Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

The Moral Case for Execution?

Page: (1)2

Our Lady Has Left the Building

11:47 / 14.03.05

Well, sections of society believe that execution is acceptible and simultaneously consider themselves moral people, is there an ethical justification for this beyond abnegating responsibility to a book of myths?

12:00 / 14.03.05

I'm not sure that you can say it's unethical to execute someone while simultaneously supporting a system that locks someone in prison for their entire lives. It would be nice to live in a world where neither option is deemed necessary but if they are the two choices then I don't think either side can point the finger.

I suppose it depends on what's important to you. My quality of life, particularly my liberty, is worth more to me than the simple fact of being alive. I would far rather be executed than spend 50+ years in prison, but YMMV.

Execution is over in an instant, whereas incarceration means being punished every day for the rest of your life. I don't see how the latter option can be assumed to be the ethical one.

13:42 / 14.03.05

On the most basic level the moral case for execution is to prevent a criminal, say a coinvicted murderer, from killing again.

14:00 / 14.03.05

Execution is over in an instant, whereas incarceration means being punished every day for the rest of your life. I don't see how the latter option can be assumed to be the ethical one.

That, to me, seems exactly backwards.

I think perhaps you are confusing morality with kindness. The concepts are related, but they are not the same thing.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

16:22 / 14.03.05

A murderer may not murder again even if they were not killed. Someone in prison is still able to contribute something to society whereas someone executed cannot.

18:46 / 14.03.05

Well maybe the question should be: "what is the moral case for punishment?" or "what is the moral case for forcibly preventing someone from threatening society?" These are moral questions; how you practice them is not a moral question, to my mind.

If we are starting from the viewpoint that it is morally right to punish a criminal or to forcibly prevent them from re-offending, then the rest comes down to practicalities and opinions of which punishment is worse, on which people will differ. If you have a person whom you know will re-offend (which is usually given as a main justification for execution, so let’s just use it for this example) then your only choice is to lock them up for good or kill them. Both are horrible and inhumane, but choosing between them is not in my opinion a moral issue. I think this choice is merely a matter of which you think is better or worse as a punishment or a deterrent or whatever.

People who support capital punishment are often portrayed as barbarians or monsters, but in my opinion locking someone up for life is far more inhumane. To get finally to Jack’s point re morality vs kindness, maybe what I’m saying is that when choosing between two immoral acts, morality becomes moot and kindness comes to the fore.

19:35 / 14.03.05

I'm not sure that you can say it's unethical to execute someone while simultaneously supporting a system that locks someone in prison for their entire lives. It would be nice to live in a world where neither option is deemed necessary but if they are the two choices then I don't think either side can point the finger.

Where the guilty party turns out, subsequently, not to be guilty at all, the second side is freer to indulge in finger-pointiness on the grounds that its option is, at least, reversible.

20:01 / 14.03.05

There is a quote in one of the Dune books that I think is relevent, from Maud'dib

"The difference between taking life and taking an hour of a life is only a matter of degree"

I don't think that forcefully taking time out of somebodies life, be it an hour or all of it, can ever be compensated for if they're found inocent laer. The question has to be "At what poing are we willing to take that risk?" We might risk getting it wrong for five years if a man steals all of our money, and we might take the risk of executing somebody wrongly if we're sure enough that that person is guilty of serial rape and murder.

I'm not pro-death penalty, by the way, i just don't think that the idea can easily be seperated from imprisonment

20:05 / 14.03.05

I was assuming for the sake of the argument that we know the person is guilty ...

Mind you being released 30 years later with a handshake and an apology when they realise they had it wrong isn't exactly going to make up for what you've had taken from you.

20:50 / 14.03.05

A murderer may not murder again even if they were not killed. Someone in prison is still able to contribute something to society whereas someone executed cannot.

Depends what emphasis is placed on, for want of a better phrase, what the purpose of justice is - those that see it as simple punishment for wrong doing, with no redemptive purpose, could well see exicution, life for life, as the only moral sentence for murder.

Equally, some would undoubtedly argue that a murderer has nothing of worth to offer the community and would just consume further resources (food etc) during incarceration.

