Good on them. I've seen way too many instances of people on death row that are eventually proved to be innocent. I think that even if the accuracy of death sentences was 99% (for every 99 criminals that truly did the crime, there is 1 that is innocent), that is unacceptably low. Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the death penalty actually deters crime. If you are committing a crime that results in you being sentenced to death, I don't think you are sane enough to have even considered the punishment.
>>Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the death penalty actually deters crime. If you are committing a crime that results in you being sentenced to death, I don't think you are sane enough to have even considered the punishment.
You would think that, but it turns out that isn't the case. [0][1]
I'm not sure what either of these two sources are supposed to mean --- I mean, literally, I don't know which case you're trying to make (for or against deterrence).
In any case: you can't reasonably make inferences about the effectiveness of the death penalty simply by counting murders in states that do or don't have it, since there are so many other factors influencing how many murders a state will record.
You're right, it is hard to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness by looking at murder numbers alone. It seems most experts would argue against deterrence being effective though and I would agree. If you can't say for certain whether or not something such as the death penalty is effective, then I think it is best to error on the side of not killing people.
I already linked to an academic study says there's a deterrence effect with the death penalty above. We should rely on empirical research, not links to websites that have agendas.
I didn't say that. Killing someone is irreversible, so the error rate better be extremely low, or you just shouldn't do it. I understand that justice can't be perfect.
Death row stats: for every 9 people executed in the US, 1 person is exonerated. There was an exploration of these numbers on this BBC Radio 4 segment (not sure if available outside UK):
> Are other mistaken sentences, like life in prison, acceptable?
Clearly, they are undesirable and, if detected, the remedies may be imperfect, but nowhere near as imperfect as the remedies for a mistaken death sentence once it has been executed.
Then this argument against capital punishment isn't simply that mistaken application of capital punishment is bad, because all mistaken legal sentencing is bad.
No, the argument against capital punishment is that its existences increases the harms resulting from mistaken legal sentencing without offering any concrete, demonstrable benefit to society to weigh against that increased harm.
(While "any mistaken legal sentencing is bad" is perhaps part of the foundation on which that argument rests, it is not the whole, or even the important part, of the argument.)
No mistaken sentences are "acceptable" in a naive sense. But a death sentence, after it's been executed, is 100% irreversible.
A prison sentence is reversible in the sense that the individual could be released; sure, the time lost cannot be retrieved, but the individual is still alive.
Good. The death penalty ensures a false incarceration can never be corrected, costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes, and shows no correlation with decreased crime rates (states with out the death penalty consistently have lower crime rates according to the FBI [0])
The family of the criminal also suffers. If my child was a murderer, I would grieve. If my child was consequently executed I would grieve even more. That's an incredible amount of pain for something I didn't do. After it's said and done, my child would feel no pain. My pain would last forever. I would honestly want to commit suicide over my failure as a parent.
As a parent, there would be no closure in my child's death, no matter what they have done. I look at my 2 daughters and see the most beautiful girls I've ever laid eyes upon. For one of them to commit such a heinous crime would ruin me. For their death to be added on to that, life would mean nothing at all.
I meant everyone. The murderer is no longer suffering, and there's no longer looming uncertainty as the days tick down toward a date that keeps changing.
In certain circumstances death is easier to deal than almost-death.
But that's more of an argument to stop death row from being a quagmire, rather than a pro-death-penalty argument. I probably didn't put the comment in the most ideal place.
What I'm saying is that the often unconsidered third party is the parent of the executed. That's a pain that will never go away. Is it their fault their child murdered and was executed? No. Will it feel that way? Absolutely.
From my understanding, although they may want them dead, the parents of the victim would not benefit from the death of their child's murderer. My cousin was murdered 15 years ago. They would still be broken as they are now if my cousin's murderer was dead.
The point is there is nothing worse for a parent than losing their child. Nothing really makes it better. Not even time.
I don't find the first reason very compelling, and I think your sentence is strong enough without it. All sentences have some degree of uncorrectability, and while capital punishment is clearly the most uncorrectable sentence, that would be expected given that it's the harshest sentence.
Except that much of what makes the death penalty expensive, the lengthy appeals process, is to counteract the risk of a false conviction. You can't not pay that price unless you're willing to accept a higher false conviction rate and therefore more folks wrongfully killed by the state.
These studies do show a deterrence effect with the death penalty. They're links to actual academic studies, not from a website that has an explicit agenda.
Good to see another state abolish this but as someone not too familiar with how the US law system works why is something like this decided at the state level? Shouldn't something like government sanctioned killing of humans be controlled at a federal level? Also does the federal government have a position on capital punishment?
Capital punishment still exists for federal crimes, which is why the Boston bomber was given the death penalty despite his offense occurring in Massachusetts, which doesn't have it at the state level.
Also, federal law isn't simply a grab bag of "really important" laws, with states only existing to handle smaller, more trivial things. In theory, federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in the Constitution. In practice, one of those is regulating interstate commerce, which since [1] has steadily increased in scope. Nonetheless, a federal law banning capital punishment would still need to be written with that in mind.
> In theory, federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in the Constitution. [...] Nonetheless, a federal law banning capital punishment would still need to be written with that in mind.
Considering 8th Amendment incorporation under the 14th Amendment and the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment, that shouldn't be too difficult, without even coming anywhere near the Commerce Clause.
Since SCOTUS has already held that capital punishment is not intrinsically "cruel and unusual", I'm not sure how the 8th Amendment gives the federal government the power to regulate state capital sentences.
Meanwhile: if capital punishment ever is held to be "cruel and unusual", no federal legislative action will be needed to abolish it; SCOTUS will do it by fiat.
> Since SCOTUS has already held that capital punishment is not intrinsically "cruel and unusual", I'm not sure how the 8th Amendment gives the federal government the power to regulate state capital sentences.
SCOTUS has never held that disadvantaging the disabled is intrinsically a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (relevant, as the provision under which it has incorporated the 8th against the states), nonetheless, it has held that Congress acted within its power under the enforcement clause of the 14th (and did not violate State reserved powers under the 11th) in, under the ADA, requiring access to courthouses.
