Capital Punishment is immoral

[Christopher]

Objectivism holds that man's life is the standard of value.

Given this proposition, it seems completely unethical that we individuals condone the death penalty.

Values pertain to action. Once a man is in custody of the U.S. government, he/she is effectively removed from the ability to take life. In other words, no concrete threat to the standard of value.

If an individual/group/government chooses to pursue capital punishment, these are the individuals who objectivelyundermine the standard of life, who are objectively taking life. Clouds of conceptual justification cannot change this fact.

It seems there can be no justification for capital punishment when a criminal is in custody. Any justification necessarily applies to values and justifications that are hierarchically below life in the present context.

[Chris Grieb]

I think one should be very careful that arguments against capital punishment are not used in arguments against abortion.

[Mike Renzulli]

Chris,

This is a GREAT look at it. I never thought about the issue in these terms. I am also opposed to capital punishment too. Mainly due to the increasing probability of executing someone innocent is too high and the procedure itself is too expensive to administer.

I had tried to consider the issue along Objectivist lines or how Objectivism, could be applied to this issue. You did what I have been unable to do brilliantly.

Objectivism holds that man's life is the standard of value.

Given this proposition, it seems completely unethical that we individuals condone the death penalty.

Values pertain to action. Once a man is in custody of the U.S. government, he/she is effectively removed from the ability to take life. In other words, no concrete threat to the standard of value.

If an individual/group/government chooses to pursue capital punishment, these are the individuals who objectivelyundermine the standard of life, who are objectively taking life. Clouds of conceptual justification cannot change this fact.

It seems there can be no justification for capital punishment when a criminal is in custody. Any justification necessarily applies to values and justifications that are hierarchically below life in the present context.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[John Day]

Objectivism holds that man's life is the standard of value.

Given this proposition, it seems completely unethical that we individuals condone the death penalty.

Values pertain to action. Once a man is in custody of the U.S. government, he/she is effectively removed from the ability to take life. In other words, no concrete threat to the standard of value.

If an individual/group/government chooses to pursue capital punishment, these are the individuals who objectivelyundermine the standard of life, who are objectively taking life. Clouds of conceptual justification cannot change this fact.

It seems there can be no justification for capital punishment when a criminal is in custody. Any justification necessarily applies to values and justifications that are hierarchically below life in the present context.

Murders in prison go on all the time. Most people don't care too much about it because its criminals killing criminals, but if one holds that even a criminal's life is a standard of value, then it is something to consider. That problem could be solved by having all murderers in solitary confinement, but prisoners' right advocates consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment.

[Chris Grieb]

Christopher; Have you read what Nathaniel Branden said about the death penalty in the Jan, 1963 issue of the Objectivist Newsletter.

One quick comment I would make is that custody of the murderer is not the only issue. I would argue that someone kills someone he has objectively removed themselves from humanity.

[Christopher]

I read Nathaniel's article on the death penalty that you referenced. I will quote it below, but you will note it leaves something to be desired.

The moral question is: Does the man who commits willful murder, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, deserve to have his own life forfeited? Here, the answer is unequivocally: Yes. Such a man deserves to die - not as "social revenge" or as an "example" to future potential murderers- but as the logical and just consequence of his own act: as an expression of the moral principle that no man may take the life of another and still retain th eright to his own, that no man may profit from an evil of ths kind or escape the consequences of having committed it.

It seems to me somewhat generic hand-waving in an attempt to justify eye for an eye. Although I have great respect for NB and his writings, this work does not stand out as an exemplar due to its lack of depth and handling the issue beyond superficial justification. It has also inspired me to begin a topic on a proper concept of "justice" in Objectivism.

[jeffrey smith]

I read Nathaniel's article on the death penalty that you referenced. I will quote it below, but you will note it leaves something to be desired.

The moral question is: Does the man who commits willful murder, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, deserve to have his own life forfeited? Here, the answer is unequivocally: Yes. Such a man deserves to die - not as "social revenge" or as an "example" to future potential murderers- but as the logical and just consequence of his own act: as an expression of the moral principle that no man may take the life of another and still retain th eright to his own, that no man may profit from an evil of ths kind or escape the consequences of having committed it.