21:02 / 14.03.05

I was assuming for the sake of the argument that we know the person is guilty ...

Inasmuch as our imperfect justice system can ever "know" someone's guilt sufficiently unequivocally to execute 'em. Particularly pertinent in these days of non-reality-based incarceration-on-suspicion...

Mind you being released 30 years later with a handshake and an apology when they realise they had it wrong isn't exactly going to make up for what you've had taken from you.

... in which case you're alive to decide that for yourself, and choose to pursue compensation (which, no, can never be fully adequate), attempt to make the best of what's left of life, or kill yourself. Point being, you're there to make the decision.

Even after 30 years of wrongful incarceration (assuming it would inevitably take that long for my innocence to be proved), I think I'd rather have the option.

21:04 / 14.03.05

We might risk getting it wrong for five years if a man steals all of our money, and we might take the risk of executing somebody wrongly if we're sure enough that that person is guilty of serial rape and murder.

Kinda arbitrary, don't you think? How sure is "sure enough" to risk wrongly killing an innocent individual?

21:27 / 14.03.05

Completly arbitrary, and I'm not particulaly comfortable with it; but the same kind of decision has to be made if any body takes it upon itself to punish somebody else in any manner, for anything.

21:38 / 14.03.05

Completly arbitrary, and I'm not particulaly comfortable with it; but the same kind of decision has to be made if any body takes it upon itself to punish somebody else in any manner, for anything.

Sure - but to repeat the second part of my question, how sure would be "sure enough" of guilt to risk wrongly executing an innocent person?

22:40 / 14.03.05

To put it bluntly, a wrongly convicted person is still alive to be released at a later date if it subsequently becomes apparent that he/she is the subject of a miscarage of justice. A wrongly executed person has been executed - unjustly killed by the state in the event of new evidence comes to light...

07:59 / 15.03.05

Look, this talk of innocence simply isn't relevant. The question is not "What is the moral case for executing someone whom we're 99% sure is guilty?" We're debating the notion of execution per se, in which case it's best for the sake of clarity to assume the person is guilty. Surely it's not hard to imagine a case when guilt is confirmed. What if someone walks into your office and kills 10 people in front of 100 witnesses? etc. etc. ...

Tryphena Absent

08:15 / 15.03.05

Surely when the state kills it forces immorality not only on the state but also on the individual that the state asks to kill the offender?

We are assuming to an extent that the act of killing is wrong, that one person who kills another, or a number of others may be executed. That automatically makes the executioner a killer thus the immorality of the action cannot lie in the killing. For the same reason it can't reside in the idea of harm directed towards the families because the state and executioner cause harm towards the killer's family. So the question has to be- in a society that executes its citizens does morality really enter in to the justice system or does some other factor differentiate murder from execution?

The logic for locking someone up makes more sense and morally the crime and solution cannot be mistaken for one another. More importantly the taking of another life in a society without execution is the crime in a way that it can't be in a nation that has capital punishment.

11:15 / 15.03.05

I agree absolutely with Nina. Either taking life is morally wrong, or it is not. It doesn't matter who does it. If we agree that taking life is permissible, it is then illogical to execute someone for doing it, however horrendous their crime.
Trying to define who should and should not have the right to take life then becomes a moral maze from which I can see no way out. Perhaps start by defining what is and what is not a moral issue, or even, what are morals?

11:40 / 15.03.05

Look, this talk of innocence simply isn't relevant. The question is not "What is the moral case for executing someone whom we're 99% sure is guilty?" We're debating the notion of execution per se, in which case it's best for the sake of clarity to assume the person is guilty. Surely it's not hard to imagine a case when guilt is confirmed. What if someone walks into your office and kills 10 people in front of 100 witnesses? etc. etc. ...

Like the hundreds of witnesses who saw the Ganesh statuette drink milk, or the Virgin Mary manifest at Lourdes, etc., etc.? Assuming the killer's walked into my (suddenly rather big) office and I'm also the sole judge charged with determining the sentence here, then I guess I need to be sure of my own competence, memory, etc.

