Death Penalty - Non-Religious Arguments

[zippy2006]

Can you explain this "infinite value" premise? Not certain what you mean and how it applies.

Sure, this is what I have in mind:

Secular: The death penalty is impermissible because there will be false convictions, and therefore innocent people will die.
Zippy: Isn't it okay that some innocent people die if it is outweighed by the greater good of many more innocent lives saved?
Secular: No. If the system executes even one innocent person, that is too many. We can't risk it.
Zippy: But you're assuming the premise of a human dignity whereby each human life has infinite value. How can you do that without resorting to religious reasoning?​

If the secular rejects the premise that each life has infinite value, then there must be some benefit that would outweigh the cost of innocent life lost. I suggested one such benefit in <this post>.

There are a few other contexts in play, here. In particular we are thinking of societies that cannot manage or fund life imprisonment. Or, more precisely, we are wondering if capital punishment would be permissible on the basis of secular reason, even if life terms turn out to be preferable.

 

[Belk]

Sure, this is what I have in mind:

Secular: The death penalty is impermissible because there will be false convictions, and therefore innocent people will die.
Zippy: Isn't it okay that some innocent people die if it is outweighed by the greater good of many more innocent lives saved?
Secular: No. If the system executes even one innocent person, that is too many. We can't risk it.
Zippy: But you're assuming the premise of a human dignity whereby each human life has infinite value. How can you do that without resorting to religious reasoning?​

If the secular rejects the premise that each life has infinite value, then there must be some benefit that would outweigh the cost of innocent life lost. I suggested one such benefit in <this post>.

Thank you for the explanation. I see a couple of points I take issue with this but not sure this is the place to bring it up.

There are a few other contexts in play, here. In particular we are thinking of societies that cannot manage or fund life imprisonment. Or, more precisely, we are wondering if capital punishment would be permissible on the basis of secular reason, even if life terms turn out to be preferable.

Is there a reason you use permissible? Is that a term of particular meaning in discussing morality?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the sentence of mine you quoted?

The simplest example is the guy who was the architect of the system itself. Was he intending the executions of the guilty or the executions of the innocent? I think it's pretty obvious that he was intending the executions of the guilty, and that he would have done everything he could to make sure that no innocents are executed.

Not agreeing or disagreeing at this stage. There are good arguments on both sides.

But whoever said 'For these specific offences we will have the death penalty' knew very well that an innocent person would be put to death at some point. There's really no argument about that. The question then becomes, how many innocent people do we think will be killed to make the death penalty worth having (as a deterrant or as simple retribution). Or to put it another way, how many innocent people are we prepared to kill to make it worthwhile? It's like triage. Or the problem of Hiroshima. Or the trolley problem. There are negatives to be considered for what we might consider to be the greater good.

Some will say none. Therefore, no death penalty. Everyone else has to have a figure in mind whether they are prepared to disclose it or not, either to themselves or to everyone else.

 

[zippy2006]

Thank you for the explanation. I see a couple of points I take issue with this but not sure this is the place to bring it up.

Okay.

Is there a reason you use permissible? Is that a term of particular meaning in discussing morality?

It is just meant as a middle term between impermissible and justified. See post #37.

It should just track colloquial usage. "Permissible, but not necessary," in the sense that there are no compelling reasons to prohibit it but reason does not mandate that it be used. In our context the secular might say, "We should seek a better alternative despite the fact that capital punishment remains permissible."

 

[zippy2006]

Not agreeing or disagreeing at this stage. There are good arguments on both sides.

But whoever said 'For these specific offences we will have the death penalty' knew very well that an innocent person would be put to death at some point. There's really no argument about that. The question then becomes, how many innocent people do we think will be killed to make the death penalty worth having (as a deterrant or as simple retribution). Or to put it another way, how many innocent people are we prepared to kill to make it worthwhile? It's like triage. Or the problem of Hiroshima. Or the trolley problem. There are negatives to be considered for what we might consider to be the greater good.

Some will say none. Therefore, no death penalty. Everyone else has to have a figure in mind whether they are prepared to disclose it or not, either to themselves or to everyone else.

Right. That is more or less the argument I have been making in posts like #115.

 

[Belk]

Okay.



It is just meant as a middle term between impermissible and justified. See post #37.

It should just track colloquial usage. "Permissible, but not necessary," in the sense that there are no compelling reasons to prohibit it but reason does not mandate that it be used. In our context the secular might say, "We should seek a better alternative despite the fact that capital punishment remains permissible."

Okay. In that case I would agree with others that there are valid secular arguments against it but it remains highly debated.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If the secular rejects the premise that each life has infinite value, then there must be some benefit that would outweigh the cost of innocent life lost.

Does capital punishment provide sufficient benefit to outweigh that cost?

There are a few other contexts in play, here. In particular we are thinking of societies that cannot manage or fund life imprisonment.

Such societies most likely cannot manage or fund an effective justice system, either... meaning the probability for error or corruption rises accordingly, meaning more innocents get executed.

Or, more precisely, we are wondering if capital punishment would be permissible on the basis of secular reason, even if life terms turn out to be preferable.

That would vary depending on contingent circumstances.

 

[zippy2006]

Such societies most likely cannot manage or fund an effective justice system, either...

This simply isn't true. The natural cost of execution and the natural cost of life imprisonment are oceans apart. The idea that societies could exist which can fund good judges but not life imprisonment is common sense.

...the probability for error or corruption rises accordingly, meaning more innocents get executed.

I don't know why you guys think that error and corruption only come into play with the death penalty. They are always in play, and some would say that life imprisonment is a harsher punishment than death. A corrupt person would have to think twice about which sentence to aim for.