While the enforcement clause of the 14th is a fairly lightly litigated power, its pretty clear that it does extend beyond the things where legislation is not necessary because any violation of the law Congress might impose to under the enforcement clause would already necessary be prohibited by the bare text of the Amendment, which seems to be your position.
Prepared to be wrong, but: I don't think the federal government can pass laws that bind on state criminal sentencing laws, or on state judges. For instance, SCOTUS has held that federal sentencing ranges don't bind state courts, nor do sentences falling outside those ranges fail for being unreasonable.
The federal government can bind state courts not to violate the constitutional rights of the accused, and so for instance Washington can't pass laws requiring judges to apply mandatory sentences based on facts not established by juries. But those actions belong to the federal courts, not Congress.
I don't think Congress can pass a law banning state capital sentences.
I bet they could something...something... interstate commerce. Ban the import and sale of lethal injection drugs, ban the manufacture of gas chambers and electric chairs, and force states to use firing squads at the very least.
Wickard v. Filburn is one of the federal government's great Godel contradictions, allowing it to prove anything thus rendering the law meaningless.
Under the dubious justification of the Tsarnaev case, shoplifting candy from the corner store is under federal jurisdiction since in the age of social media it could incite people in other states to do the same.
You're implying Filburn gives the federal government unfettered power to regulate commerce, but it doesn't; there are limits both in Filburn and in subsequent SCOTUS cases. See for instance the syllabus for US v Lopez (95).
Those limits were created by the federal government itself. It can always revise them as needs change, and is thus in reality unconstrained. This is akin to kids establishing rules while playing make believe.
It's not very interesting to argue that a state might change its mind on some question, because that's always true, and there's no way to rebut or even engage that argument.
On the other hand, I thought maybe you were suggesting that Congress could pass a law relying on the "Godel inconsistency" of Filburn to usurp state authority. Well, no, they can't; they're bound by the judicial precedents that fence Commerce Power authority in.
> a state might change its mind on some question, because that's always true
The entire idea of a written constitution is to independently limit a state's otherwise arbitrary power. This is not done through a formal process (as that would be part of the government itself, by definition). Stating that there are laws the government itself is bound to is a direct inducement to enforce those laws through informal methods (eg whistleblowers, insubordination, civil disobedience, revolution).
So, it is important for everyone to be independently judging whether their government is still bound by its original charter or if it has broken free and is essentially lawless. I don't expect that we'll agree on this judgment (it's a distributed consensus). My practical aim is to highlight that SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the law lest this ultimate check be categorically forgotten.
SCOTUS claims its power by purporting to stick to a set of rules. As such, they cannot simply make arbitrary decisions but must come up with some plausible justification.
They base these justifications on previous justifications, forming a DAG where each edge is constrained in unreasonableness, but paths clearly aren't (every entity desires more power for benevolence). Highlighting an important node of that structure is useful in illustrating one aspect of how we got from "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" to the current behemoth.
In practice, this is how federal change happens: enough states make a policy change so that the perceived cost of a unifying federal change is low --- or, enough states make a policy change that the value in unifying the law around it is high enough to outweigh SCOTUS's presumption in favor of the legislature.
At any rate: every state that abolishes capital punishment gets us closer to a consistent country-wide federally enforced abolition of capital punishment.
7 more states need to defect from capital punishment, and then the majority of US states will have abolished it. Unfortunately, the three most populous US states (California, Texas, and Florida) are all staunchly pro-execution (the next two, NY and IL, have both abolished).
Well, sort of staunchly, in California's case--Prop 34 failed by just 4 points, there has been an average of 1 execution carried out per 3 years post-Gregg, and the courts are presently halting it...
>why is something like this decided at the state level?
The US Constitution is set up to give states some power and the feds other power.
Simplistic explanation - There are two kinds of courts in the US - federal courts and state courts. Federal courts hear cases involving US law while Nebraska courts hear cases involving Nebraska law.
>Criminal cases involving federal laws can be tried only in federal court, but most criminal cases involve violations of state law and are tried in state court. We all know, for example, that robbery is a crime, but what law says it is a crime? By and large, state laws, not federal laws, make robbery a crime. There are only a few federal laws about robbery, such as the law that makes it a federal crime to rob a bank whose deposits are insured by a federal agency. Examples of other federal crimes are bringing illegal drugs into the country or across state lines and use of the U.S. mails to swindle consumers. Crimes committed on federal property, such as national parks or military reservations, are also prosecuted in federal court.
>Federal courts may also hear cases concerning state laws if the issue is whether the state law violates the federal Constitution. Suppose a state law forbids slaughtering animals outside of certain limited areas. A neighborhood association brings a case in state court against a defendant who sacrifices goats in his backyard. When the court issues an order (called an injunction) forbidding the defendant from further sacrifices, the defendant challenges the state law in federal court as an unconstitutional infringement of his religious freedom.
>Some kinds of conduct are illegal under both federal and state laws. For example, federal laws prohibit employment discrimination, and the states have added their own laws. A person can go to federal or state court to bring a case under the federal law or both the federal and state laws. A case that only involves a state law can be brought only in state court.
So Nebraska writes its own laws and uses its own courts to enforce said laws which it decides the punishment for.
However, said punishment has to follow the US Constitution - if it isn't federal court can "override" Nebraska law, but only if they are breaking the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" however the Supreme Court of the United States says the death penalty isn't "cruel and unusual punishment." - here is some cases involving capital punishment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_C...
So yes, the feds can get rid of the death penalty two ways. Either the US Supreme Court declares death penalty as unconstitutional or the US Constitution is specifically amended to prohibit the death penalty.
>does the federal government have a position on capital punishment?
Yes, there is a federal death penalty for certain federal crimes.
"The US Constitution is set up to give states some power and the feds other power."
That's not quite accurate. The states declared independence from the UK. Each state was a sovereign nation. Those states then combined to delegate some of their authority to the federal government. So in effect, the United States is a nation of 50 countries with one federal authority that was formed to handle matters of international importance, as well as, of course, matters of an interstate relations.