Okay, so it becomes a silly example. My point is, however, that where humans are involved, there is always the capacity for human error, however minute - and while that capacity exists, guilt can never be determined with absolute 100% certainty. Nothing can. And, while even a tiny possibility exists that, somewhere down the line, we might have missed something vital to the question of guilt/innocence, I don't believe an ultimately irreversible act can be justified.

You may not feel it's relevant but, for me, the morality of execution is inextricably tied in with the phenomenon of existential doubt. If I ever achieve 100% certainty of anything, I daresay I'll be more able to debate execution in more of a vacuum-packed way...

12:34 / 15.03.05

We still have the odd cases popping up of executed people being pardoned years later. Personally I would hate to have judged someone on the evidence given and only for new evidence to come up proving the person innocent.

No system can be 100% mainly due to the 'human' input. I have done jury service and even on a jury where we are all given the same evidence, each of us had a different view point espeically when it comes to CCTV evidence.

lord henry strikes back

13:22 / 15.03.05

Either taking life is morally wrong, or it is not. It doesn't matter who does it.

The natural extension of this argument would appear to be: if someone is being attacked and the only way for them to save their own life is to take the life of the aggressor, then the only moral course of action for the victim is to submit and allow themself to be killed.

If you accept that, even in this circumstance, the only moral choice is not to kill, then fair enough. However, if you believe that people have the right to defend themselves then the the rest of the argument falls down and we are back to arguing when killing can be seen as self defence and whether or not a society can claim the same grounds for execution.

Tryphena Absent

13:37 / 15.03.05

I believe in self defence where necessary, institutionalised killing seems like an over-reaction to me when a problem can be solved by the state in another way. Do you not believe in reasonable force?

13:58 / 15.03.05

I do not believe that taking life is always morally wrong. I think it is sometimes the better option. However this is irrelevant. Some people do believe that killing is morally wrong, and if they do then executions can't be justified- because it is killing.
Killing in self-defence would normally be accidental. If you were in fear of your life then your aim would surely be to disable the attacker, not kill them. Does not the same then apply to society?
I repeat, once the door is opened on the question of who is, and who is not, justified in taking life, the moral complexities are great. As Loomis said, if you have to choose between two immoral acts, morality becomes moot.

lord henry strikes back

14:20 / 15.03.05

I believe in self defence where necessary, institutionalised killing seems like an over-reaction to me when a problem can be solved by the state in another way. Do you not believe in reasonable force?

Yes I do believe in reasonable force, the point I am trying to raise, and to which Zeta has already alluded, is that once the 'killing is always morally wrong' line has been crossed it can get very tricky.

For example, say you have a convicted killer. A society could lock them up at a cost of £X a year, or it could execute them for almost nothing and spend the money on several life-saving operations. Does this really differ massively from the earlier take a life to save a life scenario?

17:34 / 15.03.05

The difference between taking life and taking an hour of a life is only a matter of degree

Yes, but that's just not true. What do we really mean by "taking an hour of a life"? All sorts of things is the answer, but let's stick with prison. When I'm in (British) prison I still have some freedoms. I still get to read, have conversations with other human beings, think, wank, fight, write novels, exercise, find love, work, dream, shank, etc...
When I'm dead I don't get to do any of that. I don't get to do anything of anything. I don't exist. In my opinion, unless you want to argue that death is some kind of ultimate restriction - which would be a strange position as no-one is around to restrict* - then I think you have to accept that a "stolen hour" is in an entirely different catagory.

*There's possibly some kind of behaviourist counter argument to be made here, but who honestly cares?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

06:50 / 16.03.05

if someone is being attacked and the only way for them to save their own life is to take the life of the aggressor, then the only moral course of action for the victim is to submit and allow themself to be killed.

Well, yes, kind of, but bear in mind that what's moral isn't always the same as what's "right"- personally, I believe killing (against the wishes of the victim, mind- euthanasia, assisted suicide etc are a very different area) is always morally wrong, but I'm willing to accept that in a situation like the one you've suggested (or, indeed, a situation like WWII) it may be the only option.

