The Death Penalty Has Become My Morality Litmus Test
05 Jan 2023, 3:28 pm
So this is kind of a weird one because because it's not like this is a particularly important or relevant social issue to me, and it has never been in the mainstream political discourse as long as I've been alive and paid attention to politics. Apparently Dukakis hurt his campaign when he said he opposed the death penalty in the 1988 presidential debate, I guess the issue was on people's minds back then.
But every once in a while on a forum or site like Reddit someone will make a post asking opinions about the death penalty, and the responses will be mixed. Actually they tend to oppose but maybe that's just because the online circles I frequent tend to be liberal. American opinion apparently favors the death penalty but not by an overwhelming majority.
However whenever someone asks this question: "If we could somehow prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt such that innocent people will not be executed would you then support the death penalty?" The overwhelming response is then yes. Virtually everyone it seems would be for the death penalty if the technical problem of accidentally killing innocent people would be removed. So most people who are opposed in practice aren't actually opposed in principle.
I am opposed in principle, and learning this about popular opinion made me feel kind of alone in my moral world view. Even on the ACLU's website this objection is the last one listed (from https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty):
I understand everyone has a unique moral compass, I don't know what "ism" I would apply to myself. But the fact that so many people, including "liberals", are okay with revenge killing as long as we know the person being killed is "bad" is a red flag for me. Or is it a red flag if I'm the odd one out? I thought this one was pretty basic. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten commandments (I'm not religious but Christianity is mainstream). I'm not a total pacifist by the way, I believe ending someone's life is justifiable in self defense. But the death penalty is not self defense.
So this social issue, asked in this way, has become a kind of litmus test to see if someone's moral world view is similar to mine, especially since mine appears to be rare. This really is more of a "feeling" since all the other arguments against the death penalty are technical, and most debates I've heard that deal with morality of an issue in general focus on logistics like how much "suffering" is caused. At least from the liberal POV. If we do X will it cause more or less suffering, and I tend to be on the side of less suffering. I guess that's utilitarianism?
But... this issue doesn't fit into that paradigm because once someone is dead they aren't suffering anymore (I think assisted suicide should be an option) and I imagine torture and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment are worse than death. Death is a neutral state, which makes me think it's weird that it's considered a punishment at all.
There isn't a logic behind it for me, I can't explain it but something about it just "feels" wrong and it disturbs me that so many people are fine with killing as a form of punishment or the cold calculated "removal" of certain dangerous individuals from society. Maybe this is the difference between intuitive/evolutionary morality, the kind you feel in your gut, and philosophical reason morality (ethics?).
_________________
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age"
05 Jan 2023, 3:48 pm
I am completely opposed to the death penalty. No justice is infallible and I'm very glad we don't have it in the UK.
_________________
Diagnosed with ADHD - Inattentive type and undiagnosed aspergers.
Interests: music (especially 80s), computers, electronics, amateur radio, soccer (Liverpool).
05 Jan 2023, 4:04 pm
It occurred to me this may be an American phenomenon I'm encountering. The question though is, what if the justice system was infallible?
_________________
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age"
05 Jan 2023, 4:06 pm
It will never be infallible in my opinion and a civilised country shouldn't be killing people - in my opinion.
_________________
Diagnosed with ADHD - Inattentive type and undiagnosed aspergers.
Interests: music (especially 80s), computers, electronics, amateur radio, soccer (Liverpool).
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
05 Jan 2023, 6:40 pm
The death penalty is neither humane nor civilized.
If you start with the assumption that human life is of value, then intentional murder by the state is unconscionable.
Certainly there are some people who do not believe human life has value, but I don’t want them making decisions that affect other lives.
It would be beneficial if we could move toward a world where violence is not used to settle differences or solve problems. Getting rid of th death penalty would be a step in that direction.
_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot
06 Jan 2023, 12:10 am
I just don't have a peace about the death penalty. Here are some bible verses about it:
6th Commandment: Thou shalt not murder ~Exodus 20:13
Proverbs 24:29 ESV
Do not say, “I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done.”
Romans 12:17 ESV
Repay no one evil for evil but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
Overall, God is the giver and taker of life. Not man.