That isn't really true. US states are not fully sovereign. The United States could abolish the states entirely by modification of the Constitution. The union of the states is "perpetual."
America fought this battle at the ballot box during the ratification of the Constitution, the federalists won. And again during the Civil War, the unionists won. It is a settled matter.
Even if it were true it doesn't differ in meaning at all from what I said. I put the caveat it was a very simplistic explication - there is shared sovereignty which is defined in the US Constitution, that's the important part.
If we want to be annoying pedantic the US fought against Great Britain for independence, the UK didn't even exist then.
Why should something like government sanctioned killing of humans be controlled at a federal level? I don't see any intrinsic reason to believe one over the other, except for one's own general beliefs about whether local or non-local government is better.
Going to be contrarian here. I see in other comments
> costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes
Well... yes, but the alternative is that you throw someone in prison for life (likely without parole). And since there is no upcoming "event" to force an appeals process (aka execution), it will just never happen. Is that really a better fate for someone wrongfully accused? If you are sentencing them to life in a cage, be honest and call it a death penalty.
So sure you can save some money by getting rid of the death penalty, but it is not likely to make Justice any better served, it will just make you feel better and leave people in prison forever without a guaranteed appeals process.
Interested third parties (say, the Innocence Project[1]) have gotten these cases overturned in the past. In any case, this chance existing is still better than the state executing its citizens.
But now we get to pretend that we don't have hundreds of thousands of people rotting away in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Some years back I pointed out that the percentage of people exonerated for capital crimes is > 2x the number of people exonerated for life imprisonment.
We've imprisoned innocent people until they died as well. And as a % of convictions, the latter number is far larger than the former.
But I guess since there is a tiny probability that we might exonerate someone sitting in jail until they die, we get to ignore that fact (even though the number of falsely convicted people rotting away is probably higher).
I think you would find very few life sentence inmates willing to convert themselves to death row inmates for the chance at an Innocence Project exoneration.
While there might not be as much effort on it, I wouldn't be surprised if the Innocence Project (or groups similar to it) focused more attention on life prisoners if the death penalty were abandoned. Certainly, outside groups have focused on particular questionable cases of people imprisoned on non-capital offenses and produced evidence leading to release before.
I suspect the reason for that is the same flawed, non-probabilistic reasoning that most death penalty opponents are making - "if I'm alive there is always a chance..."
For the record, as a person who does understand probability, I'd much rather be wrongly convicted of a capital crime than a life imprisonment one.
I also don't believe for a moment that left wing anger at wrongful executions by electric chair will transfer to false execution by old age.
To determine whether it's reasonable to call life imprisonment "false execution by old age", you could examine the relative life expectancies of people imprisoned for life versus the cohort of people most likely to receive life sentences. If a sentence extends someone's lifetime, and results in a cause of death universally shared by everyone, it's probably not reasonable to refer to it as a form of execution.
Hundreds of thousands? There are about 2.6 million in prison. Say 260,000 innocent? You think 10% of people are wrongfully convicted? Seems a little high.
I don't know that life in prison is better than being executed, but it doesn't seem substantially worse. There doesn't seem to be any decent argument for the death penalty, since the only two possible reasons, cost and deterrence, don't hold up. In the absence of a decisive factor, I vote for not killing people.
There is the retributive argument, in which condign punishments play an important role in maintaining the balance of justice.
As summarized by the Catechism of Trent, a Christian religious text of historical importance:
"Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment [against killing] which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence."
– Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III, 5, n. 4 (1566)
You say that, but the retributive argument played a very important role in the recent NPR IQ2 debate on capital punishment. It clearly has some weight.
It's popular but it's still a bad argument. Cost, for example, is a good argument in itself, but just doesn't hold up against the facts in the real world. This contrasts argents which fall apart even before being presented with facts, like this.
He wasn't making an argument from religious authority (that would be a dubious rhetorical tactic on HN); he was trying to capture a historical justification for capital punishment, and it happened to come from a period of time in which the Catholic church played an outsized role in public policy.
For anyone unclear on this: the Catholic church vigorously opposes capital punishment.
> For anyone unclear on this: the Catholic church vigorously opposes capital punishment.
Its a little more nuanced than that: the Catholic Church holds that capital punishment by the competent authorities of the state can be justified by certain circumstances, however, for quite some time, the dominant view of the hierarchy has been that the circumstances in which it is justified are never, or nearly so, present in the modern world, and that as such, while capital punishment is permitted in the abstract, it is never, or nearly so, justifiable in practice in the modern world.
The Church historically justifies capital punishment "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor", and for several decades the Church has taken the reasonable and strict interpretation of the words "only possible way".
I think another way to say this would be that the words "capital punishment" have two different meanings, and in the meaning we use for public policy discussions, the Church opposes it categorically.
> The Church historically justifies capital punishment "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor", and for several decades the Church has taken the reasonable and strict interpretation of the words "only possible way".
I think it is a mistake to view the recent change as a change in the interpretation of the "only possible way", so much as a change in the understanding of what effective tools are available to the state. The opposition is generally not categorical in the way that, e.g., the opposition to direct abortion is categorical, but prudential in that it considers the actual conditions that obtain in the world and the options that are realistically available.
A good example of this is Pope John-Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (1995): "It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (emphasis added)
I think you mean 1995, not 1965 (PJP2 wasn't Pope in '65; PP6 was). Also I think we're on the same page.
Since 1980 (really, 1974), it's been the position of the US Council of Catholic Bishops that Catholics are called on not just to personally oppose capital punishment, but to militate for its abolition in the US. There's not much subtlety to it.
> I think you mean 1995, not 1965 (PJP2 wasn't Pope in '65; PP6 was).
Correct (and corrected).
> Since 1980 (really, 1974), it's been the position of the US Council of Catholic Bishops that Catholics are called on not just to personally oppose capital punishment, but to militate for its abolition in the US. There's not much subtlety to it.
The subtlety, such as it is, is in the rationale for the opposition (that capital punishment is not a priori wrong, merely wrong in actual factual conditions that obtain -- relevant to the USCCB position -- in the modern U.S. [and, in the context of Evangelium Vitae and other similar pronouncements of the universal Church, more generally in the modern world].)