Whereas with the punishment of criminals, it's NOT the only option. State-sanctioned murder is still murder, in my book. It takes away all chance of redemption, and to my way of thinking that's the worst thing you can do to a person.

08:01 / 16.03.05

Perhaps we need to look into something that Jack Fear and Ganesh have touched on in the abortion thread - potentiality vs actuality.

Imprisonment causes actual suffering but still leaves the possibility for some happiness (during and/or after). A similarity could be drawn with the life of a baby born into shitty circumstances rather than being aborted, who will endure some suffering but retains the potential to find happiness and have positive experiences.

Whereas execution, like abortion, takes away all potential. But this is a tricky area. How can you measure what has been taken? We seem to have a mysterious view of potentiality and the possible experiences one can have in life, which this person or foetus will never have. But if no suffering is caused, for the simple reason that the person isn't around to be aware of these experiences that they're not having, then how can you quantify the loss? Or is it simply the fact that it is unquantifiable that gives us this queasy feeling that we are doing something metaphysically wrong? Something that we shy away from because we can't quite get our head around it?

And this feeds back into notions of death that prevail in our culture. Being unknowable, infinite, etc., death seems the worst of all possible outcomes, which fuels objections to execution, abortion, (assisted) suicide. But if you view your life as simply one more thing that is yours and that can be given up or taken away, then it comes into the realm of quantifiability and for me at least it becomes easier to weigh up against other things such as quality of life.

I don't think execution is worse than imprisonment for the same reason that I don't object to abortion and suicide, assisted or otherwise. In my opinion (and no doubt we all have different opinions on this) death is not the worst possible outcome. Potentiality is only a concept and in a very real sense it cannot be taken away.

09:20 / 16.03.05

"For example, say you have a convicted killer. A society could lock them up at a cost of £X a year, or it could execute them for almost nothing and spend the money on several life-saving operations. Does this really differ massively from the earlier take a life to save a life scenario? "
Well, yes, but we could close all the prisons by executing all convicted prisoners and have enough money for loads of hospitals etc. It's only a matter of degree. Society is then given the the right not only to take life but to judge it's relative value, and I wouldn't trust any society in the world to do that. It reminds me of the 'right to breed' test!

lord henry strikes back

13:12 / 16.03.05

we could close all the prisons by executing all convicted prisoners and have enough money for loads of hospitals etc. It's only a matter of degree. Society is then given the the right not only to take life but to judge it's relative value

I would argue that this relative value judgement has already been made. By deciding to lock people up, feed them, clothe them etc. and all this at a cost, a society knows that it will not be able to feed and clothe the homeless, perform as many operations and the like, and as a result people will die.

So long as resources are finite societies will have to face up to these value judgments. Sadly there is no '... and so no-one will die' option.

13:30 / 16.03.05

I'm quite sure that the law and morality should have nothing whatever
to do with one another.

The law should regulate what a person is permitted to do against
another's will. Obviously we don't want people taking our lives so
that must be forbidden and must always be punished. That said, killing
someone may very well be the right thing to do, a moral imperative
even, and people should be educated to break the law in such cases.

In support of my claim I would point out that one cannot depend on
the law to regulate one's morality (see National Socialism), and one
cannot assume some individual's personal morality is above the law.

We can certainly argue about the nature of the punishment that might
be imposed for a morally justified killing, I do think it must be
punished though. On the other hand a punishment lasting more than
about seven years represents a sad failure to re-educate the criminal.
Ideally no one would be incarcerated for that long.

Professor Silly

21:32 / 13.05.05

I will volunteer to balance out loomis by saying I'd much rather be in prison than executed, as the former would allow me the freedom to further pursue the mystical path. They can imprison my body, but so long as my mind is free, so is my soul.

That said: in addition to the inevitability of an innocent person being executed for a crime they didn't commit, I would also argue than any country that supports capital punishment (and there really aren't that many left overall) sets itself up for the temptation to cook up evidence in order to frame, silence, and then murder political dissidents. These two factors are enough for me to totally reject the notion of the death penalty...no exceptions.

