Kether
5th November 2005, 04:47 AM
“The effect of these cruel spectacles exhibited to the populace, is to destroy tenderness or excite revenge; and by the base and false idea of governing men by terror instead of reason, they become precedents. It is over the lowest class of mankind that government by terror is intended to operate, and it is on them that it operates to the worst effect. They . . . inflict in their turn the examples of terror they have been instructed to practice."--Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man
“It is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie.... Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”Bud Welch, father of Oklahoma bombing victim.
Introduction
Vengeance is indeed a strong and natural emotion. But emotion is an extremely fallacious moral guide – logic is the way forward, particularly where an issue as important as the fate of a human life is concerned. Sadly, the vast majority of people rarely apply rational analysis to important issues – even if they claim to be rational people.
The concepts of desert and retribution
All the major arguments in favour of capital punishment rest on the concept of ‘deserving’. This idea pervades the ethical lives of almost all people, but few ever properly consider what it means, the arguments for and against it, and its consequences. In this section of my essay, I will try to do so.
It is impossible to condone the horrific abuse of human rights that goes under the euphemism of Capital Punishment without believing that criminals ‘deserve’ to have their rights taken away from them. Desert is largely responsible for the belief that human rights can be forfeited.
It is ridiculous – counter-productive – to suggest that the best way to deal with criminals is to murder them, when so much research suggests that this simply aggravates the problem of violence in society.
The idea of retribution, i.e. revenge, is a fundementally flawed one. Our first and natural impulse is to lash out, to inflict pain upon those who wrong us. But surely, this impulse is one of the worst features of human nature. It is what it is, an impulse, and has no purpose, and no place in any society, let alone ours. It is a gross abuse of power on the part of the state to give in to the revenge impulse. Governments are descending into mob rule when they do, which is entirely contrary to their purpose.
The idea of ‘an eye for an eye’ is no more than outdated fundamentalist dogma, and as such should not be endorsed by our legal system.
Is the death penalty effective as a form of deterrence?
Years of exhaustive criminological studies have shown that the death penalty is useless as a deterrent; a survey of the USA’s top criminology institutions found that 84% of experts reject it.
Moreover, historical precedent as well as recent evidence suggests that society is brutalised by the death penalty – thereby encouraging crime. If people see governments committing murder, they will, subconsciously or otherwise, begin to believe that killing is justified – the death penalty, therefore, would encourage murder rather than prevent it.
Is killing offenders the only means of protecting society?
Supporters of the death penalty claim that in order to protect the public from dangerous people, we should murder them. Of course, that is the only sure means of preventing someone from offending again. But the most dangerous prisoners can be sentenced to life without parole – society can be protected without resorting to such extreme measures as the death penalty.
The danger of killing innocent people
Since 1973, 121 people in the USA have been released from death row after new evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, 982 people have been executed – thus one in nine people sentenced to death have been innocent.
Imagine if a manufacturer operated with such failure rates!
Those who justify the death penalty with such feeble, pathetic arguments as ‘They have forensics now’ have clearly ignored these figures.
There are, and probably always will be, flaws in the justice system, for we are human, and there is such a thing as human error. But at least this error can be rectified if the victims of it are still alive. Death is irreversable.
Wrongful executions are preventable by simply not sentencing people to death.
Killing is wrong, and the justice system should reflect this.
“It is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie.... Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”Bud Welch, father of Oklahoma bombing victim.
Introduction
Vengeance is indeed a strong and natural emotion. But emotion is an extremely fallacious moral guide – logic is the way forward, particularly where an issue as important as the fate of a human life is concerned. Sadly, the vast majority of people rarely apply rational analysis to important issues – even if they claim to be rational people.
The concepts of desert and retribution
All the major arguments in favour of capital punishment rest on the concept of ‘deserving’. This idea pervades the ethical lives of almost all people, but few ever properly consider what it means, the arguments for and against it, and its consequences. In this section of my essay, I will try to do so.
It is impossible to condone the horrific abuse of human rights that goes under the euphemism of Capital Punishment without believing that criminals ‘deserve’ to have their rights taken away from them. Desert is largely responsible for the belief that human rights can be forfeited.
It is ridiculous – counter-productive – to suggest that the best way to deal with criminals is to murder them, when so much research suggests that this simply aggravates the problem of violence in society.
The idea of retribution, i.e. revenge, is a fundementally flawed one. Our first and natural impulse is to lash out, to inflict pain upon those who wrong us. But surely, this impulse is one of the worst features of human nature. It is what it is, an impulse, and has no purpose, and no place in any society, let alone ours. It is a gross abuse of power on the part of the state to give in to the revenge impulse. Governments are descending into mob rule when they do, which is entirely contrary to their purpose.
The idea of ‘an eye for an eye’ is no more than outdated fundamentalist dogma, and as such should not be endorsed by our legal system.
Is the death penalty effective as a form of deterrence?
Years of exhaustive criminological studies have shown that the death penalty is useless as a deterrent; a survey of the USA’s top criminology institutions found that 84% of experts reject it.
Moreover, historical precedent as well as recent evidence suggests that society is brutalised by the death penalty – thereby encouraging crime. If people see governments committing murder, they will, subconsciously or otherwise, begin to believe that killing is justified – the death penalty, therefore, would encourage murder rather than prevent it.
Is killing offenders the only means of protecting society?
Supporters of the death penalty claim that in order to protect the public from dangerous people, we should murder them. Of course, that is the only sure means of preventing someone from offending again. But the most dangerous prisoners can be sentenced to life without parole – society can be protected without resorting to such extreme measures as the death penalty.
The danger of killing innocent people
Since 1973, 121 people in the USA have been released from death row after new evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, 982 people have been executed – thus one in nine people sentenced to death have been innocent.
Imagine if a manufacturer operated with such failure rates!
Those who justify the death penalty with such feeble, pathetic arguments as ‘They have forensics now’ have clearly ignored these figures.
There are, and probably always will be, flaws in the justice system, for we are human, and there is such a thing as human error. But at least this error can be rectified if the victims of it are still alive. Death is irreversable.
Wrongful executions are preventable by simply not sentencing people to death.
Killing is wrong, and the justice system should reflect this.