In recent decades, certain Catholic persons, even ones in important leadership positions, have vigorously opposed it.
But not all modern-day Catholics do so – as a Catholic, I do not.
Here is what Pope Pius XII had to say in the middle of the 20th Century:
"Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live."
– Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System (14 Sep 1952)[1]
See also Fr. George Rutler's article in Crisis Magazine, Hanging Concentrates the Mind (8 Feb 2013)[2], and Avery Cardinal Dulles' essay in First Things, Catholicism & Capital Punishment (Apr 2001)[3].
In short, there is more to the "Catholic view" than Evangelium Vitae[4], the 1997 Catechism[5], recent statements by Pope Francis[6], and statements by other Catholic writers and leaders repeating or expanding upon the same ideas[7] (all due respect being given to their persons and offices). The modern Catholic position, if you will, on the death penalty is something of an anomaly against the backdrop of what previous Councils, Popes, Doctors and Fathers of the Church have taught. As a matter of intellectual honesty, at least, I think it's important that Catholics "play with a full deck" when treating this difficult subject. Having dug into the matter, I concluded that the modern position is not sound, and so have adopted the Church's traditional view on the death penalty.
Pius XII's view was more or less rebutted by the USCCB statement in 1980, which held:
* (Deterrence/Protection) The modern state is more than powerful enough to prevent criminals from murdering people without killing them, absolving the state of the duty to kill in order to protect.
* (Restoration) Execution can't have any restorative value, because it's hard to restore any part of the spirit of a dead person.
* (Retribution) Retribution is a valid goal for punishment, but even for murderers, execution exceeds the justification of retribution and contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Everything the church has said since the National Council voted to oppose capital punishment seems to be in line with that statement, through four (very) different popes.
I'm not not Catholic and, like I think most people in my parish, I believe all sorts of things the church formally doesn't accept --- parity between same- and different- sex marriages, the right of women to freely make reproductive health choices, fundamental and universal equality between men & women --- and, similarly, you're free to oppose the church's teachings on capital punishment.
I completely agree that bishops, including recent popes, and Catholic figures of lesser authority as well, have made statements that stand in contrast to, or even contradict to varying degrees, what has been taught previously regarding the death penalty.
It is part of a larger plight of confusion rife in the modern-day Church. One of the wonders of the Internet is that it's not difficult to access even centuries old sources and compilations of Catholic teaching, and more recent ones as well. Sometimes a paper book is still quite helpful, e.g. the Enchiridion Symbolorum[†].
As a Catholic, I accept everything the Church teaches regarding human sexuality, artificial contraception, the priesthood, etc. More than that, I try to study those teachings and allow them to shape my understanding of God, the world and my fellow human beings. I think it's lamentable when that teaching is distorted, hobbled, or even disregarded and contradicted by those whose very mission it is to transmit it across space and time. Rather than get upset by such events, I see them as a call to action! The Catholic hierarchy, according to the Church's own understanding, is not the ultimate origin of teachings on faith and morals. Their "job" is to hand on and clarify what they've received. They can, for a season or two, fail (even spectacularly) to do so. The ship always gets righted after a time, but not without the prayers and efforts of those who recognize the problem.
Feel free to contact me if you would like to continue the discussion in a different venue.
> The modern Catholic position, if you will, on the death penalty is something of an anomaly against the backdrop of what previous Councils, Popes, Doctors and Fathers of the Church have taught.
No, its generally in line what previous Councils, Popes, Doctors and Fathers of the Church have taught on the fundamental moral question as to the role of the State vis-à-vis punishment.
To the extent it differs at all, it differs on the prudential question of whether the circumstances in which the death penalty is justified actually occur in the domain which each particular authority is addressing in their commentary (whether its the USCCB speaking specifically of the modern US, or Popes John-Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Frances on the conditions in the modern world more generally; this is something on which, in principle, Catholics may permissibly dissent from the view of hierarchy (since it is by definition not a matter of faith and morals, but of prudential judgement), and it is a matter on which the correct answer would be expected to change as the relevant facts change.
Depending on which version of the "modern position" is being advanced, I think your conclusion is highly strained or untenable, though I understand what you're saying and used to share that view.
With respect to the teaching in Evangelium Vitae and the 1997 Catechism, the justification for the death penalty is essentially reduced to the defense of society from further physical danger posed by the condemned criminal. As such, it remains effectively silent on the retributive, vindictive, medicinal and expiatory dimensions of the death penalty, which have been expounded by the Church previously. In other words, a woefully incomplete argument is put forward which muddies the issue rather than make a compelling case for imprisonment as the better option.
In more recent years, Catholic commentators, bishops, and now even a pope have gone further and declared the death penalty to be "inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed ... an offense against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person", or similar. To make matters more confusing, such statements are often couched with others related to historical context and the "legitimate defense" ideas proposed in the sources referred to above. So which is it? Is the death penalty inadmissible based on perennial principles perhaps overlooked in the past? Or with respect to current conditions in (all?) modern-day nation states?
In all cases, the de facto "modern Catholic position" on the death penalty is unsound – either it is unnecessarily and confusingly incomplete, or it is downright contradictory to what has been taught previously. I do believe it will eventually clear up. Also, just to be clear, I do believe there is ample room for mercy, and the thought of people being executed saddens me.
As such, it remains effectively silent on the retributive, vindictive, medicinal and expiatory dimensions of the death penalty
That may be the case for "Evangelium Vitae and the 1997 Catechism", neither of which I've read, but it's not true of the US Council of Catholic Bishops statement, which I summarized downthread.
Ever consider whether capital punishment does even greater harm to the families of the victims, by putting them in a position where human nature pulls them towards a vindictive and inhumane and I guess face it sinful option that they've more or less been required by the New Testament to reject? That it's, like, the opposite of spiritually medicinal?
I have considered a great many aspects of it, and do not agree with your conclusions, though I do agree that Christ requires us to reject hatred and to be kind and forgiving.
You might take a look at Cardinal Dulles' essay, linked in one of my previous comments.