It seems to me somewhat generic hand-waving in an attempt to justify eye for an eye. Although I have great respect for NB and his writings, this work does not stand out as an exemplar due to its lack of depth and handling the issue beyond superficial justification. It has also inspired me to begin a topic on a proper concept of "justice" in Objectivism.

At some points justice has to be eye-for-eye. But NB states the matter rather accurately. Someone who has not respected the right of others to their own life in the most fundamental sense should not be entitled to that which he refused to allow to others.

My own opinion is that the question of certainty--do we know that the accused actually did the crime and do we know what his state of mind was at the time--should keep us from imposing the death penalty. I think the preferred sentence should be life in solitary confinement without possibility of parole, based on the observation that for most people, the prospect of not having human contact for an extended period is actually more terrifying the prospect of dying (in part, I suppose, because the mind finds it easier to visualize almost anything other than one's own non-existence). Of course, this would not work for someone like little ol' Aspie me. "The rest of my life without having to bother dealing with any other person? Really? Where do I sign up?"

Jeffrey S.

[syrakusos]

We debate this routinely in ctiminal justice classes and I have taken both sides in the same class. Just to say, I know all the pros and cons. What it comes down to is which you consider most important relative to all the others. In other words, there are those (as here) who say that it is moral to execute a killer but that the lack of certainty speaks against it. Ayn Rand said that it was moral to a execute murderer but that whether it was proper was a question for future jurisprudence.

Chris Grieb's tying this to the question of abortion is also cogent.

First, on the question of certainty, I point to the facts presented by The Innocence Project here. No state has allowed the re-examination of a case where the accused was actually executed. That speaks volumes. In point of fact, Michigan has had no capital punishment for over 150 years specifically because of one such case early on in the state's history. Basically, just as has been pointed out that people are killed in prison all the time, so, too, have many innocent people been executed.

Second, I find it curious that both Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, well as many who quote them in discussions such as this, admitted that it was moral but not practical. That speaks to a dichotomy which Objectivism denies. If execution is problematic, then it is not moral.

Third, in every argument such as this one, the assumption is that capital crimes bring capital punishment: a life for a life. But other crimes have been, and are, applied. In the USA, for instance, treason. In England, people were hanged for counterfeiting. In colonial America, the paper money of the states during the Revolution also claimed "'tis death to counterfeit." Do you agree? Do you agree that violating the copyright of a private bank -- which is what the Bank of England was, and now again is, like the Federal Reserve -- should be a capital crime?

3.B. In states that do not have capital punishment, the Federal government has stepped in an prosecuted under federal law to win death penalty convictions. This is a separate discussion on federalism, but it brings up the question of just which criminal acts are so heinous that execution is moral. Killing a philosopher or a barber or a vagrant, is not a capital crime, but killing a policeman or a federal official is. Are some lives more important than others?

3.C. I raise 3.B. above because it ties to the problem of abortion.

For myself, I am opposed to capital punishment. There being no moral-practical dichotomy, as it is impractical, it must be immoral.

As for abortion, you know whom you are killing. There is no problem of misidentification of the suspect.

[9thdoctor]

If an individual/group/government chooses to pursue capital punishment, these are the individuals who objectivelyundermine the standard of life, who are objectively taking life. Clouds of conceptual justification cannot change this fact.

Rather than undermine the standard of life, capital punishment exalts it by standing as the ultimate punishment for behavior contrary to the standard of life. Those who hold life as the standard of value can look to capital punishment as the greatest deterrent to evil.

Once a man is in custody of the U.S. government, he/she is effectively removed from the ability to take life. In other words, no concrete threat to the standard of value.

What about prison escapes? Ted Bundy escaped from prison and then committed further murders. Knowing that a killer is in prison and longs to avenge themselves can haunt victims/survivors. Capital punishment helps them close the book.