_________________
06 Jan 2023, 12:30 am
But every once in a while on a forum or site like Reddit someone will make a post asking opinions about the death penalty, and the responses will be mixed. Actually they tend to oppose but maybe that's just because the online circles I frequent tend to be liberal. American opinion apparently favors the death penalty but not by an overwhelming majority.
However whenever someone asks this question: "If we could somehow prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt such that innocent people will not be executed would you then support the death penalty?" The overwhelming response is then yes. Virtually everyone it seems would be for the death penalty if the technical problem of accidentally killing innocent people would be removed. So most people who are opposed in practice aren't actually opposed in principle.
I am opposed in principle, and learning this about popular opinion made me feel kind of alone in my moral world view. Even on the ACLU's website this objection is the last one listed (from https://www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-penalty):
I understand everyone has a unique moral compass, I don't know what "ism" I would apply to myself. But the fact that so many people, including "liberals", are okay with revenge killing as long as we know the person being killed is "bad" is a red flag for me. Or is it a red flag if I'm the odd one out? I thought this one was pretty basic. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten commandments (I'm not religious but Christianity is mainstream). I'm not a total pacifist by the way, I believe ending someone's life is justifiable in self defense. But the death penalty is not self defense.
So this social issue, asked in this way, has become a kind of litmus test to see if someone's moral world view is similar to mine, especially since mine appears to be rare. This really is more of a "feeling" since all the other arguments against the death penalty are technical, and most debates I've heard that deal with morality of an issue in general focus on logistics like how much "suffering" is caused. At least from the liberal POV. If we do X will it cause more or less suffering, and I tend to be on the side of less suffering. I guess that's utilitarianism?
But... this issue doesn't fit into that paradigm because once someone is dead they aren't suffering anymore (I think assisted suicide should be an option) and I imagine torture and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment are worse than death. Death is a neutral state, which makes me think it's weird that it's considered a punishment at all.
There isn't a logic behind it for me, I can't explain it but something about it just "feels" wrong and it disturbs me that so many people are fine with killing as a form of punishment or the cold calculated "removal" of certain dangerous individuals from society. Maybe this is the difference between intuitive/evolutionary morality, the kind you feel in your gut, and philosophical reason morality (ethics?).
I agree with the thrust of your principle here.
It IS disturbing how humans have historically made an entertainment out of watching innocent citizens get pulled apart by wild beasts in Roman amphitheatres, or crucified on a cross, or hung on a gallows. Murder should not be a spectacle to watch with joy, whether it is 'deserved' or not. We all deserve death. But in His grace, God gives us another chance.
And murder against oneself is no different in my opinion.
_________________
06 Jan 2023, 10:55 am
I don't know. Depends what you mean by guilt. That could mean simply proof that the offender committed the crime, or it could mean proof that the offender exercised free choice about whether or not to do it. I don't believe in free will, so I think it would be a very drastic thing to execute an offender.
OTOH, if the crime were serious enough, I'm not at all sure I'd agree to my tax money being used to keep the offender behind bars for years. I suppose it's got a lot to do with numbers - how many really dangerous people there are, and how much tax the individual would have to pay to look after them.
It seems rather cold-hearted for me to see it in terms of numbers and money, but I don't like the idea of having my income significantly reduced just so that some sociopath can be spared a bullet. If the tax system was more progressive and only took from those who could well afford it, it wouldn't be an issue of course, but currently it's not like that. And maybe they could get some of the people who feel more empathy than I do towards sociopaths to stump up or do the work of looking after such prisoners. If a sociopath doesn't give a damn about my well-being and would even take pleasure in seriously harming me, then it doesn't upset me if they get executed.
Anyway, I don't see myself as having a significant say in how they run the criminal justice system or the economic system, so my judgement on this matter is pretty ineffective and therefore pretty harmless.
06 Jan 2023, 11:18 am
I'd have to number myself among those who are okay with the death penalty so long as there's some way to be sure that the guilty party is, well, guilty. But I don't think we'll ever get something like that.
I am okay with using the death penalty on mass shooters, since in that case the crime is public and the identity of the perpetrator quite obvious. That's pretty much the only case where I'm comfortable with doing it.
06 Jan 2023, 12:52 pm
OTOH, if the crime were serious enough, I'm not at all sure I'd agree to my tax money being used to keep the offender behind bars for years. I suppose it's got a lot to do with numbers - how many really dangerous people there are, and how much tax the individual would have to pay to look after them.
