Discussions | Useful Links  | Essays
	The Death Penalty Essay | Index

 
 
 

	This is the second page recording responses to the essay The Death Penalty - A Balanced Debate and general comment and debate on the death penalty.
	To view the essay; click here
	To view links on this subject; click here
	Jump to the poll / comment box

Section 1: Latest comments
Section 2: Response to a response
Section 3: Responses to Timothy McVeigh's execution
Section 4: Previous comments

Section 2: Response to a response

One visitor to this page has provided a lengthy response raising several points. My replies are interlaced in green.

It doesn't follow that I "must consider the morality of the literal application of “an eye for an eye” to every crime and the consequences of that" just because I believe that the state is justified in executing certain individuals.

Capital punishment is justified in certain extreme cases where a number of conditions must be met. First, there must be no doubt as to the guilt of the individual, because if even one innocent person is executed then the system has failed. Categorical guilt is possible to determine. Adolf Hitler undoubtedly consigned millions of Jews to their deaths. Fred West was clearly guilty of multiple murder. In theory, if there is reasonable doubt then the accused should be acquitted, but history shows that the innocent are imprisoned. Therefore, capital punishment should be reserved for extreme crimes where there is no doubt as to the individual's guilt.

-    This reply calls for "no doubt as to the individual's guilt", a tall order when one considers that humans are rarely certain about anything. I am also very wary of introducing a sliding scale of punishment: The more certain the guilt, the greater the punishment?

Society is making a moral judgment and saying to the condemned person, "because of your crime, you have forfeited your right to live".

-    "Because of your crime, you have forfeited your right to live" is not, as the writer correctly states, "an eye for an eye" and, depending on your morality, a valid statement and one that allows the sentence of execution for non-fatal offences such as rape.

Who determines this right to life (there being no such thing as innate rights)? Society. We come together as societies to create values and rights that enable us to live together. When those values and rights are violated, society imposes its judgment.

-    The writer asserts there are "no such things as innate rights" but then gives society the right to create values and execute those who don't agree with them. Technically, society could only gain this right if given it by all the people it represents. This would require Rosseau's famous Social Contract. One can say that we consent to follow the laws and values of a society by merely living in it, but we often have very little choice about where we live and therefore the consent is not genuine. What right does a society that we may not have wished to join have over us?

-    The above argument is obviously applicable to all forms of punishment (indeed all laws) but some basic laws are necessary for society to function. A law allowing the death penalty however is far from necessary.

Other conditions include a free and fair trial with proper legal representation, and a transparent appeals process. The poor standard of lawyers representing those on death row in the US is well documented.

What about the deterrence and cost arguments? Irrelevant. It may be that the death penalty deters individuals. If so, great, but it can't be proven, so can't be used as an argument. As for cost - with something as important as this, cost should not be a serious consideration. The only reason for bringing it into the argument is that most people mistakenly believe it is more expensive to keep someone locked up for 40 years than it is to execute them.

The bottom line is that some crimes are so horrendous that the perpetrators forfeit their right to life. The only thing to do is incapacitate them. Does this brutalise society? Of course it does. But there will always be a constituent brutality in society. The death penalty, in a way, serves as a reminder that we can never escape the brutal but that we must never stop trying.

Finally, what is the benefit of capital punishment? It's not punishment, it's not deterrence, it's simply the removal from society of individuals who, because of the nature and severity of their crime, forfeit their right to life as defined by the society in which they live.

-    This last section is on practicalities, which are not irrelevant. Even if one agrees with the morality of the death penalty it is still only justifiable if it is practically the best option as well. Could the time and money spent in executing people could be put to better use?
 
 
 
 

 

Section 3: Responses to Timothy McVeigh's execution

The execution of Timothy McVeigh sparked a large number of comments. Instead of responding to individual ones I have decided to tackle the issues raised rather than individual comments.
 

1. Thou shall not kill. This commandment has been quoted literally several times and many have questioned man's right to take life and also quoted the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right". How can we justify killing as a punishment for killing? Some have even commented that the punishment for this type of crime be left to God.

My response to this comment is a question. Do you believe that the government is morally allowed to kill anyone be it during a war, hostage or other situation? For instance, during the Gulf War and the Kosovo conflict completely innocent civilians were killed in order to achieve a morally correct aim and therefore many have justified their killing. How about a hostage situation where a sniper has the opportunity to free 30 hostages from the risk of murder by killing the terrorist?

I appreciate that accidental, but inevitable, killings during war are not the same as a premeditated killing but if the government can morally kill in a particular situation, war or not, we cannot stick absolutely to "Thou shall not kill" nor can we avoid our duty here on earth by saying we will wait for eternal judgment.

If we accept that the government can morally kill people we must consider the practicalities of the death penalty like deterrence and cost.

 

2. The sanctity of human life. How can we show respect for human life if we, ourselves, kill?

Response: As the response to comment A shows, it is possible to justify killing. Some would also claim that we show our respect for human life only if we kill murderers. To see a full discussion of this topic including a very eloquent defense of the death penalty by John Stuart Mill please see the sanctity of life section.

 

3. Too light a punishment? Several people have expressed the view that the death penalty was too light a punishment for Timothy McVeigh or even that the electric chair should have been used and not lethal injection.

Response: Firstly, I would like to say that at all times our treatment of the guilty must be humane. They may not have shown humane treatment to others but that is no reason to stoop to their level. Being inhumane is morally wrong. My worry is that electrocuting someone for several minutes is not humane and is therefore immoral and a "cruel and unusual punishment" . I do not want to comment on whether Timothy McVeigh wished to die but in 99.9% of cases murderers ask for life and not death. However I do not believe that the murderer's wishes should be taken into account. If we have the death penalty then the cases which warrant it should be decided by law.

  

4. Closure. Many people justify their support for the death penalty by saying that the fact that the murderer of their friend or relative has been executed brings an amount of closure to the tragedy.

Response: Closure might occur for some people after an execution, but is this a reasonable justification for taking a life? If you believe it is, would you therefore not demand the death penalty if there were no relatives or friends of the victims. In fact if this is the justification, should the friends and relatives of the victims have been polled to see if Timothy McVeigh's execution would bring closure? Is a certain amount of emotional relief required before the death penalty can be justified? We must be very careful that the death penalty does not become an arbitrary punishment. (see the purpose of punishment section or the discrimination and arbitrariness section)

 

5. Other comments have raised questions relating to the case of Timothy McVeigh.

Should we have televised his execution to prove that we agree with their occurrence or does this only serve to dramatize the whole situation?

Does the number of people killed he killed make a difference? Would anyone change their minds about his justified sentence being lethal injection if he had killed only 2 people?

 
Should the fact that he killed children be considered when choosing his sentence?

 
Should the fact that he showed little remorse for his actions be considered when choosing his sentence?

Should we have televised his execution to prove that we agree with its occurrence or does this only serve to dramatize the whole situation?

 

Section 1: Latest comments
Section 2: Response to a response
Section 3: Responses to Timothy McVeigh's execution
Section 4: Previous comments

}	Discussions | Useful Links | Essays	Please send all comments to WebMaster@IntellectualLoafing.com
	The Death Penalty Essay | Index