For an extreme illustration, imagine Hitler having 40+ postwar years to write his memoirs in Spandau. Remaining a rallying point for Nazism, and a source of fear for rest of us. Even Israel made a big exception for Eichmann.

Could you comment on the distinction you would draw between life imprisonment and death penalty? Life imprisonment denies a criminal of “life” in all but the biological sense. Some suggest it is a worse punishment, though I note punishment is excluded from your framework above, you focus solely on threats. Are you also opposed to life imprisonment, or just won’t take the next step of ending a criminal’s biological life? I could make a case that a 90 year old in a wheelchair can’t commit further murders, so should Eichmann have been eligible for parole in 1996?

I’m in agreement with Rand’s statement on this subject, being in favor morally and guardedly opposed epistemelogically, sorry I don’t have a reference handy. Note that I’m using examples that are obvious pro-capital punishment ones, Bundy, Hitler, Eichmann. Clearly some people have been wrongly executed, and that’s terrible, but it's not part of your argument.

[Mike Renzulli]

"If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropiate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem.... It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisionment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death."

-- Nathaniel Branden, "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment," The Objectivist Newsletter, p. 3, January 1963.

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Thanks for the mention of the Innocence Project's report. There was a case in Virginia of a person who was executed and later DNA testing confirmed his guilt. This person also received a polygraph exam on his day of execution which he did not pass. This person had denied his guilt.

I'm sorry I can not remember the name of the person. The execution occurred during Douglas Wilder's term as Governor.

Thanks for the reminder of Ted Bundy's escape.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[syrakusos]

... Rather than undermine the standard of life, capital punishment exalts it by standing as the ultimate punishment for behavior contrary to the standard of life. Those who hold life as the standard of value can look to capital punishment as the greatest deterrent to evil.

Which evils merit the death penalty?

The ancient Greeks excluded drunkeness as an excuse for crime, not because the perpetrator was not responsible for his actions: clearly he was not -- but because it would be the one excuse anyone could claim. That same argument was later applied to ignorance. Ignorance of the law is no excuse because it is the one excuse anyone could offer.

Yet, how can you be held responsible for something you did not know about?

I raise those points because we do not execute for second-degree homicides, for accidental deaths, even for negligent homicide. Should we? Should all homicides bring the death penalty?

You see, Ninth Doctor, your position demands more explanation of what you intend by what you say.

Which evils merit the death penalty?

You did not address the problem of treason? Are some non-capital offenses so heinous that capital punishment is the oonly just response? What about counterfeiting, a tradiional crime, equivalent to treason, in fact.

What about Platonism? Should the comprachicos of the public schools be executed for their crimes against the mindso of children?

You really need to explain what you mean, assuming that you have thought through your position.

[syrakusos]

ONE

Statistical evidence suggests that the SEVERITY of punishment is irrelevant as deterrant.

Deterrance depends on immmediacy and certainty.

TWO

In the classes of perpetrators, serial killers like Ted Bundy are the small minority, an aberration. The same is true of mass killers such as Charles Whitman of the "Texas Tower." Mostly, people kill family members and friends and social acquaintances. Most killers take only one life and do so only once, even if not apprehended.

THREE

From One and Two above, it follows that reintegration and restoration are more just than execution. The victim survivors are more likely to be restored to whatever extent possible and the perpetrator is not wasted and lost.

In order to discuss this intelligently, you must rely on known facts. You cannot just make up "what if" unreal cases, "radioactive octopus" cases. Among the many difficulties in thinking rationally and empirically about these cases is that the laws insist that people are interchangeable, equal and equivalent. As people are individuals, justice comes not from applying the Code of Hammurabi to every case within each class, but in discovering the objective truth in each case and applying objective justice to that.

Some people jump to the false claim that "objective" means "universal" or "absolute." In that, they then attempt to discover some Kantian deontology that we are all morally obligated to enact, whether it is practical or not. As there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical, it remains to be seen what a practical and moral solution might be.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are my thoughts on another thread, but I believe they belong here.

They don't address Michael M's question of what evil merits the death penalty. (That's obvious, though. Anyone who disagrees with Ayn Rand. ) I speak only of murder.