It seems rather cold-hearted for me to see it in terms of numbers and money, but I don't like the idea of having my income significantly reduced just so that some sociopath can be spared a bullet. If the tax system was more progressive and only took from those who could well afford it, it wouldn't be an issue of course, but currently it's not like that. And maybe they could get some of the people who feel more empathy than I do towards sociopaths to stump up or do the work of looking after such prisoners. If a sociopath doesn't give a damn about my well-being and would even take pleasure in seriously harming me, then it doesn't upset me if they get executed.
Anyway, I don't see myself as having a significant say in how they run the criminal justice system or the economic system, so my judgement on this matter is pretty ineffective and therefore pretty harmless.
Dude...it maybe counterintuitive, but the fiscal argument is a fallacy.
In Saudi Arabia (where they lop off your head with a scimitar at the drop of a hat) or in China where they execute you right outside the courtroom the same day as they sentence you- the death penalty may well be cheaper than life imprisonment. But not here in the US.
Every legal expert I have ever heard always states that because we live in a democracy (that allows multiple appeals for capital punishment) it ends up costing MORE taxpayer dollars to finally execute the death penalty on you than it would have been had they...given you room, board, and free medical, for the half century of your life in prison before you died of old age. Strange but true. That point bears repeating. Its MORE expensive to kill you then it is to keep you alive for your entire natural life in prison. Ergo the economics is irrelevant to the issue at best (if not against the death penalty). It takes a lot more taxpayer money than the price of a bullet to execute you in the US.
Folks on death row are incarcerated for an average of 13 years even if they end up being executed ( and many end up twice that or more). The cost per unit time for death row inmates is greater than that of general population inmates. The appeals process costs money. And so on...
Last edited by naturalplastic on 06 Jan 2023, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
06 Jan 2023, 7:15 pm
OTOH, if the crime were serious enough, I'm not at all sure I'd agree to my tax money being used to keep the offender behind bars for years. I suppose it's got a lot to do with numbers - how many really dangerous people there are, and how much tax the individual would have to pay to look after them.
It seems rather cold-hearted for me to see it in terms of numbers and money, but I don't like the idea of having my income significantly reduced just so that some sociopath can be spared a bullet. If the tax system was more progressive and only took from those who could well afford it, it wouldn't be an issue of course, but currently it's not like that. And maybe they could get some of the people who feel more empathy than I do towards sociopaths to stump up or do the work of looking after such prisoners. If a sociopath doesn't give a damn about my well-being and would even take pleasure in seriously harming me, then it doesn't upset me if they get executed.
Anyway, I don't see myself as having a significant say in how they run the criminal justice system or the economic system, so my judgement on this matter is pretty ineffective and therefore pretty harmless.
Dude...it maybe counterintuitive, but the fiscal argument is a fallacy.
In Saudi Arabia (where they lop off your head with a scimitar at the drop of a hat) or in China where they execute you right outside the courtroom the same day as they sentence you- the death penalty may well be cheaper than life imprisonment. But not here in the US.
Every legal expert I have ever heard always states that because we live in a democracy (that allows multiple appeals for capital punishment) it ends up costing MORE taxpayer dollars to finally execute the death penalty on you than it would have been had they...given you room, board, and free medical, for the half century of your life in prison before you died of old age. Strange but true. That point bears repeating. Its MORE expensive to kill you then it is to keep you alive for your entire natural life in prison. Ergo the economics is irrelevant to the issue at best (if not against the death penalty). It takes a lot more taxpayer money than the price of a bullet to execute you in the US.
Folks on death row are incarcerated for an average of 13 years even if they end up being executed ( and many end up twice that or more). The cost per unit time for death row inmates is greater than that of general population inmates. The appeals process costs money. And so on...
Maybe so in the real world in the USA. I was talking about what I'd want in this surreal world where we knew for certain that the bugger was guilty. Presumably that would make appeals and long incarcerations prior to execution pointless.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| The death penalty |
03 Feb 2024, 6:26 pm |
| The issue with the death penalty and Developmental Disorders |
03 Apr 2024, 4:19 pm |
| Name a villain who falls to their death |
13 Apr 2024, 2:13 pm |
| Why an autistic teen’s death raises questions about police t |
09 Apr 2024, 12:39 pm |