Of course this relies on the axiomatic assumption that the "civil authorities" (which in religious contexts generally refers to government) are legitimate in their being "entrusted with power of life and death" and as the "avenger of crime". This is a subject of much contention.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, but the retributive theory of justice is certainly a prime argument for any kind of punishment. Any criminal justice 101 text will review retribution as opposed to rehabilitation. I think the historical view has been much more on the retributive side of the scale, but the world seems to be rightfully recognizing that restorative justice is more effective, humane, and reasonable.
While that quote uses the phrase "legitimate avenger of crime", the justification it gives -- that the punishments "give security to life by repressing outrage and violence" is not the retributive theory of justice, but instead a utilitarian view akin to general deterrence in that the purpose of the punishment is to prevent greater harm by modifying the behavior of others in the community (but distinguishable from it, in that it does not seek to do so by creating fear of punishment.)
Actually, the Catechism text encapsulates both retributive and deterrence arguments, though I would argue the text bears the former more strongly. The key is to see the "outrage and violence" part not only with respect to potential violence (which might be deterred in view of capital punishment) but also the natural repercussions of injustices left festering when civil authority fails to inflict fitting punishments on wrongdoers.
> Another possible reason is prevention of recidivism, and that certainly holds up.
Only as a micro-optimization. Prevention of recidivism doesn't bring a net benefit to society if it doesn't actually reduce the overall level of the crime it seeks to prevent being repeated.
One could argue that a single victim murdered by an escaped criminal is unacceptable, just like one could argue that a single person executed erroneously is unacceptable.
Being separated from most of society isn't the same as a death sentence.
There are a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, not least of which is representation and due process. Eliminating the death penalty is one check that ameliorates (albeit does not solve) many other problems with the system.
I think the point is having an execution over your head is a form of torture - as if waiting for the execution in a maximum security prison cell isn't torture itself. The appeals process doesn't always work.
So - people who were on Death Row that were then freed: The West Memphis Three [0]. In this case, it's been widely credited that the legal system was incredibly corrupt and a retrial just never could be done, since so many people made their careers off of it. It was a witch hunt. They sentenced teenagers to death. I don't see how that could ever be a good idea.
>So - people who were on Death Row that were then freed: The West Memphis Three [0]. In this case, it's been widely credited that the legal system was incredibly corrupt and a retrial just never could be done, since so many people made their careers off of it. It was a witch hunt. They sentenced teenagers to death. I don't see how that could ever be a good idea.
Isn't this addressing the symptom and not the cause? It sounds like the real issue is a potentially corrupt justice system. The death penalty if obviously worse, but you can't exactly give those kids the 15+ years of their life back either.
> Isn't this addressing the symptom and not the cause?
If you can propose an adequate remedy for the cause that negates the need to mitigate the symptoms, please do so.
Otherwise, yes, and so what?
> It sounds like the real issue is a potentially corrupt justice system.
Sure, one of the root problems is the fallibility of the criminal justice system (whether failures are do to corruption or other sources.) This is exacerbated when failures result in executions.
> The death penalty if obviously worse, but you can't exactly give those kids the 15+ years of their life back either.
Well, no, you can't give them the time they spent in prison back. You can give them the rest of their life that would have been taken away had the wrongful sentence been fully executed, and you can potentially give them some, even if imperfect, compensation for the part you can't undo.
From the other side of the pond, it seems like a good solution would be to a) fix the appeals process and b) stop jailing people for life without parole.
Advocating the death penalty because it 'force[s] an appeals process' appears to approach completely the wrong end of the problem.
People imprisoned for life tend to be convicted of murder. The problem isn't that their sentences are too long; it's that for some of them, they shouldn't have been sentenced at all. Eliminating life without parole doesn't logically address the problem.
Your argument against capital punishment was that the role of an actor was irrelevant to the morality of the action. It's entirely correct to apply that logic to other types of action.
There may be plenty of valid arguments against capital punishment. Yours was not one of them.
Precisely! It's snarky and sounds witty on its surface but completely falls apart upon examination.
The other argument that I find troubling is the one where they claim that execution is too cruel but life imprisonment is acceptable because the guilty party suffers more.
Is that different from any other punishment? We imprison people to show that imprisoning people is unacceptable. We take people's money to show that taking people's money is unacceptable. We even violate the speed limit to show that violating the speed limit is unacceptable.
Yes, death is different. Because all other punishments can, in some way, be compensated if later the punishment is deemed to have been given in error. That is not yet possible with someone who is dead.
While that's a good argument for preserving other punishments but abolishing the death penalty (and one I happen to agree with), it has no bearing on the supposed illogic of killing in order to show that killing is unacceptable.
It's pretty great. The way debates are scored keeps any of them from being foregone conclusions, and some of the results are pretty surprising to me (given the NPR audience).
124 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadYou would think that, but it turns out that isn't the case. [0][1]
[0] - https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articl... [1] - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-de...
In any case: you can't reasonably make inferences about the effectiveness of the death penalty simply by counting murders in states that do or don't have it, since there are so many other factors influencing how many murders a state will record.
You're right, it is hard to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness by looking at murder numbers alone. It seems most experts would argue against deterrence being effective though and I would agree. If you can't say for certain whether or not something such as the death penalty is effective, then I think it is best to error on the side of not killing people.
The argument that the death penalty is inhumane or against universal human rights it seems is a better angle to take.
I didn't say that. Killing someone is irreversible, so the error rate better be extremely low, or you just shouldn't do it. I understand that justice can't be perfect.
My point isn't that we shouldn't abolish the death penalty, rather that you should be able to apply your argument to all forms of punishment.
The argument the parent is making applies to incarceration, but it applies more urgently to the death penalty.
The parent already makes your point by (hypothetically) applying an percentage error rate that would be acceptable.
If the punishment, e.g. a fine, can be appropriately redressed, e.g. by paying it back (with compensation), then the error rate matters far less.
You can't redress human life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rf5qj
Irreversible punishment is the height of arrogance.