Since I end up against capital punishment, that question is moot.

Christopher,

You are mixing standards that apply only to metaphysical questions with ones that apply to political questions while ignoring the other standards in politics.

Using human life as a standard so you can derive ethics is different than the right to life within a society. Actually the second derives from the first, but there is a critical difference. A political question includes more than the fundamental standard of life. It also includes trade. This is because more than one life is involved, and all of them bear the same right to life.

My life is not yours to take and destroy. One of the functions of government is to act as my agent in ensuring that my life has an equivalent value should you decide that my life actually is yours to take and destroy. My agent will take yours and destroy it as repayment. That's the only currency that makes any sense on that level.

Note that the agent operates essentially by proxy, even though it is not one that has been formally assigned by the individual (except, maybe, by the Pledge of Allegiance we all do over and over in school).

One can throw the gifts of compassion, rehabilitation and mercy into the mix, but they are parallel to the payment, not a replacement for it. The only rational way to deal with a murderer is by using the standard of equivalent value. Note that equivalent value even operates on the level of gifts. Compassion, rehabilitation and mercy are usually not be available to an unrepentant murderer (nor should they be).

Payment always means forfeiting something of value in exchange for something else of value. So what is gained with capital punishment? For the person who is murdered, nothing is gained. There is no person to gain anything anymore. The estate remains, however, and demanding payment closes the books on the estate. For the person's agent, it gains an example to ensure that other people understand that payment will be demanded if they take that which is not theirs and destroy it.

On those grounds, capital punishment is proper.

I am against it, however, because human knowledge is always open to correction. Should the agent take and destroy the life of an innocent person by mistake as retribution for a murder, it morally becomes the same as the murderer. The agent takes and destroys something that does not belong to it.

This is a very serious issue because death is permanent. Saying, "Oops," will not get the agent a chance to fix a permanent mistake. There is no way for the agent to be accountable without destroying the agent itself (using the standard of equivalent value), or accepting it as a tyrant where no standard but obedience exists.

The next best thing for the agent to do is demand and accept as payment the freedom of the murderer, i.e., the person who took and destroyed that which did not belong to him. At least if a mistake is made, the incarcerated person can be set free and compensated as remedy. In this manner, the agent is realistically accountable.

Michael

[Selene]

ONE

Statistical evidence suggests that the SEVERITY of punishment is irrelevant as deterrant.

Deterrance depends on immmediacy and certainty.

TWO

In the classes of perpetrators, serial killers like Ted Bundy are the small minority, an aberration. The same is true of mass killers such as Charles Whitman of the "Texas Tower." Mostly, people kill family members and friends and social acquaintances. Most killers take only one life and do so only once, even if not apprehended.

THREE

From One and Two above, it follows that reintegration and restoration are more just than execution. The victim survivors are more likely to be restored to whatever extent possible and the perpetrator is not wasted and lost.

In order to discuss this intelligently, you must rely on known facts. You cannot just make up "what if" unreal cases, "radioactive octopus" cases. Among the many difficulties in thinking rationally and empirically about these cases is that the laws insist that people are interchangeable, equal and equivalent. As people are individuals, justice comes not from applying the Code of Hammurabi to every case within each class, but in discovering the objective truth in each case and applying objective justice to that.

Some people jump to the false claim that "objective" means "universal" or "absolute." In that, they then attempt to discover some Kantian deontology that we are all morally obligated to enact, whether it is practical or not. As there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical, it remains to be seen what a practical and moral solution might be.

Good post:

I would modify your final paragraph [exists in law currently] of categories and classes with ranges of judgments that would have to be as clearly discriminating as possible.

I know you have heard this before, but the recitivism rate for executed child murderers is zero (0%). The malum en se, stands. The act that no one in society can condone. And I am officially stealing your abortion line on the certainty of the suspect(s).

Adam

[9thdoctor]

You see, Ninth Doctor, your position demands more explanation of what you intend by what you say.

