I agree that punishment should always be fair, proportionate, and humane. I would add that it should also be "effective" -- that is, it should fulfill the intention of the sentence. Our intentions in punishment are not always clear.

If capital punishment is going to be carried out by a competent system, then it should be carried out swiftly and without dithering over the method. It seems to me that a firing squad is as humane as any other method, and less fussy than the lethal injection routine.

I'm not in favor of capital punishment (among other reasons) because the system that serves it up doesn't seem to be sufficiently competent to not make many serious mistakes in identifying the right defendant, and in conducting the proceedings fairly and honestly. That it can take 10 or 20 years to complete legal challenges, or that the "Innocence Project" has exonerated scores of inmates, seems to validate the questionable competence of the system.

If the people are against capital punishment (for whatever reason) then they have to think about prisons.

Different people expect imprisonment to be instructive, rehabilitative, or punitive for the subject. We do a better job of "punishing" than "instructing" or "rehabilitating". We put criminals into institutions designed to be punitive and expect rehabilitation. But even as "punitive" institutions, many prisons do not deliver as advertised. They are just warehouses where criminals are stored, being not quite punished and certainly not instructed or rehabilitated.

questionable competence of the system. — Bitter Crank

This is one more con against capital punishment. The system has to be perfect. If not innocent people may be put to death.

However, what about the moral aspects of capital punishment. Is it good to take an eye for an eye? The modern justice seems to suggest the answer is a ''no''. We don't beat a criminal for assault and many countries have abolished the death penalty.

It's the morally depraved and evil mass murderer who's in dire need of forgiveness and humane treatment. — TheMadFool

However, what about the moral aspects of capital punishment. — TheMadFool

Capital punishment is an admission of defeat and incapacity on the part of society to redeem criminals. In itself capital punishment is immoral, and incapacity for redemption is a grave flaw of society, as well as individuals. Capital punishment is immoral.

The prophet Micah says, "Do justice, love mercy..." and 'justice' has to mean more than the minimal administration of the law (which is the root meaning of justice). Love, justice, and mercy should result in something good for the community on whose behalf "justice is done". Putting people to death for murder, embezzlement, for the condition of being homosexual or for homosexual acts, heresy, apostasy, deviation from the party line, desertion under fire, or any other crime produces no good for the community, and it restores no lost life.

For many felony offenses (however defined), severe punishment is mostly a benefit to the ruling class, or to the mullahs, bishops, or other pricks who police theology, or to the police state, whether that be a hanging or life in prison, or 30 years, whatever. For victims severe punishment provides some psychic benefit, if they are into vengeance.

If there are anti-social people who can not live without enacting serious crimes, they should be separated from society. The same for psychopaths whose ability to feel has always been impaired, and who seem to be incapable of guilt. The same for the severely insane. And in no case should separation from society mean a dungeon cell. Any one of us might go insane, might commit felony acts (like murder), or behave in a way that is deemed antisocial. We all deserve decent care, regardless.

Europe, for one, manages to get along without a huge prison industry, capital punishment, and dungeons. Perhaps their society is healthier. If so, we need to make our society healthier. Perhaps they understand better how to seclude, then re-introduce felons back into society. If so, we need to learn that too.

Perhaps there's another non-moral reason for capital punishment. Punishment must be
1. Just (3 principles in the OP)
2. Corrective (should reform the criminal)
3. Deterrent (prevention is better than cure)

Capital punishment fails to meet criteria 1 and 2 but it "seems" to fit 3. Only ''seems'' because prevention can be better achieved by educating society on morality and the values of peace, friendship, life, etc.

That raises the question ''should a justice system also involve teaching morality?'' I think this is a prickly issue because religion comes into the picture and that's something against the precept of separating religion and the state. And does it work anyway?

Capital punishment fails to meet criteria 1 and 2 but it "seems" to fit 3. Only ''seems'' because prevention can be better achieved by educating society on morality and the values of peace, friendship, life, etc.