Clearly, they are undesirable and, if detected, the remedies may be imperfect, but nowhere near as imperfect as the remedies for a mistaken death sentence once it has been executed.
(While "any mistaken legal sentencing is bad" is perhaps part of the foundation on which that argument rests, it is not the whole, or even the important part, of the argument.)
A prison sentence is reversible in the sense that the individual could be released; sure, the time lost cannot be retrieved, but the individual is still alive.
[0] - http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-de...
In certain circumstances death is easier to deal than almost-death.
But that's more of an argument to stop death row from being a quagmire, rather than a pro-death-penalty argument. I probably didn't put the comment in the most ideal place.
From my understanding, although they may want them dead, the parents of the victim would not benefit from the death of their child's murderer. My cousin was murdered 15 years ago. They would still be broken as they are now if my cousin's murderer was dead.
The point is there is nothing worse for a parent than losing their child. Nothing really makes it better. Not even time.
[1] http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
I hear this as an argument against death penalty a lot, when it actually isn't. It doesn't say whether or not death penalty is right or wrong.
Maybe we should work to reduce the cost to allow swift death penalty when there's a clear reason for conviction.
Can't say I'm a fan of that option.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1018533
http://m.aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2/344.short?rss=1...
Good to see another state abolish this but as someone not too familiar with how the US law system works why is something like this decided at the state level? Shouldn't something like government sanctioned killing of humans be controlled at a federal level? Also does the federal government have a position on capital punishment?
Also, federal law isn't simply a grab bag of "really important" laws, with states only existing to handle smaller, more trivial things. In theory, federal law is restricted to addressing the things enumerated in the Constitution. In practice, one of those is regulating interstate commerce, which since [1] has steadily increased in scope. Nonetheless, a federal law banning capital punishment would still need to be written with that in mind.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Considering 8th Amendment incorporation under the 14th Amendment and the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment, that shouldn't be too difficult, without even coming anywhere near the Commerce Clause.
Meanwhile: if capital punishment ever is held to be "cruel and unusual", no federal legislative action will be needed to abolish it; SCOTUS will do it by fiat.
SCOTUS has never held that disadvantaging the disabled is intrinsically a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (relevant, as the provision under which it has incorporated the 8th against the states), nonetheless, it has held that Congress acted within its power under the enforcement clause of the 14th (and did not violate State reserved powers under the 11th) in, under the ADA, requiring access to courthouses.
While the enforcement clause of the 14th is a fairly lightly litigated power, its pretty clear that it does extend beyond the things where legislation is not necessary because any violation of the law Congress might impose to under the enforcement clause would already necessary be prohibited by the bare text of the Amendment, which seems to be your position.
The federal government can bind state courts not to violate the constitutional rights of the accused, and so for instance Washington can't pass laws requiring judges to apply mandatory sentences based on facts not established by juries. But those actions belong to the federal courts, not Congress.
I don't think Congress can pass a law banning state capital sentences.
Under the dubious justification of the Tsarnaev case, shoplifting candy from the corner store is under federal jurisdiction since in the age of social media it could incite people in other states to do the same.
On the other hand, I thought maybe you were suggesting that Congress could pass a law relying on the "Godel inconsistency" of Filburn to usurp state authority. Well, no, they can't; they're bound by the judicial precedents that fence Commerce Power authority in.
The entire idea of a written constitution is to independently limit a state's otherwise arbitrary power. This is not done through a formal process (as that would be part of the government itself, by definition). Stating that there are laws the government itself is bound to is a direct inducement to enforce those laws through informal methods (eg whistleblowers, insubordination, civil disobedience, revolution).
So, it is important for everyone to be independently judging whether their government is still bound by its original charter or if it has broken free and is essentially lawless. I don't expect that we'll agree on this judgment (it's a distributed consensus). My practical aim is to highlight that SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of the law lest this ultimate check be categorically forgotten.
Sure, by SCOTUS. If you are just arguing that SCOTUS can reverse itself, why even invoke Filburn? Its superfluous to the argument.
Though a Supreme Court ruling did effectively abolish the death penalty federally from 1972-1976.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia
At any rate: every state that abolishes capital punishment gets us closer to a consistent country-wide federally enforced abolition of capital punishment.
7 more states need to defect from capital punishment, and then the majority of US states will have abolished it. Unfortunately, the three most populous US states (California, Texas, and Florida) are all staunchly pro-execution (the next two, NY and IL, have both abolished).
The US Constitution is set up to give states some power and the feds other power.
Simplistic explanation - There are two kinds of courts in the US - federal courts and state courts. Federal courts hear cases involving US law while Nebraska courts hear cases involving Nebraska law.
Here's an overview - http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe!openform&nav...
>Criminal cases involving federal laws can be tried only in federal court, but most criminal cases involve violations of state law and are tried in state court. We all know, for example, that robbery is a crime, but what law says it is a crime? By and large, state laws, not federal laws, make robbery a crime. There are only a few federal laws about robbery, such as the law that makes it a federal crime to rob a bank whose deposits are insured by a federal agency. Examples of other federal crimes are bringing illegal drugs into the country or across state lines and use of the U.S. mails to swindle consumers. Crimes committed on federal property, such as national parks or military reservations, are also prosecuted in federal court.
>Federal courts may also hear cases concerning state laws if the issue is whether the state law violates the federal Constitution. Suppose a state law forbids slaughtering animals outside of certain limited areas. A neighborhood association brings a case in state court against a defendant who sacrifices goats in his backyard. When the court issues an order (called an injunction) forbidding the defendant from further sacrifices, the defendant challenges the state law in federal court as an unconstitutional infringement of his religious freedom.
>Some kinds of conduct are illegal under both federal and state laws. For example, federal laws prohibit employment discrimination, and the states have added their own laws. A person can go to federal or state court to bring a case under the federal law or both the federal and state laws. A case that only involves a state law can be brought only in state court.
So Nebraska writes its own laws and uses its own courts to enforce said laws which it decides the punishment for.
However, said punishment has to follow the US Constitution - if it isn't federal court can "override" Nebraska law, but only if they are breaking the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" however the Supreme Court of the United States says the death penalty isn't "cruel and unusual punishment." - here is some cases involving capital punishment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_C...