 

[Belk]

This simply isn't true. The natural cost of execution and the natural cost of life imprisonment are oceans apart. The idea that societies could exist which can fund good judges but not life imprisonment is common sense.

Common sense does not equate to correct. It is common sense that the sun circles the Earth. It remains wrong however.

I don't know why you guys think that error and corruption only come into play with the death penalty. They are always in play, and some would say that life imprisonment is a harsher punishment than death. A corrupt person would have to think twice about which sentence to aim for.

They may always be in play but one of these punishments can be altered at a later date. The other can not.

 

[zippy2006]

Common sense does not equate to correct. It is common sense that the sun circles the Earth. It remains wrong however.

Are you claiming that the idea that societies could exist which can fund good judges but not life imprisonment is incorrect?

They may always be in play but one of these punishments can be altered at a later date. The other can not.

True.

 

[Belk]

Are you claiming that the idea that societies could exist which can fund good judges but not life imprisonment is incorrect?

That something is possible does not mean it is probable. There are many possible societies that have never existed and likely never will.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This simply isn't true. The natural cost of execution and the natural cost of life imprisonment are oceans apart. The idea that societies could exist which can fund good judges but not life imprisonment is common sense.

I disagree. it seems unlikely that incarceration would be the only corner to be cut in a society's criminal justice system.

I don't know why you guys think that error and corruption only come into play with the death penalty.

We don't, so your premise is mistaken.

 

[durangodawood]

No; I had a plan to kill the shooter. I acted to defend others, not myself. In neither case is there a desire that innocent people should die, only the known possibility that they might.

Bit of a stretch calling it a plan. Really its a heat of the moment act of self defense. If you miss and kill someone else while exercising due care, thats just one of the dangers of life, like car wrecks. You are free to go.

It is true that it does not need to be criminal per se, but it is potentially criminal in that it is the act of a private party that is investigated to determine whether it was lawful. We are talking about the act of the state in a civil execution, which is not a homicide.

Again? Executions are "homicide". This is indisputable fact based on the legal and dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "homicide". If that makes execution sound bad, you may want to ask yourself why.

And we also tend to view the dangers involved in miscarriages of justice as a part of life.

We should be appalled by them. Sometimes we are.

...Your logic here is pretty wild. You keep claiming that intending to kill an innocent person who one believes to be guilty is the same as intending to kill a person who one believes to be innocent....

You are framing the question in terms of the particular jury, or particular executioner. Clearly they intend to kill only a guilty person when legally appropriate.

But I'm asking us to back up and take a wider view of a whole system where we know in advance that from time to time an innocent person will be singled out, incapacitated, and marked for death. Thats completely unlike heat of the moment self defense accidents. Its the operation of a system that will take innocent people and hold them for an administered death.

 

[Mr Laurier]

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

David Milgaard was convict and sentenced based on his being poor, and his refusing to "plead guilty". Unable to afford a private lawyer, his court appointed lawyer repeatedly attempted to 'pleabargain" him.
He spent 23 years in a maximum security prison before the actual murderer was found.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If there is no non-religious argument for abolishing the Death Penalty, is there any non-religious argument for expanding it?

As it is, Capital Punishment is only reserved for the most serious of crimes -- murder and treason. Why not expand the list?

 

[Bradskii]

If there is no non-religious argument for abolishing the Death Penalty, is there any non-religious argument for expanding it?

As it is, Capital Punishment is only reserved for the most serious of crimes -- murder and treason. Why not expand the list?

Using a leaf blower on a Sunday morning within 200m of my house. Plea bargaining will not be entertained. The method of execution? Something cruel and unusual to deter others.

 

[zippy2006]

If there is no non-religious argument for abolishing the Death Penalty, is there any non-religious argument for expanding it?

As it is, Capital Punishment is only reserved for the most serious of crimes -- murder and treason. Why not expand the list?

The punishment must fit the crime. I don't see how such a severe punishment could be countenanced for minor crimes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The punishment must fit the crime. I don't see how such a severe punishment could be countenanced for minor crimes.

Why?

 

[zippy2006]

Bit of a stretch calling it a plan. Really its a heat of the moment act of self defense. If you miss and kill someone else while exercising due care, thats just one of the dangers of life, like car wrecks. You are free to go.

"There's a guy murdering innocent students. I am going to take out my gun and incapacitate or kill him."

It's a plan, just not as robust as the other one we are considering. I think the analogy holds.

Again? Executions are "homicide". This is indisputable fact based on the legal and dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of "homicide". If that makes execution sound bad, you may want to ask yourself why.

No, you're wrong. Find me a legal source describing an execution as a homicide. You're just making stuff up.

You are framing the question in terms of the particular jury, or particular executioner. Clearly they intend to kill only a guilty person when legally appropriate.

But I'm asking us to back up and take a wider view of a whole system where we know in advance that from time to time an innocent person will be singled out, incapacitated, and marked for death. Thats completely unlike heat of the moment self defense accidents. Its the operation of a system that will take innocent people and hold them for an administered death.

No, I am talking about the whole system, not a particular executioner. Everything I said relates to the whole system. You're not paying enough attention.

You're conflating an attempt to kill the innocent with an attempt to kill the guilty. It's a terribly irresponsible equivocation, and is very sad to see.

 

[Bradskii]

No, you're wrong. Find me a legal source describing an execution as a homicide.

The ACLU considers it state sancioned homicide:

'An execution is a violent public spectacle of official homicide...'

It's not commonly used in that context. But it really does just mean 'killing someone'.