Studies have shown that capital punishment is no significant deterrent for murder.

''should a justice system also involve teaching morality?'' — TheMadFool

Well, certainly the courts are not the place to do it. Prisons? I don't see any problem with teaching morality in prisons.

But really, morality needs to be taught in the home, school, and the community (church or civic organizations like the scouts). Parents obviously should teach their children what is right, wrong, and how to tell the difference, but children also need to encounter moral teaching in school and among their peers. (Some parents actually do what they should do, and a good many children are taught what is right and what is wrong.

Parents obviously should teach their children about sexuality, too -- but... My guess is that they don't because they don't know very much about either morality or sexuality -- or thrift, political affairs, good nutrition, and so on and so forth.

There are two reasons why capital punishment has little deterrent effect:

First, many murders are committed in a fit of more or less insane anger, jealousy, or rage. The person is not thinking straight at the time. The second reason is that criminals who kill in cold blood are not very susceptible to the threat of execution. They may operate in such a way that arrest is fairly unlikely, they may be 'protected', or maybe they are just a bit delusional.

The same applies to prison terms. The people who are deterred from crime are people who are basically honest and/or are very afraid of being imprisoned (it would ruin their lives). Members of a criminal subculture may not consider a prison term to be that much of a penalty.

TheMadFool — TheMadFool

I have been a death penalty opponent as far back as I can remember.

The reasons that people give for opposing the death penalty are numerous, ranging from how it goes against their religious beliefs to how a black person is more likely to get the death penalty for killing a white person than for killing a black person and more likely to get the death penalty than a white person who is convicted.

That whole range contains strong reasons to oppose the death penalty.

But I think that subconsciously, and only in recent years consciously, the biggest reason I have always opposed the death penalty is the act itself. I don't mean the method such as lethal injection--the methods have varied--or the pain that the condemned person experiences, although that is also a concern. I mean the nature of and behavior within the whole institution of capital punishment. I will never forget the picture I saw of people outside of the facility during Ted Bundy's execution carrying signs saying "Roast In Peace" and "It's Fryday". That kind of behavior and almost all other behavior in the process, such as victims being present to witness the execution, the news media coverage of it, etc. is abominable.

If the death penalty was reformed so that executions are not a long, drawn-out spectacle of a mob (society) getting the revenge that it thirsts for, I might be able to support the death penalty. It would mean wholesale changes in the institution and practice of capital punishment. The public would not know in advance the date, let alone the time, of an execution. The public would not know in advance the place of an execution. There would be no witnesses other than those needed to confirm that everything was done according to the law and confirm the death. There would be no media coverage leading up to or during an execution. The public would be informed afterwards that the condemned had been executed. And other changes that make the penalty mere death rather than a long, drawn-out, choreographed public humiliation and murder by a mob.

Studies have shown that capital punishment is no significant deterrent for murder. — Thanatos Sand

This is a conundrum that needs an explanation. Capital punishment is instituted because it's reasonable. If a person's work output is dependent on his losing his/her job, the work will be of higher quality. The death penalty is simply an extension of this logic. However, the death penalty doesn't deter crime, perhaps evidenced by rising murder rates.

How do we explain this? It could be as @Bitter Crank said, murder is either a crime of passion (temporary insanity) or psychopathic (complete insanity). If this is the case then the studies you mention could be biased because they didn't weigh in this crucial factor.

First, many murders are committed in a fit of more or less insane anger, jealousy, or rage. The person is not thinking straight at the time. The second reason is that criminals who kill in cold blood are not very susceptible to the threat of execution. They may operate in such a way that arrest is fairly unlikely, they may be 'protected', or maybe they are just a bit delusional.

The same applies to prison terms. The people who are deterred from crime are people who are basically honest and/or are very afraid of being imprisoned (it would ruin their lives). Members of a criminal subculture may not consider a prison term to be that much of a penalty. — Bitter Crank

I agree.