So yes, the feds can get rid of the death penalty two ways. Either the US Supreme Court declares death penalty as unconstitutional or the US Constitution is specifically amended to prohibit the death penalty.
>does the federal government have a position on capital punishment?
Yes, there is a federal death penalty for certain federal crimes.
That's not quite accurate. The states declared independence from the UK. Each state was a sovereign nation. Those states then combined to delegate some of their authority to the federal government. So in effect, the United States is a nation of 50 countries with one federal authority that was formed to handle matters of international importance, as well as, of course, matters of an interstate relations.
America fought this battle at the ballot box during the ratification of the Constitution, the federalists won. And again during the Civil War, the unionists won. It is a settled matter.
If we want to be annoying pedantic the US fought against Great Britain for independence, the UK didn't even exist then.
> costs millions of tax payer dollars because of the long appeals processes
Well... yes, but the alternative is that you throw someone in prison for life (likely without parole). And since there is no upcoming "event" to force an appeals process (aka execution), it will just never happen. Is that really a better fate for someone wrongfully accused? If you are sentencing them to life in a cage, be honest and call it a death penalty.
So sure you can save some money by getting rid of the death penalty, but it is not likely to make Justice any better served, it will just make you feel better and leave people in prison forever without a guaranteed appeals process.
Interested third parties (say, the Innocence Project[1]) have gotten these cases overturned in the past. In any case, this chance existing is still better than the state executing its citizens.
[1]: http://www.innocenceproject.org
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3025718#up_3026567
Having that moment of execution seems to force us to check for errors in a way that life imprisonment doesn't.
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair...
But I guess since there is a tiny probability that we might exonerate someone sitting in jail until they die, we get to ignore that fact (even though the number of falsely convicted people rotting away is probably higher).
For the record, as a person who does understand probability, I'd much rather be wrongly convicted of a capital crime than a life imprisonment one.
I also don't believe for a moment that left wing anger at wrongful executions by electric chair will transfer to false execution by old age.
As summarized by the Catechism of Trent, a Christian religious text of historical importance:
"Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment [against killing] which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence."
– Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III, 5, n. 4 (1566)
http://j.mp/CatechismTrentDeathPenalty
For anyone unclear on this: the Catholic church vigorously opposes capital punishment.
Its a little more nuanced than that: the Catholic Church holds that capital punishment by the competent authorities of the state can be justified by certain circumstances, however, for quite some time, the dominant view of the hierarchy has been that the circumstances in which it is justified are never, or nearly so, present in the modern world, and that as such, while capital punishment is permitted in the abstract, it is never, or nearly so, justifiable in practice in the modern world.
I think another way to say this would be that the words "capital punishment" have two different meanings, and in the meaning we use for public policy discussions, the Church opposes it categorically.
I think it is a mistake to view the recent change as a change in the interpretation of the "only possible way", so much as a change in the understanding of what effective tools are available to the state. The opposition is generally not categorical in the way that, e.g., the opposition to direct abortion is categorical, but prudential in that it considers the actual conditions that obtain in the world and the options that are realistically available.
A good example of this is Pope John-Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (1995): "It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (emphasis added)
Since 1980 (really, 1974), it's been the position of the US Council of Catholic Bishops that Catholics are called on not just to personally oppose capital punishment, but to militate for its abolition in the US. There's not much subtlety to it.
Correct (and corrected).
> Since 1980 (really, 1974), it's been the position of the US Council of Catholic Bishops that Catholics are called on not just to personally oppose capital punishment, but to militate for its abolition in the US. There's not much subtlety to it.
The subtlety, such as it is, is in the rationale for the opposition (that capital punishment is not a priori wrong, merely wrong in actual factual conditions that obtain -- relevant to the USCCB position -- in the modern U.S. [and, in the context of Evangelium Vitae and other similar pronouncements of the universal Church, more generally in the modern world].)
But, no, the opposition itself is not subtle.
But not all modern-day Catholics do so – as a Catholic, I do not.
Here is what Pope Pius XII had to say in the middle of the 20th Century:
"Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live."
– Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System (14 Sep 1952)[1]
See also Fr. George Rutler's article in Crisis Magazine, Hanging Concentrates the Mind (8 Feb 2013)[2], and Avery Cardinal Dulles' essay in First Things, Catholicism & Capital Punishment (Apr 2001)[3].
In short, there is more to the "Catholic view" than Evangelium Vitae[4], the 1997 Catechism[5], recent statements by Pope Francis[6], and statements by other Catholic writers and leaders repeating or expanding upon the same ideas[7] (all due respect being given to their persons and offices). The modern Catholic position, if you will, on the death penalty is something of an anomaly against the backdrop of what previous Councils, Popes, Doctors and Fathers of the Church have taught. As a matter of intellectual honesty, at least, I think it's important that Catholics "play with a full deck" when treating this difficult subject. Having dug into the matter, I concluded that the modern position is not sound, and so have adopted the Church's traditional view on the death penalty.
[1] https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12PSYCH.HTM
[2] http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/hanging-concentrates-the-...
[3] http://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-c...
[4] http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/doc...
[5] http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267
[6] http://visnews-en.blogspot.com/2015/03/pope-francis-death-pe...
[7] One example, there are many more: http://www.macatholic.org/sites/macatholic.org/files/assets/...
* (Deterrence/Protection) The modern state is more than powerful enough to prevent criminals from murdering people without killing them, absolving the state of the duty to kill in order to protect.
* (Restoration) Execution can't have any restorative value, because it's hard to restore any part of the spirit of a dead person.
* (Retribution) Retribution is a valid goal for punishment, but even for murderers, execution exceeds the justification of retribution and contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Everything the church has said since the National Council voted to oppose capital punishment seems to be in line with that statement, through four (very) different popes.
I'm not not Catholic and, like I think most people in my parish, I believe all sorts of things the church formally doesn't accept --- parity between same- and different- sex marriages, the right of women to freely make reproductive health choices, fundamental and universal equality between men & women --- and, similarly, you're free to oppose the church's teachings on capital punishment.
