OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

License to Kill

Entry 682, on 2008-01-24 at 21:49:15 (Rating 3, Politics)

I have got to stop listening to Infidel Guy podcasts because they bring up so many controversial issues that I can't help but spend too much time commenting on them here in my blog. The latest issue I heard discussed was the death penalty.

The issue can be looked at in two ways: first, is capital punishment justified from a practical perspective; and second, is it moral.

From a practical perspective we should ask if anything is achieved by carrying out executions. Potential benefits might include acting as a deterrent to people contemplating crimes they could be executed for, removing dangerous criminals from society so they can't re-offend, and acting as a punishment so that social justice is seen to be done.

The deterrent effect doesn't seem to be well established. In fact some groups (such as Amnesty International) have data indicating that the opposite happens. That is, in places where the death penalty is used more violent crime occurs. Even if capital punishment was an effective deterrent that still wouldn't support its use but since it hasn't been established as effective we can ignore that point anyway.

There is no doubt that killing someone removes them from society and prevents them from re-offending. That is certainly a point in capital punishment's favour. The problem is does that positive outweigh the possible negatives. There have been several documented cases of people being put on death row or actually executed for crimes they didn't commit. Obviously it isn't justifiable to kill them. And what crimes are bad enough that the death penalty is a suitable punishment? This inevitably involves some arbitrary decisions. Both of these points weaken the case for the practical benefit of removing criminals from society.

Most people would agree that the best case for capital punishment is as a punishment for murder. I think in parts of the US it can also be used for treason and espionage, but hasn't been used for that for many years. But even for murder its not that simple. Murders occur for many reasons and with an unlimited range of extenuating circumstances. If a crime can't be established in absolute certain terms then using such a serious punishment must be questionable.

Social justice is an important aspect of the law. If people aren't suitably punished then confidence in the justice system drops and society suffers. Many people feel that death is the best punishment for certain crimes - even when an official death penalty wasn't available a lynching was often popular! But other people are uncomfortable with the idea that the state can legally take a person's life. Should the majority rule? That might belong more in the morality section of this discussion.

So what about morality? I don't believe there is an absolute objective moral system, but many people do. If you believe in a moral system its often based on a religion. Christianity, for example says you should not kill but there are plenty of examples of God telling people to kill others in certain circumstances. So the morality there is somewhat confused.

Non-religious moral systems are usually based on rules that make society work smoothly. Killing another person is an obvious barrier to social harmony so most moral systems include strong rules against murder. But if not killing is so important how can we justify using the very same action as punishment? It seems the height of hypocrisy saying to someone "you killed someone and that is so bad that we are going to kill you". And if the state says killing is OK in some circumstances we get back to the subjective and arbitrary decision of what those circumstances are.

In many countries and in the more conservative states in the US the majority support the death penalty. In a democracy shouldn't the majority decide what rules are in place to control society? There is a case which supports that idea but majority support has never been an absolute requirement for any law or regulation even in the strongest democracies. The fact is that people aren't really capable of making those sorts of decisions any more than they can make economic or scientific decisions affecting society. The alternative is the politicians making them, which isn't exactly appealing but I don't see a many alternatives.

I'm sure that one day even the more backward states in the US will grow up and abolish the death penalty, whether there is a majority in favour of it or not. Until then the system, ineffective as it is, will continue to work like it always has.

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.