Death Penalty - Non-Religious Arguments

[zippy2006]

I have never studied the topic of capital punishment from a purely non-religious angle. After listening to Alasdair MacIntyre's recent controversial paper on human dignity I am curious to raise this topic on CF.

My hunch is that MacIntyre is right, and as a corollary, when confined to non-religious arguments capital punishment must remain de facto permissible, as there is no compelling secular reason for its prohibition. Granted, practical arguments might be given in favor of its prohibition. For example, maybe the risk of false convictions is too great or life in prison is preferable. Nevertheless, in principle capital punishment would be permissible, just as it would be in societies where practical circumstances do not hinder it.

In this thread and in the poll I am interested in the principled case for or against capital punishment. You might ask yourself the question, "Is there any circumstance in which capital punishment would be permissible?"

What say you? State your position and provide arguments. Only non-religious arguments are allowed.

 

[jesuslover811]

Before I found God I believed in the death penalty. In a theoretical world where god did not exist and his teachings were not here I would enforce the death penalty. Some people simply should not exist. But any man who kills will another man will have to answer to God and in this world I trust Gods plan and judgement.

as much as a I hate to say it In a godless world I would resort to the same judgement I had when I did not believe. That being a evil animal

When Abba Anthony thought about the depths of the judgments of God, he asked, 'Lord, how is it that some die when they are young, while others drag on to extreme old age? Why are there those who are poor and those who are rich? Why do wicked men prosper and why are the just in need?' He heard a voice answering him, 'Antony, keep your attention on yourself; these things are according to the judgment of God, and it is not to your advantage to know anything about them.'

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Death Penalty is justified. Until an innocent man gets it.

 

[JohnB445]

Religious arguments aside.

No, because it has been proven that a rare number of innocent lives have been wrongfully executed. Once that number goes down to 0, then that discussion can be fairly had. Some argue that "This is such a rare amount", however that won't be their argument until it's their loved one or themselves.

If it can happen to someone else, it can happen to anybody too, including you or me.

 

[ElCamino]

For example, maybe the risk of false convictions is too great or life in prison is preferable.
View attachment 310819

For those reasons I would be against it anyway. I read once that at least 4% of people on death penalty (in the U.S.) were/are likely innocent.

That 4% number would be much higher in my country (Mexico). When you mix incompetence, corruption, and elected officials often rushing to find scape goats in high profile cases; I don't even want to imagine the amount of innocent people that would be killed.

Thank God we don't have the death penalty here; although some people are often asking for it (usually after some high profile case), as if that was the solution to our violence problem.

 

[disciple Clint]

I have never studied the topic of capital punishment from a purely non-religious angle. After listening to Alasdair MacIntyre's recent controversial paper on human dignity I am curious to raise this topic on CF.

My hunch is that MacIntyre is right, and as a corollary, when confined to non-religious arguments capital punishment must remain de facto permissible, as there is no compelling secular reason for its prohibition. Granted, practical arguments might be given in favor of its prohibition. For example, maybe the risk of false convictions is too great or life in prison is preferable. Nevertheless, in principle capital punishment would be permissible, just as it would be in societies where practical circumstances do not hinder it.

In this thread and in the poll I am interested in the principled case for or against capital punishment. You might ask yourself the question, "Is there any circumstance in which capital punishment would be permissible?"

What say you? State your position and provide arguments. Only non-religious arguments are allowed.

View attachment 310819

Capital punishment is justified because it is highly effective in preventing recidivism. It is comforting to know that if your loved one was brutally and heartlessly killed it will not happen to someone else's loved one because some liberal judge made an foolish decision.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Death Penalty is justified. Until an innocent man gets it.

That's the first part of my objection -- our justice system is fallible on its best days, and skewed on its worst. Should the wrong person be put to death, there is no way to undo or compensate for the injustice.

My main reason, however, is pragmatic, so allow me to paste my response from another thread:


The Death Penalty does not accomplish any goal that life imprisonment cannot.

I remember hearing an interview with someone (I'm blanking on the name atm) who talked about how murderers aren't deterred by capital punishment because there are three types of murderers:

1. The professionals -- gang members, mobsters, cartel hitmen, etc... they're not afraid of the death penalty because A. they don't expect to get caught and B. their bosses will do a lot worse to them if they don't kill.

2. Crimes of passion -- you come home earlier than usual one day and catch your wife in bed with another man. You flip out, grab the nearest blunt object, and bash both their heads in. You're not afraid of the death penalty because you're not thinking about the consequences of your actions at that moment... you flipped out, remember?