Yes, sometimes passion gets the better of reason. However, I think from a deterrent angle, the more public the execution the more effective the death penalty is.

In short, since capital punishment is an incomplete application of the above mentioned principles, it's NOT justice.

Comments. — TheMadFool

I like the idea of incorporating a humane principle into our understanding of justice. I think justice has to have some kind of basis in moral correctness. A humane principle helps us regulate that.

If this is the case then the studies you mention could be biased because they didn't weigh in this crucial factor

The studies aren't biased. They're done by sociologists and criminologists who did weigh in those, and other, crucial factors.

The studies aren't biased. — Thanatos Sand

Can you give me a link

I like the idea of incorporating a humane principle into our understanding of justice. — Brian

I think it's necessary because if not there's no difference between vengeance and justice. The former is morally suspect.

Mad Fool,

In your opening post you claimed that the justice, by definition, requires fairness. Fairness, you said was the principle that "all are equal before the law, similar offences will be treated similarly". Fairness, as a legal principle is grounded in the presumption that all men are created equal. The problem is that al men are not created equal. For example, there is a robust body of research evidence suggesting that psychopaths have, amongst other abnormalities, a deficit of empathy which manifests itself a in callous, cold-hearted, remorseless behavioural traits. This empathetic deficit is believed to be biologically based in the frontal lobe ( prefrontal cortex) of the human brain .Neuroimaging studies of convicted , incarcerated homicidal psychopaths show that there are some broadly common neurobiological structural and functional abnormalities in the prefrontal vortices of these individuals. My point is, that if a person has an organic ( biological) abnormality in the prefrontal cortex of their brain that strips them of any sense of empathy, remorse ,sympathy, or conscience for the commission of a brutal premeditated murder where their victim has been, say, raped, then tortured before being killed, then this is not just "murder one". The killer, because s/he is biologically abnormal is incorrigible, and having no sense of regret or remorse for their action/s is very likely to continue murdering others in the same fashion if they are ever at liberty to do so. What is the point of sentencing such a person to "life" (25-30 years or whatever) in a high-security prison, at the tax-payer's expense, if they incapable of being rehabilitated? Why should the state not execute them in the interest of bettering society by diverting the (considerable) costs of incarcerating such an individual to help provide revenue for improving public health or education, etc?

So, in short, your presumption that the legal principle of fairness is: "Perfect, at least on paper. Not much controversy in it." is, in my opinion false. All human beings are not created equal, they are all biologically different from each other, and in the case of sadistic homocidal psychopaths is a pertinent example wrt your op. Such individuals ( the American serial killer, Ted Bundy,is a good example), if apprehended and convicted, ought, in my opinion, be executed by the state for the reasons I have outlined above. If you disagree, please explain your objections.

Regards

John

Here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/30/theres-still-no-evidence-that-executions-deter-criminals/?utm_term=.1b792e10f3cf

However, the death penalty doesn't deter crime, perhaps evidenced by rising murder rates. — TheMadFool

Well, you say it doesn't deter crime. According to the Mises Institute of Austria...

The US homicide rate in 2014, the most recent year available, was 4.5 per 100,000. The 2014 total follows a long downward trend and is the lowest homicide rate recorded since 1963 when the rate was 4.6 per 100,000. To find a lower homicide rate, we must travel back to 1957 when the total homicide rate hit 4.0 per 100,000.

Homicide rates were considerably higher in the United States during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, but over the past 25 years, have fallen nearly continuously: — Mises Institute of Austria

The death penalty was more commonly available and applied prior to 1963 than later. After 1963, there was a steep run-up in murder rates lasting until 1994, when it began its decline to the present low point. It would take some digging, but my guess (good as gold, really) is that there was a run-up in the population of young males during that period of time, as part of the post-WWII baby boom.

Why crimes were not committed isn't knowable, for the most part, but demographics do correlate with crime statistics.

Demographics again in this map:



Another map, and the article from the Mises Institute shows a very high discordance of crime on the north and south side of the Mexico-United States border.

