Rationalizing the Death Penalty

I'm probably just reiterating what I've posted above, but regardless of the crime of the perpetrator, I view capital punishment as a violation of human rights. I view the intentional killing of another human being as morally problematic, and it is especially so when it is unnecessary. For example, killing someone intentionally in self-defence is morally problematic, but perhaps is necessary to preserve life. Capital punishment of someone who no longer poses a threat to society is the intentional killing of a defenceless human being based on a perceived sense of justice (in my view, revenge) rather than any reasonable necessity. That I take issue with.

Others argue that the process of carrying out capital punishment (i.e., all the other stuff that happens before the killing) inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment, which creates other issues of human rights.

I think there are simply far too many problems with it as a form of punishment.

 

There is another dimension to this that I had probably discussed above (sorry, I'm too tired/lazy to check). I consider those who are "sadistic" or have a history of violent crime to be most likely unhealthy psychologically. In other words, I don't think a rational actor with a reasonably balanced mind does these sorts of things. Bearing that in mind, I consider capital punishment tantamount to putting an animal down. In other words, I find it incredibly dehumanizing. The justice system shouldn't be in the business of dehumanizing citizens.

The stock counterargument is along the lines of "the perp is a monster" or "the perp is inhuman" or whatever. I know for sure I've had that discussion. These are people, and the government is putting them to death. Considering it something other than that requires overlooking swaths of human psychology.

I know people get a certain sense of relief or satisfaction at the idea of government-sanctioned killing of particularly brutal people. I get that. I simply don't think it's something that should be done, regardless of what people want.

The intentional killing of human being outside of self-defence is considered one of the worst crimes imaginable. How wonderful that some people also consider it one of the most apt punishments—the main difference being the former is "unlawful" while the latter is "lawful."

I consider it a distinction established on contrived notion of justice, particularly the idea that justice is meant to enforce a kind of harmony or fairness. In this case, if someone commits murder, it seems to be the case that the murderer should in turn be killed.

Because killing is wrong. A society should protect and preserve life, allow it to flourish. So we must adequately punish something as horrific as killing. Well, perhaps I should use more accurate terminology: Unlawful killing — or murder — should be punished with lawful killing in large part because death is an incredibly undesirable state compared to life.

It's all very contrived, I think. We could say it's contradictory:

"Together with war, [the death penalty] was for a long time the other form of the right of the sword; it constituted the reply of the sovereign to those who attacked his will, his law, or his person. Those who died on the scaffold became fewer and fewer, in contrast to those who died in wars. But it was for the same reasons that the latter became more numerous and the former more and more rare. As soon as power gave itself the function of administering life, its reason for being and the logic of its exercise — and not the awakening of humanitarian feelings — made it more and more difficult to apply the death penalty. How could power exercise its highest prerogatives by putting people to death, when its main role was to ensure, sustain, and multiply life, to put this life in order? For such a power, execution was at the same time a limit, a scandal, and a contradiction. Hence capital punishment could not be maintained except by invoking less the enormity of the crime itself than the monstrosity of the criminal, his incorrigibility, and the safeguard of society. One had the right to kill those who represented a kind of biological danger to others."​

​

— From “Right of Death and Power over Life,” Michel Foucault, Part Five,The History of Sexuality, Vol. I, 1978.​

​

In other words, with capital punishment, they punish not the crime so much as provide a sense of comfort to society that some monstrosity has been eliminated.

Is that a preferred mode of justice?

It's big in Asia at least.

 

Is this translated directly from the North Korean, or is it paraphrased? I'm assuming the latter, because I wasn't aware that they use needles.

I don't think anyone is asking for it to be perfect, or is expecting it to be, which is why many support abolishing the practice. It may also explain why every developed nation (besides the U.S. and Japan—and I'm assuming Japan hasn't only because real estate is at a premium (so tiny!)—have abolished the practice.

You should be the Supreme Leader of the United States of America.

Have you also considered death panels to fix the health care system?

No, but seriously: I admire how you guys take care of business in Mega-City One.

Hitler wanted people to get the death penalty too.

 

China is technically headed towards industrialization. Much of the developed world has become post-industrial already.

China also lacks the high GDP per capita that most developed countries have. Mexico and much of South America does better than China in that respect. China is ranked around 92 in the world in PPP per capita.

China's rural population is about 48%, while the rural populations of the U.S., the U.K., and Canada are about 17%, 18%, and 19%, respectively.

China has a big economy, but it has by no means an advanced economy. Not yet anyway. It also has much to be desired politically speaking.

Basically: China is a developing nation but, like India, is different because of its size and political impact.

 

Turning to murderers as a benchmark for behaviour strikes me as odd (at best).

 

same old, same old
too weary of getting into this debate again.
but I'll simply say that I'm not against the death penalty. (if you can't tell from my previous battles in this thread)

 

I would probably be more okay with the death penalty if it included economic crimes, especially highly valued ones amongst white collar criminals. For example, the Enron executives found guilty should be executed along with the worst murderers. The lives they ruined... Bernie Madoff? Execute him too. Why not? If his crimes are worth 150 years in prison, surely they're worth execution.

I do realize Madoff was operating in New York, so it's a non-starter, but Enron was based in Texas.

I find this a contradiction in states that ostensibly support the death penalty for the worst of crimes.

 

Because they're way more Christian than you guys.