I was critiquing Christopher’s argument, standing it on its head in fact, but not attempting a systematic presentation or detailing a finely tuned justice system. Execution is the ultimate punishment, this is because life is such a high value, the ethical standard ultimately. That’s all I offered, your applications of it go beyond anything I said. However I’ll take it a step further: as stated my formulation could be applied to stoning for adultery. I said nothing about what merits this punishment, save by example.

ONE

Statistical evidence suggests that the SEVERITY of punishment is irrelevant as deterrant.

Deterrance depends on immmediacy and certainty.

How does this specifically apply to capital punishment? Doesn’t it apply equally to all institutionalised punishments? Immediacy and certainty are not features of the criminal justice system, O.J. stands as a pretty good example of that. However I’m not going to put words in your mouth and claim that you’re for doing away with the whole system, or suggest that you haven’t thought it through.

TWO

In the classes of perpetrators, serial killers like Ted Bundy are the small minority, an aberration. The same is true of mass killers such as Charles Whitman of the "Texas Tower." Mostly, people kill family members and friends and social acquaintances. Most killers take only one life and do so only once, even if not apprehended.

You imply I’m committing the exception fallacy, I counter that there are just too many of these exceptional cases, especially when we consider evil on the scale of Hitler. Is Christopher’s argument meant to not apply to Hitler or Bundy? He didn’t qualify it in that way. Besides, capital punishment is supposed to be an exceptional punishment, extremely rare we all hope.

THREE

You cannot just make up "what if" unreal cases, "radioactive octopus" cases.

Stick to the concretes I supplied, argue against executing Bundy, Hitler, and Eichmann. And give us your thoughts on O.J. if you’re so inclined. You hinted at your definition of “just”, let’s see how it applies. We’ll let all the unreal cases I brought up out on parole, including the octopi.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[syrakusos]

... I was critiquing Christopher’s argument, standing it on its head ... Immediacy and certainty are not features of the criminal justice system, O.J. stands as a pretty good example of that. ... However I’m not going to put words in your mouth and claim that you’re for doing away with the whole system, or suggest that you haven’t thought it through. ... You imply I’m committing the exception fallacy, I counter that there are just too many of these exceptional cases, especially when we consider evil on the scale of Hitler. I... Stick to the concretes I supplied, argue against executing Bundy, Hitler, and Eichmann. And give us your thoughts on O.J. if you’re so inclined. ...

In classical criminology, to be effective, punishment must be swift, severe and certain. For about 200 years, since Cesare Beccaria, that pretty much was the equivalent of one of Newton's Laws. In the last generation it has come out that severity is not so important as a deterrant. What is (and is not) true, is not always certain in criminology. I believe that the reason why is that we have given the problem over to the government to solve and we have lived with the equivalent of Soviet agriculture -- including analogs of the collective farm, Lysenkoism, centralized command, and the lack of price information -- so justice does not work very well.

You are right that I have not thought out an entire system to replace the one(s) we have. Again, by analogy, if all we knew was Soviet agriculture and I suggested letting anyone who wanted to grow whatever they wanted to and that they would decide what that would be on the basis of how much "money" they got, I would have a long row to hoe to explain what I could not conceptualize completely.

I look also to the wonderful essay "I, Pencil." I cannot describe how an entire criminal justice system would, should or could work. Such things evolve by human action. They cannot be commanded, any more than a single government agency in 1830 could have commanded the Number 2 Ticonderoga.

If Adolf Eichman was a monster, what kind of being is the warden of a state penitentiary who can witness five, eight or twenty executions? If the "banality of evil" includes those who only moved paper from desk to desk, what of the governor who orders executions? Did Ted Bundy deserve to die? If so, who then is your vampire slayer? We find sociopaths to kill other sociopaths for us and we ignore the collateral damage. We know empirically that executions cause violence. When executions were public that was true; and it remains true today when the only spectacle is a brief news report.