It is part of a larger plight of confusion rife in the modern-day Church. One of the wonders of the Internet is that it's not difficult to access even centuries old sources and compilations of Catholic teaching, and more recent ones as well. Sometimes a paper book is still quite helpful, e.g. the Enchiridion Symbolorum[†].
As a Catholic, I accept everything the Church teaches regarding human sexuality, artificial contraception, the priesthood, etc. More than that, I try to study those teachings and allow them to shape my understanding of God, the world and my fellow human beings. I think it's lamentable when that teaching is distorted, hobbled, or even disregarded and contradicted by those whose very mission it is to transmit it across space and time. Rather than get upset by such events, I see them as a call to action! The Catholic hierarchy, according to the Church's own understanding, is not the ultimate origin of teachings on faith and morals. Their "job" is to hand on and clarify what they've received. They can, for a season or two, fail (even spectacularly) to do so. The ship always gets righted after a time, but not without the prayers and efforts of those who recognize the problem.
Feel free to contact me if you would like to continue the discussion in a different venue.
[†] http://www.ignatius.com/Products/DENZ-H/enchiridion-symbolor...
No, its generally in line what previous Councils, Popes, Doctors and Fathers of the Church have taught on the fundamental moral question as to the role of the State vis-à-vis punishment.
To the extent it differs at all, it differs on the prudential question of whether the circumstances in which the death penalty is justified actually occur in the domain which each particular authority is addressing in their commentary (whether its the USCCB speaking specifically of the modern US, or Popes John-Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Frances on the conditions in the modern world more generally; this is something on which, in principle, Catholics may permissibly dissent from the view of hierarchy (since it is by definition not a matter of faith and morals, but of prudential judgement), and it is a matter on which the correct answer would be expected to change as the relevant facts change.
With respect to the teaching in Evangelium Vitae and the 1997 Catechism, the justification for the death penalty is essentially reduced to the defense of society from further physical danger posed by the condemned criminal. As such, it remains effectively silent on the retributive, vindictive, medicinal and expiatory dimensions of the death penalty, which have been expounded by the Church previously. In other words, a woefully incomplete argument is put forward which muddies the issue rather than make a compelling case for imprisonment as the better option.
In more recent years, Catholic commentators, bishops, and now even a pope have gone further and declared the death penalty to be "inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed ... an offense against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person", or similar. To make matters more confusing, such statements are often couched with others related to historical context and the "legitimate defense" ideas proposed in the sources referred to above. So which is it? Is the death penalty inadmissible based on perennial principles perhaps overlooked in the past? Or with respect to current conditions in (all?) modern-day nation states?
In all cases, the de facto "modern Catholic position" on the death penalty is unsound – either it is unnecessarily and confusingly incomplete, or it is downright contradictory to what has been taught previously. I do believe it will eventually clear up. Also, just to be clear, I do believe there is ample room for mercy, and the thought of people being executed saddens me.
That may be the case for "Evangelium Vitae and the 1997 Catechism", neither of which I've read, but it's not true of the US Council of Catholic Bishops statement, which I summarized downthread.
You might take a look at Cardinal Dulles' essay, linked in one of my previous comments.
Another possible reason is prevention of recidivism, and that certainly holds up.
Only as a micro-optimization. Prevention of recidivism doesn't bring a net benefit to society if it doesn't actually reduce the overall level of the crime it seeks to prevent being repeated.
Ceteris paribus, it would. However, there's no actual evidence that, with the death penalty, it does.
There are a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, not least of which is representation and due process. Eliminating the death penalty is one check that ameliorates (albeit does not solve) many other problems with the system.
So - people who were on Death Row that were then freed: The West Memphis Three [0]. In this case, it's been widely credited that the legal system was incredibly corrupt and a retrial just never could be done, since so many people made their careers off of it. It was a witch hunt. They sentenced teenagers to death. I don't see how that could ever be a good idea.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three
>So - people who were on Death Row that were then freed: The West Memphis Three [0]. In this case, it's been widely credited that the legal system was incredibly corrupt and a retrial just never could be done, since so many people made their careers off of it. It was a witch hunt. They sentenced teenagers to death. I don't see how that could ever be a good idea.
Isn't this addressing the symptom and not the cause? It sounds like the real issue is a potentially corrupt justice system. The death penalty if obviously worse, but you can't exactly give those kids the 15+ years of their life back either.
If you can propose an adequate remedy for the cause that negates the need to mitigate the symptoms, please do so.
Otherwise, yes, and so what?
> It sounds like the real issue is a potentially corrupt justice system.
Sure, one of the root problems is the fallibility of the criminal justice system (whether failures are do to corruption or other sources.) This is exacerbated when failures result in executions.
> The death penalty if obviously worse, but you can't exactly give those kids the 15+ years of their life back either.
Well, no, you can't give them the time they spent in prison back. You can give them the rest of their life that would have been taken away had the wrongful sentence been fully executed, and you can potentially give them some, even if imperfect, compensation for the part you can't undo.
Advocating the death penalty because it 'force[s] an appeals process' appears to approach completely the wrong end of the problem.
That's what we do to kidnappers.
There may be plenty of valid arguments against capital punishment. Yours was not one of them.
That's precisely what I'm saying. You disagree, but that does not render my argument invalid.
1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.
2. Killing is immoral for a regular joe on the street.
3. Therefore, killing is immoral for the government.
However, you don't seem as comfortable with:
1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.
2. Demanding someone's money by force (e.g mugging) is immoral.
3. Therefore, it is immoral for the government to issue a fine.
Or this one:
1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor.
2. Kidnapping someone and holding them for years is immoral for a regular joe.
3. Therefore, imprisonment is immoral for the government.
You could also remain consistent by saying that armed robbery and kidnapping are moral. It's up to you.
EDIT: Typo and punctuation.
The other argument that I find troubling is the one where they claim that execution is too cruel but life imprisonment is acceptable because the guilty party suffers more.
Yes, death is different. Because all other punishments can, in some way, be compensated if later the punishment is deemed to have been given in error. That is not yet possible with someone who is dead.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1...