3. The psychopaths -- the maniacs, mass shooters, and serial killers -- they're not afraid of the death penalty because... they're nuts.

So the real problem with the death penalty is that it doesn't accomplish its goal.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I have never studied the topic of capital punishment from a purely non-religious angle. After listening to Alasdair MacIntyre's recent controversial paper on human dignity I am curious to raise this topic on CF.

My hunch is that MacIntyre is right, and as a corollary, when confined to non-religious arguments capital punishment must remain de facto permissible, as there is no compelling secular reason for its prohibition. Granted, practical arguments might be given in favor of its prohibition. For example, maybe the risk of false convictions is too great or life in prison is preferable. Nevertheless, in principle capital punishment would be permissible, just as it would be in societies where practical circumstances do not hinder it.

In this thread and in the poll I am interested in the principled case for or against capital punishment. You might ask yourself the question, "Is there any circumstance in which capital punishment would be permissible?"

What say you? State your position and provide arguments. Only non-religious arguments are allowed.

View attachment 310819

Everyone should put themselves in the shoes of the person who actually does the killing. I know I could not be that person so I vote against the death penalty.
Blessings.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks for your responses, everyone!

Everyone should put themselves in the shoes of the person who actually does the killing. I know I could not be that person so I vote against the death penalty.
Blessings.

Have you ever seen the show Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe? In many cases, if I put myself in the shoes of the people doing those dirty jobs, I know I could not be that person. But that doesn't mean I don't want those jobs to exist, or I don't want those people to do them. Why wouldn't the job of an executioner be like this?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Thanks for your responses, everyone!



Have you ever seen the show Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe? In many cases, if I put myself in the shoes of the people doing those dirty jobs, I know I could not be that person. But that doesn't mean I don't want those jobs to exist, or I don't want those people to do them. Why wouldn't the job of an executioner be like this?

Really? Taking someone's life? Hardly a dirty job in my view. Even executioners struggle.

What It’s Like To Be The Person Who Puts Prisoners To Death

Givens agrees. “The people who pass these bills, they don’t have to do it. The people who do the executions, they’re the ones who suffer through it,” he said.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I think about it in terms of the social contract. 'an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.'

While we may have an 'inalienable right to liberty', part of the social contract is that we agree to be imprisoned if we transgress.

However, nobody actually signs the social contract. It is implicit. If you are born in country X, then the laws of country X apply to you willy-nilly.

I think if presented with a contract, and you pointed to something that said "party of the first part may execute party of the second part if we find it necessary, and our reasons may be erroneous," I'd be asking to strike that line.

You can take something from me, and make some recompense afterwards if it was done in error. But if you take my everything from me (particularly from a nonreligious perspective), there is no possible restitution. No possible justice.

So I don't support capital punishment.

I do make an exception for treason, inasmuch as I can see that being tantamount to war rather than justice.

 

[zippy2006]

My main reason, however, is pragmatic, so allow me to paste my response from another thread:


The Death Penalty does not accomplish any goal that life imprisonment cannot.

I've always found the claim that the death penalty does not deter crime to be quite fantastical, but let's look at your practical reasons and see if I can draw us into a principled position, at least as a starting point. You claim:

1. There are false convictions
2. Life imprisonment is better on every score
3. The death penalty does not accomplish its goal​

The first point is that pragmatic considerations cut both ways. Any impediment to the death penalty that is based on pragmatic considerations becomes irrelevant when those pragmatic considerations change. Regarding (1), theoretically there could exist a society with a much more accurate and effective criminal justice system, and in which the burden of proof for capital conviction is significantly higher than ours is. In that case, where at the limit there are no false convictions, would the death penalty be permissible?

Points (2) and (3) are not entirely pragmatic, for they depend a great deal on the goals in question. Nevertheless, a pragmatic consideration is as follows: consider a society which does not have the means or resources for life imprisonment (or else one which judges it unjust that so many significant resources be squandered on the basest of criminals). Why would that society not be justified in capital punishments? For--and this bears on (3)--deterrence is not the only goal of capital punishment. Another goal is to create a new state of affairs in which a dangerous criminal is unable to reoffend.