Note Georgia: The murder rate would be much higher there, if it were not for the moderating influence of Hanover, whose influence over that area is sort of like Lady Galadriel in Lorien.

I understand your perspective. There are biological, psychological, etc. differences that invalidate the ''all men are equal'' principle. My bad. I didn't mean it that way. By ''all men are equal'' and ''fairness'' I'm referring to equal opportunity and equal access to legal services. A murderer has a right to a competent counsel just as the victim has.

As for you monetary angle that it's more cost-effective to execute a psychopath I think morality is beyond money calculus. The spirit of society loses something invaluable in endorsing capital punishment - the collective empathy, so to speak. So, while we may save money, we lose our souls.

Thanks for the data. I don't think capital punishment is completely pointless. It does have deterrent effect but only for the average ''normal'' person who stands to lose big. The passionate murderer and the psychopath are exceptional cases that mustn't be included in any study of the impact of the death penalty.

In the article you linked me to:

"We certainly can’t say there is a deterrent. We can’t say there is not either," said Marc Mauer, the executive director of The Sentencing Project, adding that the lack of evidence was itself worth considering.

Marc Mayer wasnt one of the main scholars in the study. Nice cherry-picking, though.

I think what deters people from committing crimes, whether it be shoplifting, lying, or murder, is the deeply ingrained morality of their family, and the less deeply placed morality of society at large. Most people teach their children not to steal, not to tell lies, not to hurt other people, not to destroy things just for the hell of it, and so on. People who don't teach their children how to behave probably produce the liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels which we all have to put up with.

It has to be repeated again, most murders are not planned, and are motivated by events occurring immediately before the impassioned act of killing--the jealous husband murder. Those murders present one kind of problem. First degree murder with specifically targeted victims is a much different kind of problem. Perhaps capital punishment is suitable for those cases -- not as a deterrent but as a psychological, or moral, satisfaction.

People who plan and execute murder, seek to escape apprehension by the police, then seek to escape conviction in court (people like Whitey Bolger in Boston) weren't deterred by much of anything. Maybe he should be executed, in public, like the good old days. Sell hot pastrami and beer -- hotdogs and soda for the kids. (not a serious suggestion, maybe)

Aren't there a lot of things you don't do because they are just wrong? My guess is that that is the case for you, and most other people. It isn't punishment that deters you, it's deeply ingrained morality instilled when you were a child. Fear of punishment (having parental love withdrawn) is the stylus that writes morals on the heart of a child.

I don't think adults are deterred by fear of punishment, for the most part. People who are planning to steal assume they won't be caught (and if they are fairly careful, they probably won't be). People who lie assume they will get away with it. Yes, they know punishments occur, but punishment seems unlikely. (People calculate the likelihood of getting a parking ticket more carefully than they calculate the risk of being embarrassed by being caught lying.)

Marc Mayer wasnt one of the main scholars in the study. Nice cherry-picking, though — Thanatos Sand

:) Sorry. Anyway, the data clumps ALL murders together. That means it doesn't distinguish murders committed under ''ordinary'' circumstances and those done in extremis (crimes of passion and psychopathy). As I said in my posts, this distinction is necessary in determining the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Please read below.

It has to be repeated again, most murders are not planned, and are motivated by events occurring immediately before the impassioned act of killing--the jealous husband murder. — Bitter Crank

Exactly, crimes of passion are different and so are psychopathy induced crimes. My point is any study of the efficacy of capital punishment must exclude these extremes. We need to judge the capital punishment deterrence for average people, who you said are at risk of ruining their lives.

As an analogy. Consider 10 people. 1 is a psychopath and 2 is passionately jealous. The death penalty is a reality in this world. 1 couldn't care less and will murder. 2 will kill in a fit of jealousy. However persons 3 through 10 will be deterred by the death penalty. It's these people (3 to 10) that need to be studied for the deterrent potency of capital punishment. Including persons 1 and 2 in the data is a mistake and most studies commit this error.