Even in self defense, murder is not the only option. I guarantee that if an attacker was trying to kill me, and I was able to shatter any one of his joints, the attacker will stop (and probably pass out, but live). Accidents do happen though, and that's why I see self-defense as a legitmate defense in those cases.

Speaking in a more philosophic manner, I would rather see prisons as a mode of rehabilitation than an act of punishment...but I doubt many would agree that this is even possible, especially in an era where we incarcerate people "guilty" of "victimless" crimes. It then becomes very hard then to see prison as an appropriate punishment for rapists and murderers. But if we released all of these "victimless" criminals (including those guilty of drug possession, prostitution, and the like) then perhaps we could have a better perspective on sentencing those rapists and murderers.

Besides, I'd rather believe that everyone, no matter their crime, can come to a place where they truly repent and perhaps become a contributing member of society. In the language of mystical poetry, everyone is a little chunk o' God, and they need only discover this for themselves.

Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes

23:57 / 14.05.05

Punishment, retribution and vengeance are part of human nature. When I heard that the suspect of the rape, torture and murder of those girls in Reading had been taken to hospital after “self inflicted” injuries, I thought that the cops had given him a beating. And, for once, I thought this was righteous. The crime fitting the punishment is a very old concept. The Celts, in olden times, used to offer a thief the chance to return the goods without retribution. Not sure what happened to those who didn’t, or how they would handle rape and murder. My only reservation to the states ability to: kill criminals’. Comes from their ability to decide who is guilty and who isn’t.
I do not believe in the criminal’s ability to reform, or their ability to name negative life factors as being a contributory factor or redeeming factor, to their crime. So, my opinions on this subject are practical, questioning state procedure, not ethics. The criminal justice system is prone to ineptitude and mistake, on that count, the death penalty is wrong.

Unconditional Love

05:39 / 15.05.05

reward and punishment in social institutions have to be seen and abided to in what ever form they manifest in that society, wether they be incarceration or death as the fear of punishment, it is the fear that is important, both reward and punishment are institutionalised forms of control. are guilt and innocence relevant to natural systems? they are relevant to human control systems, the socialisation process, incarceration reinforces conscience as control, death reinforces power as control. the issue is social control, the morality of guilt and innocence act as extensions of an effective ability to control. is being rewarded a high? and being punished a low?

the moral case for execution, in either direction, is an allowable reinforcement, a contrast of polarities, so balance may be kept for controls sake.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:17 / 15.05.05

When I heard that the suspect of the rape, torture and murder of those girls in Reading had been taken to hospital after “self inflicted” injuries, I thought that the cops had given him a beating. And, for once, I thought this was righteous.

So, that would be the suspect? The person who had not been found guilty in a court of law of any crime? This, of course, before we consider the lack of faith you have shown in the ability of the state to be correct in its application of guilt.

So, is this about how much power we are prepared to give the state and its instruments, and when that use of power is seen as justified. If something is very bad, even the suspicion that somebody has done it justifes physical punishment, delivered by the state, whereas actual culpability, at least in the eyes of the mechanisms of the law, does not justify execution, because, presumably, the irreversability of the act makes the risk of a mistaken judgement far greater in consequence, whereas a beating can be administered at any point in the process with confidence.

17:48 / 17.05.05

The death penalty, is just that, a penalty.
If life is the most sacred thing, then wouldn't a person who willfully, and many times brutally, took the life of another be giving up his/her right to their own life?
I don't think this is just about 'killing'. Murder is an entirely different animal than killing.
A murderer has made a choice and the death penalty is reserved for the worst of murders, not all murders.
Yes mercy can be given, but there has to be a standard.
Let's take the life of an eight year old girl who has been raped and murdered. She has no option to be 'cleared' 30 years later, she's dead, her life is gone, her family is ruined, and her community will never be the same. The person who committed this crime deserves no less. If life is sacred then the punishment for taking it must be severe. If it isn't then i don't believe we actually consider life to be sacred.
I think that the aguments about "are they really guilty" are irrelavent to the justification of the death penalty.

Page: (1)2