I don't want to extend this post much further, but let me offer one more consideration. At root (1) seems to rely at least partially on religious reasoning. The limit of that argument says something like, "Even one false conviction is too many!" But how could that be? It seems to me that only if an individual's life has infinite value could such a claim be made. But there is no non-religious reason to believe that human lives have infinite value, and therefore there is no rational way to uphold (1) on a universal level, without delving into the nitty gritty of concrete numbers and proportions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've always found the claim that the death penalty does not deter crime to be quite fantastical, but let's look at your practical reasons and see if I can draw us into a principled position, at least as a starting point. You claim:

1. There are false convictions
2. Life imprisonment is better on every score
3. The death penalty does not accomplish its goal​

The first point is that pragmatic considerations cut both ways. Any impediment to the death penalty that is based on pragmatic considerations becomes irrelevant when those pragmatic considerations change.

Which is precisely the point -- but do not reject those considerations because they can change; reject them when they do change.

Regarding (1), theoretically there could exist a society with a much more accurate and effective criminal justice system, and in which the burden of proof for capital conviction is significantly higher than ours is. In that case, where at the limit there are no false convictions, would the death penalty be permissible?

In such a theoretical society with an infallible and objective justice system, yes, it would be permissible.

As no such society exists, however...

Points (2) and (3) are not entirely pragmatic, for they depend a great deal on the goals in question. Nevertheless, a pragmatic consideration is as follows: consider a society which does not have the means or resources for life imprisonment (or else one which judges it unjust that so many significant resources be squandered on the basest of criminals). Why would that society not be justified in capital punishments?

Let us see such a society, then, and determine for ourselves the best course of action.

For--and this bears on (3)--deterrence is not the only goal of capital punishment. Another goal is to create a new state of affairs in which a dangerous criminal is unable to reoffend.

Life imprisonment accomplishes this goal -- and can be undone if it turns out the "dangerous criminal" actually is neither.

I don't want to extend this post much further, but let me offer one more consideration. At root (1) seems to rely at least partially on religious reasoning.

There is nothing religious about the determination between innocence and guilt.
Nor is there anything religious about the fact that there is no such thing as an infallible justice system.

The limit of that argument says something like, "Even one false conviction is too many!" But how could that be? It seems to me that only if an individual's life has infinite value could such a claim be made.

That is a moral argument; not a religious one.

But there is no non-religious reason to believe that human lives have infinite value, and therefore there is no rational way to uphold (1) on a universal level, without delving into the nitty gritty of concrete numbers and proportions.

So what is your life worth to the state?

 

[zippy2006]

I think if presented with a contract, and you pointed to something that said "party of the first part may execute party of the second part if we find it necessary, and our reasons may be erroneous," I'd be asking to strike that line.

If you lived in a society that was not capable of enforcing life sentences would you cast your vote in favor of including capital punishments in the body of law? It seems to me that in such a society the social contract would obviously and rationally admit the death penalty. In a Rawlsian sense we might ask, "If you become a homicidal maniac who is a significant threat to society, do we have permission to incapacitate you through life imprisonment, or, if necessary, execution?"

I do make an exception for treason, inasmuch as I can see that being tantamount to war rather than justice.

Okay, this is interesting. What is the difference here? Instead of applying a legal punishment to a fellow citizen you are eliminating the threat that a hostile foreigner poses? Would you allow yourself to be killed in such a way in an international social compact?

 

[Hank77]

How many people on death row have the Innocence Project proved were not guilty? 21 since 1989, how many slipped through the cracks, we probably will never know.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I have never studied the topic of capital punishment from a purely non-religious angle. After listening to Alasdair MacIntyre's recent controversial paper on human dignity I am curious to raise this topic on CF.

My hunch is that MacIntyre is right, and as a corollary, when confined to non-religious arguments capital punishment must remain de facto permissible, as there is no compelling secular reason for its prohibition. Granted, practical arguments might be given in favor of its prohibition. For example, maybe the risk of false convictions is too great or life in prison is preferable. Nevertheless, in principle capital punishment would be permissible, just as it would be in societies where practical circumstances do not hinder it.

In this thread and in the poll I am interested in the principled case for or against capital punishment. You might ask yourself the question, "Is there any circumstance in which capital punishment would be permissible?"

What say you? State your position and provide arguments. Only non-religious arguments are allowed.

View attachment 310819

My objections to the death penalty are:

1. Innocent people can be killed and no restitution is adequate to compensate for the injustice. Our justice system cannot guarantee all people are actually guilty of the crime they were convicted for.

2. As a conservative I do not think giving the government the power to take a citizens life is a good idea. We know that governments can be corrupted and use this power to its own ends as in other dictatorial countries. We should limit the governments power to kill others.

3. I think a moral case can be made against the death penalty. We should not be asking if murders deserve the death penalty but if humans have a right to kill murderers? We have laws that prohibit torture as punishment because we find it morally bad so with that same line of reasoning the death penalty is just as bad, if not more, morally bad.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If you lived in a society that was not capable of enforcing life sentences would you cast your vote in favor of including capital punishments in the body of law?

