> Subject: Re: Help us Dan Dorry, Esq.
To all debaters of the Death Penalty question,
some of us seem to have lost sight of the finer points of this
argument in the midst of what can only be called sniping...maybe
y'all should have stayed philosophy majors and gone to grad school,
then you wouldn't be enclined to be so antagonistic.
But to respons to a few of Mr. Dorry's arguments:
> Remember "prove" can mean different things, depending on what kind
> of standard of proof or epistemological framework you're employing.
> I choose to employ a coherence theory of truth, which, I think, is
> a reasonable alternative to the more extreme relativistic or
> absolutist theories that abound. As fledgling law students, you'll
> probably have a more positivistic approach to truth and proof, but
> that will all come out in the wash. Anyway, when I say prove, I
> mean simply this: I will show that my arguments for the DP are more
> persuasive than those against. That should be adequate proof for
> any reasonable person.
First of all, proving that the death penalty is valid does not merely
require proof of reasonableness, it requires proof of necessity. You
must prove that the DP is NECESSARY for a society with a functioning
criminal law system.
>Also, your comment suggests that you do not
> believe that ANY moral debate is PROVABLE. Would that be the case
> given my definition? If I seek to prove to you that it is wrong to
> kill innocent people, would you dismiss my attempts as nothing more
> than a strongly voiced opinion? That seems to be the consequence of
> such a theory. If that is true, then how can society function in an
> organized, peaceful fashion? Seems unlikely that it could. And yet,
> by and large, we all play by the rules (and we all think it is
> wrong to kill innocent people). Hmmm....an unproved and unprovable
> maxim that we nonetheless live and die by...
A good Utilitarian would tell you that making the killing of innocent
people wrong is always a good thing to do, but that killing criminals
is NOT always a good thing to do (because sometimes innocent people
are killed) and therefore killing criminals is wrong, but I think
there are stronger arguments than the Utilitarian. However, it is
necessary to point out that by advocating the DP, you accept the idea
that in certain circumstances preventing potential future deaths is
worth MORE than saving the lives of innocent people who are
wrongfully executed, because you can't believe that the legal system
is 100 percent perfect and innocent people are never wrongfully
executed...
> 1. Let's get rid of the big if first. Apprehension rates of
> criminals, when considered in isolation, is completely irrelevant
> to the DP's deterrent effects. The argument goes like this: EVEN IF
> only a small percentage of violent felons are apprehended (which is
> not the case), this in no way undermines the potential efficacy of
> the DP BECAUSE the deterrence is a function BOTH of apprehension
> rates and execution rates of convicted felons. So if the
> apprehension rate is only 40% (among those committing capital
> crimes, mind you), and the execution rate of those apprehended is
> 100% (ah, to dream!) then the detterrent effect would be strong
> because those who would commit violent crimes would be aware that,
> once caught, it's certain death.
But is this necessarily the case? Can you really claim that someone
like Jeffrey Dahmer would not have killed, dismembered, and eaten 17
people if 100 percent of convicted murderers were executed? Maybe
he would have just tried a whole hell of a lot harder to make sure
he didn't get caught. We can never be sure of the deterrent effect-
statistics indicate no real correlation exists between the
implementation of the death penalty and any change in murder rates,
positive or negative. One could argue that this is because the DP has
not yet been implemented in the right way, but we don't really know
that either. Why use people, even killers, as guinea pigs?
>Further, the 40% chance of
> apprehension would be magnified in the criminals eyes by the threat
> of certain death upon apprehension. The deterrent effect would
> increase the higher the apprehension/execution rates.
Why would apprehansion rates increase?
>2. As for murderers, hijackers, arsonists, etc, being motivated by
>irrational impulses, that is not entirely true. So much for the
> Anti-Obscurantists! Yes, SOME violent felons commit crimes out of
> insanity or desperation, and these persons are not going to be
> deterred. But the larger (urban) crime picture is this: young
> people (from 17 to 25) at some point make a completely rational
> decision to turn to crime for personal gain ($$$, prestige,
> power)...
>
> The point is that armed robbery, burglary, rape, drug dealing, etc
> are vicious crimes committed for personal gain with harmful intent
> that often result in an innocent person's death. Murderers kill for
> money, hijackers hijack for ransom or political leverage (power),
> arsonists burn for insurance money. McBurney, people commit crimes
> for dinero, for power. Not everyone that murders is an unstable,
> insecure husband who comes home to find his wife in bed with
> another man! Some are actually (dare I say it?) EVIL.
OK, one could argue that the death penalty might deter a certain
percentage of street punks from killing one another, even though it
doesn't seem to be working now. But can you imagine how many positive
social programs (like welfare, Head Start, etc.) could have an even
GREATER deterrant effect?
My point is this. The death penalty has NOT, and no one can deny
this, significantly lowered murder rates through its application. The
valid argument in favor of its application is the fact that, yes, it
does stop certain violent criminals from killing again. But so could
lifetime incarceration, NO possibility for parole, if our prison
system were reformed enough.
And finally, if the DP is supported by such a significant percentage
of American citizens, why do we insist on making it so difficult for
state governments to actually execute anyone? This suggests to me
that we as citizens are tremendously concerned with protecting a
potential victim of a wrongful execution, and are more concerned with
preserving life than executing criminals.
Moral law should be something which all, not just any reasonable
person would agree to.
Just a few points to ponder.
Liza Flemming
philosopher-in-training
