they are horribly inadequate when compared to the legal resources that those in high socioeconomic statuses have access to. This is evidenced by the continued sentencing bias that exists on socioeconomic lines in spite of the fact that everyone is legally entitled to free legal representation in a court of law.
I think the attempt to distinguish between killing and murder is really interesting. Murder is defined as the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse. So, I am willing to accept your arguments that killing in self defense, or euthanasia is just killing, not murder. I'm definitely sure about war. But, in the case of the death penalty, I don't think it really meets the requirements of there being a valid justification or excuse, when there exist alternative means. Furthermore, my argument is premised on the notion that the laws against killing imply that life is valuable (even self-defense laws and euthanasia promote the value of law - in the case of self defense it is to prevent the taking of a life, in the case of euthanasia is permissible when one no longer values their own life because of suffering) but the death penalty undermines this notion by stipulating that there are cases where killing is allegedly justified, but not because it promotes the value of life in some other way. I think this is still hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteThese are really good objections, by the way! You definitely brought up issues that I had not considered before.
Katelyn/William/anyone else-I'm willing to accept the fact that real deterrence doesn't actually exist as a result of the death penalty. However, there may be a twofold psychological benefit to the death penalty for society at large. There is the obvious feeling that "justice has been served" - that a person has suffered a "proportional" punishment that they "deserved," This especially applies to the families of victims. But there's a larger sense of justice - a sense that the world is somehow in balance - that I think is a less tangible psychological benefit. It is clear that justice is applied to specific people with the death penalty, but a general sense that there are grave consequences for committing terrible acts makes the world seem safer overall, I think. (Note: This is not a defense of the death penalty, just something to consider,) In addition, not that this is worth much, but even if actual deterrence doesn't exist, the mistaken belief that deterrence does exist might be a psychological benefit.
ReplyDeleteKatelyn/William/anyone else-I'm willing to accept the fact that real deterrence doesn't actually exist as a result of the death penalty. However, there may be a twofold psychological benefit to the death penalty for society at large. There is the obvious feeling that "justice has been served" - that a person has suffered a "proportional" punishment that they "deserved," This especially applies to the families of victims. But there's a larger sense of justice - a sense that the world is somehow in balance - that I think is a less tangible psychological benefit. It is clear that justice is applied to specific people with the death penalty, but a general sense that there are grave consequences for committing terrible acts makes the world seem safer overall, I think. (Note: This is not a defense of the death penalty, just something to consider,) In addition, not that this is worth much, but even if actual deterrence doesn't exist, the mistaken belief that deterrence does exist might be a psychological benefit.
ReplyDelete