That seems a remote hypothetical. I would suggest ostracism/expulsion.

Okay, this is interesting. What is the difference here?

At least in the US, treason is defined in close association with war:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Posing a threat to the existence of the state justifies a mirror image threat to the existence of the traitor.

 

[zippy2006]

Which is precisely the point -- but do not reject those considerations because they can change; reject them when they do change.

Well, the thread is meant to be about the death penalty itself rather than contingent circumstances. If someone's entire approach to the death penalty is based on circumstances that come and go, then what they are focused on and what they are thinking about is primarily the circumstances rather than the death penalty.

Of course a related problem is that if you are not capable of thinking about the death penalty apart from contingent circumstances, then you also can't be said to be capable of thinking about the death penalty in the midst of contingent circumstances. In this way exclusive focus on the contingent circumstances is often a sign of sloppy thinking. For example, an atheist who rails against false convictions may not notice that his case is based on the notion of infinite human dignity, which is a religious notion, and which tends to result in the per se prohibition of capital punishment even apart from circumstances such as false convictions.

In such a theoretical society with an infallible and objective justice system, yes, it would be permissible

As no such society exists, however...

Okay. My later argument regarding human dignity ties in here.

Points (2) and (3) are not entirely pragmatic, for they depend a great deal on the goals in question. Nevertheless, a pragmatic consideration is as follows: consider a society which does not have the means or resources for life imprisonment (or else one which judges it unjust that so many significant resources be squandered on the basest of criminals). Why would that society not be justified in capital punishments?

Let us see such a society, then, and determine for ourselves the best course of action.

But this is just dodging the question. I defined the society for you. Do you think such a society is impossible?

Life imprisonment accomplishes this goal -- and can be undone if it turns out the "dangerous criminal" actually is neither.

Again, not all societies are capable of enforcing or funding life imprisonment.

At root (1) seems to rely at least partially on religious reasoning. The limit of that argument says something like, "Even one false conviction is too many!" But how could that be? It seems to me that only if an individual's life has infinite value could such a claim be made. But there is no non-religious reason to believe that human lives have infinite value, and therefore there is no rational way to uphold (1) on a universal level, without delving into the nitty gritty of concrete numbers and proportions.

That is a moral argument; not a religious one.

Do you think so? Then produce such an argument using entirely non-religious premises. I maintain that you cannot. Infinite human dignity or value arises from nowhere if not religion.

 

[disciple Clint]

How many people on death row have the Innocence Project proved were not guilty? 21 since 1989, how many slipped through the cracks, we probably will never know.

AND then there is the other side of that coin, the people who were killed because a convicted murder was released.
The Research Idea
Radford Serial Killer Database
Since 1950 (date of last kill)
2,883 serial killers in the United States
Of those 2,883
478 killed again while on parole for murder (16.6%)
138 killed again while in prison (4.8%)
23 killed while escaped from prison for murder (0.8%)
11 killed while on NGRI release for murder (0.4%)
650 (22.5%) killed again after an initial conviction
for murder
(PDF) Released to Kill Again: An Analysis of Paroled Murderers Who Murder Again While on Parole
AND also
A List of Murderers Released to Murder Again!

 

[zippy2006]

That seems a remote hypothetical.

The ability to enforce life sentences is a fairly recent historical phenomenon. The sort of high security facilities required to retain dangerous criminals are enormously expensive, and prison breaks still occur with some regularity even in the developed West. And, crucially, much of the world's population does not live in the developed West.

I would suggest ostracism/expulsion.

Okay.

Okay, this is interesting. What is the difference here? Instead of applying a legal punishment to a fellow citizen you are eliminating the threat that a hostile foreigner poses? Would you allow yourself to be killed in such a way in an international social compact?

At least in the US, treason is defined in close association with war:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Posing a threat to the existence of the state justifies a mirror image threat to the existence of the traitor.

But the rationale for executing the traitor is the same as the rationale for executing the dangerous criminal: they are a threat to society. Despite the parity of the two cases you want to distinguish them, but I don't see your reasoning for doing so.

If treason justifies a "mirror image threat," then so do other high crimes that threaten the society. If life imprisonment is sufficient for grievous criminals, then it should be sufficient for traitors. Etc. This parallel is particularly acute in the case of gangs or, especially, international crime organizations such as the mafia.

Since you have focused on social contract I will repeat my question about executing traitors: Would you allow yourself to be killed in such a way in an international social compact?