TheMadFool
If this is the case then the studies you mention could be biased because they didn't weigh in this crucial factor

The studies aren't biased. They're done by sociologists and criminologists who did weigh in those, and other, crucial factors.

The studies aren't biased.
— Thanatos Sand

Can you give me a link

Marc Mayer wasnt one of the main scholars in the study. Nice cherry-picking, though
— Thanatos Sand

:) Sorry. Anyway, the data clumps ALL murders together. That means it doesn't distinguish murders committed under ''ordinary'' circumstances and those done in extremis (crimes of passion and psychopathy). As I said in my posts, this distinction is necessary in determining the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Please read below.

Sorry, you never specified this at all. You asked for a link that backed my claim that the death penalty wasn't a deterrent, and I gave you one. So, now you're just changing the goalposts to fit your desired end. And I don't engage with people who do that. So, we're done.

I'm admittedly biased against the death penalty (possibly culturally), but tried to round up some pros and cons a while back.

Some pros:

• retribution
• an eye for an eye, punishment fits the crime
• deterrence (except for places where shown ineffective)
• cost (except for places where execution is actually more expensive than alternatives, depends on legal system)
• permanent incapacitation (e.g. prison escape and subsequent recurrence avoided)
• practical
• modern science grants higher certainties (DNA, genetics)
• everyone dies eventually in any case
• closure to victim's family and friends

Some cons:

• wrongful execution, seemingly faced with faceless/anonymous executioners (also see argument con below)
• finality (also see argument con below)
• consistency (also see argument con below)
• slippery slope; plus potentially setting dangerous precedence
• sending wrong messages (why kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong?); two wrongs don't make a right
• human rights, value of human life, "inhumane" societal action, international trust/acceptance
• execution may be painful and accompanied by emotional anguish
• somewhat "barbaric", "brutal", a "primitive feel", or otherwise uncivilized (two wrongs don't make a right again)
• capital punishment makes it easier to ignore in-depth understanding, e.g. social causes
• edge cases (like mental illness)
• victims cannot be brought back to life in any case
• impact on convict's family and friends

Sample implementations of the death penalty:

• Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy that has a special police force trained to weed out witchcraft and magic, for example. They have put people to death for protesting against the system, criticizing superstition, apostasy and whatever else, and here criticizing means speaking or writing. There's a (summary) process in place, by which "undesirable" elements can be "dealt with".
• Some states in the US has a much better implementation in place. Yet, here determining guilt falls back on a jury and a couple hired lawyers (of whichever experience/skills). An execution is irrevocable, with no uncertain finality. The determination of guilt is clearly less certain. And this discrepancy can put retentionists into the same category as those they may execute.

If we're talking morality and justice, where does that leave us? There are examples of abolitionist countries with relatively low crime rates. Might be worthwhile taking a look at their example?

Here's an argument con:

Determining guilt is less accurate, than execution is irreversible, and thus (morally) disproportionate. Hence, given the irrevocability, voters-gone-executioners-gone-killers ought be held accountable and responsible, and face their own music. By appeal to logical consistency:

• wrongful capital punishments are known to have occurred (including youngsters), so who's responsible?
• in such cases, those that endorsed death penalty have (knowingly by their decision) caused wrongful deaths, with the exact same effect as murder
• should those that endorse death penalty hide behind legalities as a means to justify death penalty, comfortably from their chairs?
• in case of wrongful capital punishment, the endorsers should be subject to their own sentiment ("an eye for an eye")
• are you (the retentionist) promptly willing to stake your own life thus?

If we're talking "an eye for an eye", then the retentionists put themselves in danger of execution, unless their method of determining guilt is error-free. That, at least, is the logical consequence.

Aren't we better than this?

Great analysis.

It seems it finally boils down to a clash between morality and deterrence of capital punishment. The former is against and the latter is for the death penalty.