5 replies to this topic

[Arbiter]

Instead of taking the UK Justice thread down a side-track I thought I'd post a new topic to cover capital punishment.

In response to Mastermind in the Justice thread:

Except in retaliation. Objective rights are negative, so you can't have the right to an action (like taking someone's life) without contradicting some other right, in this case the right to life. If a person violates the right to life of another, they forefit their own right to life and should therefore be executed as this is the only just course of action.

I believe the right to life is absolute and cannot be "forefitted" through one's actions.

Innocent people may also be imprisoned for their entire life, which in some ways is even worse than death, so do you think we should not imprison people either?

Death and life imprisonment aren't equivocable. The death penalty is irreversible which means the accused cannot be "saved" if it is found that they were innocent all along. With imprisonment the contrary is true.

The practicality of the death penalty should be kept separate to the morality of it by the way. Capital punishment is entirely moral, however it must of course only be used when the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

That's the thing though, it's impossible to have "absolute certainty" - there is always a possibility of error.

[Mastermind]

Sorry I missed this topic somehow.

I believe the right to life is absolute and cannot be "forefitted" through one's actions.

Where does such a belief come from? What, in your view, is the right to life based upon?

Death and life imprisonment aren't equivocable. The death penalty is irreversible which means the accused cannot be "saved" if it is found that they were innocent all along. With imprisonment the contrary is true.

They are certainly equivocable. It is only in very rare cases where people serving life (meaning their whole life) are freed on the grounds of new evidence. The two are equivocable because life and liberty go hand in hand. Life in prison is not life at all, it's suspended death. In many cases death may even be preferable to life imprisonment since the latter punishment lasts a lifetime whereas the former lasts only minutes.

That's the thing though, it's impossible to have "absolute certainty" - there is always a possibility of error.

You don't need "absolute certainty", and requesting it is pointless since such a thing does not exist. The level of proof/evidence that should be demanded should be enough as to be certain within the context of a given case. Certainty is contextual, remember that.

[Twilight]

There are a number of things to consider when evaluating the use of the death penalty as a punishment.

Firstly, when a person initiates force against an innocent, he or she renounces the principle of individual rights. He or she implicitly rejects life in society as a rational being, and instead chooses the life of a predator, to the detriment and destruction of all those around. Rights do not apply to such a person. It is not only prudent for a society to destroy such a harmful animal, but it is an act of justice: treating a person according to how they act.

Leading on from this, proportionality (regarding justice) is the concept which states that the reaction should "fit" the action, or in this case, the punishment should fit the crime. Without proportionality, death would be an appropriate punishment for all who initiate force. Taking proportionality into account, the premeditated murder of an innocent by a criminal justly deserves the premeditated execution by the state of that criminal. The death penalty is a just punishment for a murderer.

However, there is the problem of epistemology. Moral justification as a whole has to include an epistemological underpinning for it to be valid, and the above assumes absolute certainty regarding the facts. The problem is that in real-life, despite overwhelming evidence, juries sometimes make mistakes. The punishment of a criminal is prudence, but the punishment of an innocent is a tragedy.

There are cases when evidence will be so overwhelming that it is correct to use the death penalty. My conclusion is that the death penalty should be used in these cases, but not in cases where there is even a small possibility of error.

[Arbiter]

Where does such a belief come from? What, in your view, is the right to life based upon?

From the fact that each person only has once chance at life and nobody else has the right to take it away from them. I do not think life can be forefitted because although people may commit horrible acts at points in their life, they can still "make up" for their actions in ways other than being killed. Ways which will be far more beneficial to the rest of society.

They are certainly equivocable. It is only in very rare cases where people serving life (meaning their whole life) are freed on the grounds of new evidence. The two are equivocable because life and liberty go hand in hand. Life in prison is not life at all, it's suspended death. In many cases death may even be preferable to life imprisonment since the latter punishment lasts a lifetime whereas the former lasts only minutes.

I do not think death would ever be preferable to life, at least to an innocent person. An innocent person can hope that they will be vindicated at some point, and hopefully they would be.

You don't need "absolute certainty", and requesting it is pointless since such a thing does not exist. The level of proof/evidence that should be demanded should be enough as to be certain within the context of a given case. Certainty is contextual, remember that.

I do not think that such a subjective level of certainty is enough to base a death sentence upon.

[Mastermind]

From the fact that each person only has once chance at life and nobody else has the right to take it away from them. I do not think life can be forefitted because although people may commit horrible acts at points in their life, they can still "make up" for their actions in ways other than being killed. Ways which will be far more beneficial to the rest of society.

Yes, everybody has only one chance at life and nobody has the right to take it away from them. So, a murderer is voilating another's right to life by taking it. Proper justice demands that the punishment fits the crime. A life for a life.

I do not think death would ever be preferable to life, at least to an innocent person. An innocent person can hope that they will be vindicated at some point, and hopefully they would be.

Well, one would assume the evidence would have to be absolutely overwhelming as to be certain of guilt. The US system obviously does not have very tight controls on that since 111 death row inmates were released between 1973 and 2003 (an average of 3.7 per year). This does not imply a problem with the principle, only with the system used in the United States.

I do not think that such a subjective level of certainty is enough to base a death sentence upon.

There can be a degree of certainty which is enough. For example, video evidence and multiple corroborating witnesses.

[LordSilly]

The purpose of the law is not to punish the guilty but to protect the innocent. Therefore the punishment should never ever fit the crime but rather it should fit the criminal so as to prevent him to cause no further harm. Anything else is nothing more than petty, childish vengeance, something that the human race desperately needs to grow out of if we want to ever become truely great.