Subject: FLEMING'S FOLLY
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
Just a quick response to Elizabeth Fleming's recent post (My response is in
CAPS):
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.
HUH?
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.
NO, I DISAGREE. IT IS ENOUGH (IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING, ANYWAY)
TO SAY THAT SOMETHING IS REASONABLE IN ORDER TO MAKE AT LEAST A PRELIMINARY
CASE FOR ITS VALIDITY. INDEED, OUR ENTIRE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS PREDICATED
ON DETERMINING WHAT IS AND IS NOT REASONABLE UNDER VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND
JUDGING ACCORDINGLY. I CAN'T EVEN FATHOM HOW ONE WOULD GO ABOUT PROVING
VALIDITY THROUGH NECESSITY, AND, UPON REFLECTION, I CAN'T THINK OF A SINGLE LAW
THAT IS NECESSARY.
FURTHER, IF THE ONLY VALID LAWS (OR PUNISHMENTS, IF YOU WANT TO NARROW THE
SCOPE) ARE THOSE THAT ARE NECESSARY, I INVITE YOU TO TELL US WHICH ARE
NECESSARY. WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO GIVE A-1 FELONS 25 YEARS TO LIFE INSTEAD OF
15 TO 25 YEARS? WHAT IS THE NECESSITY IN THAT? YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING...THE
RATIONALE FOR OUR LAWS IS THAT THEY EXACT A REASONABLE PUNISHMENT THAT
(PRESUMABLY) "FITS" THE CRIME. THERE IS NO NOTION OF NECESSITY INVOLVED. THE DP
IS CERTAINLY NOT NECESSARY, BUT IF YOU START WITH A FIRST PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH
ALL CAN AGREE, LIKE: 'LET'S HELP CURB VIOLENT CRIME', THEN GIVEN THE POWER OF
HARSH PUNISHMENT TO DETER ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, IT BECOMES USEFUL SOCIAL POLICY
TO PUNISH THE MOST ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR WITH THE HARSHEST PENALTY.
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.
BUT UTILITARIANS AREN'T CONCERNED WITH ABSOLUTES LIKE RIGHTNESS AND WRONGNESS,
BUT WITH SHAPING POLICIES THAT WILL BENEFIT ALL OF SOCIETY IN THE BEST POSSIBLE
WAY. THE ARGUMENT THAT KILLING CRIMINALS IS WRONG BECAUSE SOMETIMES INNOCENT
PEOPLE DIE IS PATENTLY ABSURD, BECAUSE IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS EXTENDED, THEN
JAILING CRIMINALS IS WRONG TOO, BECAUSE SOMETIMES INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE JAILED.
(LET ME STOP YOU BEFORE YOU START THE 'BUT THE INNOCENT JAILED CAN BE RELEASED'
ARGUMENT. THE NUMBER OF INNOCENTS JAILED IS MINUTE; THE NUMBER EXECUTED
APPROACHES 0%). IF KILLING CRIMINALS WILL BENEFIT SOCIETY, AS IT SURELY WOULD,
THEN IT IS A GOOD IDEA IN UTILITARIANS' EYES.
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...
I BELIEVE THAT 100%! ANY "REASONABLE" PERSON WOULD AS WELL, WHEN YOU WEIGH THE
POTENTIAL (SLIGHT)HARM AND POTENTIAL (ENORMOUS) BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED FROM
IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVE DP LEGISLATION.
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?
1. YOU'RE PERFECTLY RIGHT IN POINTING OUT THAT NOT ALL VIOLENT FELONS WILL BE
DETERRED BY THE DP, BUT, BY AND LARGE, PEOPLE (EVEN VIOLENT PEOPLE) ARE
DETERRED BY THREAT OF FORCE. THE HARSHER THE FORCE, THE GREATER THE DETERRENT
EFFECT.
2. YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF KILLERS AS GUINEA PIGS IS INFLAMMATORY. YOU'RE
SEEKING TO PLAY ON EMOTIONS, BUT CONSIDER THIS: A) PERHAPS PEOPLE FORFEIT THEIR
RIGHT TO LIFE BY TAKING THE LIFE OF ANOTHER (UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES); B)
PERHAPS IT IS OK TO "USE" KILLERS AS "GUINEA PIGS" TO ADVANCE A LARGER SOCIAL
GOAL.
Why would apprehansion rates increase?
SEE ABOVE...#1
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?
AHHH, I SEE NOW. KILLERS ARE EITHER JUST MISLED (BUT DEEP-DOWN GOOD NATURED)
STREET "PUNKS" OR VICTIMIZED GUINEA PIGS, NOT COLD-BLOODED OR RUTHLESS.
WHATEVER...BY THE WAY, DO YOU LIVE IN THE SUBURBS, CALL YOURSELF MIDDLE CLASS
AND WHITE, AND HAVE A HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF $50,000+ ...? JUST A LUCKY GUESS.
ANYWAY, HOW CAN THE DP POSSIBLY BE EFFECTIVE NOW WHEN ONLY 1/1000TH OF ONE
PERCENT OF THOSE CONVICTED OF MURDER ARE EVENTUALLY EXECUTED? SOCIAL PROGRAMS
MAY INDEED HAVE A DETERRENT EFFECT. THE BETTER THE REASON TO IMPLEMENT AN
EFFECTIVE DP, STREAMLINE THE APPEALS PROCESS, OPEN JAIL SPACE FOR LESS VIOLENT
CRIMINALS, LOWER TAXES, RE-ALLOCATE SAVINGS FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS, ELEVATE THE
STATUS OF THE UNDERPRIVELEGED...IT ALL GOES HAND-IN-HAND.
My point is this. The death penalty has NOT, and no one can deny
this, significantly lowered murder rates through its application.
I AGREE. BUT LET'S WORK TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE. I KEEP HEARING: IT HASN'T WORKED,
THEREFORE IT'S A BAD IDEA. BUT SHOULDN'T WE BE ASKING WHETHER IT CAN WORK? AND
IF SO, HOW? AND IF NOT, WHY NOT?
The valid argument in favor of its application is the fact that, yes, it
does stop certain violent criminals from killing again.
BRAVO...I SEE A LIGHT SOMEWHERE AT THE END OF THIS TUNNEL!
But so could
lifetime incarceration, NO possibility for parole, if our prison
system were reformed enough.
HEY, YOU GAVE ME SOME SPACE THERE...I'LL RETURN THE FAVOR. LWOP ISN'T A BAD
IDEA, BUT IN THE END, WE HAVE TO ASK...IF 25 YRS IN PRISON ISNT A DETERRENT,
WHY WILL 35 OR 45 YRS MAKE CRIMINALS THINK TWICE?
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?
GOOD POINT. FOR AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION OF THIS, SEE THE NY TIMES EDITORIAL
PAGE ON MARCH 7 OR 8 (I CANT REMEMBER)...ONE MAIN POINT WAS THAT IT IS THE
SUPREME COURT (ALL OF WHOM ARE APPOINTED, NOT ELECTED) WHO HAS EXPANDED
CRIMINALS RIGHTS ENORMOUSLY IN THE RECENT PAST, AND MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO
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.
NO, IT MEANS THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SO CONCERNED, AND THERE IS A BIG
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY, AND THE WILL OF NINE JUSTICES.
Moral law should be something which all, not just any reasonable
person would agree to.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT UNREASONABLE PEOPLE SHOULD BE HEARD IN MORAL DEBATE?
ISN'T THAT PREPOSTEROUS? SHOULDN'T IT BE PRECISELY THOSE WHO ARE REASONABLE
THAT WE SHOULD LISTEN TO MOST CLOSELY? AH, YOU RETORT, WHO ARE THE REASONABLE
ONES? DON'T WORRY, LIZ, YOU'LL KNOW THEM WHEN YOU HEAR THEM...
Just a few points to ponder.
HMMM.....
Liza Flemming
philosopher-in-training