The adversarial system has strengths and weaknesses. The jury system as strengths and weaknesses. In Europe and other countries today, they have an investigatory (not adversarial) system where the judge(s) ask questions to carry out their own discovery. That system has strengths and weaknesses. Traditionally, the Visigoths and Cheyenne of the past, as the Inuit and Navajo today have had other practices. Sometimes the victim flogged the perpetrator. Sometimes the men in the village decided among themselves to go hunting and come back one guy less. Sometimes, you just apologized. Sometimes, a child left your home to live with your victim's family. Sometimes, you delivered gifts to make up for your actions.

I have no System to impose on everyone. I know only what has been done in the past with more or less effectiveness according to circumstance. If I advocate for any one "system" it is for no system. Let the victims and their agents meet with the perpetator and their agents and let justice be done according to their common agreement.

It well might be facilitated by professionals at negotiation, arbitration, and mediation. After all, anyone can fix their own car, but we have professionals for that. Speaking of cars, as long as tires blow out -- more likely in the first 5000 miles -- I do not expect to have a perfect criminal justice system because that problem is far more complicated than a tubeless rim.

(OJ? All I know is what comes up on CNN.com. Were you there for any of it?)

Edited January 17, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Xray]

We debate this routinely in ctiminal justice classes and I have taken both sides in the same class. Just to say, I know all the pros and cons. What it comes down to is which you consider most important relative to all the others. In other words, there are those (as here) who say that it is moral to execute a killer but that the lack of certainty speaks against it. Ayn Rand said that it was moral to a execute murderer but that whether it was proper was a question for future jurisprudence.

That there exists such a thing as "objective morality" is a myth. Ayn Rand arbitrarily claiming the death penalty to be "moral" is no surprise. It ties in perfectly with her other illusions.

A "killer" is someone who kills another human being. If it is "moral" to execute "a killer", well then soldiers would fall into this category as well.

As for "lack of certainty" being a criterion for not administering the DP - this blanks out that in most cases where there has been an arrest, the evidence does point to the suspect being the offender, who also often confesses.

So per this logic, in case the offender is definitely established, the DP would be okay.

Those high profile circumstantial evidence cases getting media attention are an exception.

In states that do not have capital punishment, the Federal government has stepped in an prosecuted under federal law to win death penalty convictions. This is a separate discussion on federalism, but it brings up the question of just which criminal acts are so heinous that execution is moral. Killing a philosopher or a barber or a vagrant, is not a capital crime, but killing a policeman or a federal official is. Are some lives more important than others?

The decision is completely arbitrary. Shocking but true.

As arbitrary as the order in a war by state A to kill the 'enemies' of the adversary state B, revealing that the enemies' lives are deemed less important to state A. State B sees the whole issue exactly from the opposite point of view.

For myself, I am opposed to capital punishment. There being no moral-practical dichotomy, as it is impractical, it must be immoral.

I'm opposed to capital punishment as well, but it is a personal decision based on my subjective values, and not because I think it is "(objectively) immoral". For "objective morality/immorality" doesn't exist. Others will call the DP "objectively moral", like the muslim Adonis Vlahos who posts on another thread advocating the stoning of people having committed sexual acts allegedly deemed as "immoral" by his "god".

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8058&st=220&p=88236entry88236

(post # 228)

First, on the question of certainty, I point to the facts presented by The Innocence Project here.

This is a very important project, but it looks like convicts who have been proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt have tried to get into that project as well, like e. g. Jeffrey MacDonald. Do you know about this infamous circumstantial evidence case where the offender staged a crime scene intended to point to "intruders"? I have studied this case in detail; it would offer excellent material for a criminal justice class.

(OJ? All I know is what comes up on CNN.com. Were you there for any of it?)

Another case which would offer excellent demonstration material for a criminal justice class.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

I look also to the wonderful essay "I, Pencil." I cannot describe how an entire criminal justice system would, should or could work. Such things evolve by human action.

Amen, particularly about the evolutionary element. With genetic testing we can now achieve a much higher level of certainty of guilt. Compare to Bundy, who was finally nailed because he left bite marks on a victim.

If Adolf Eichman was a monster, what kind of being is the warden of a state penitentiary who can witness five, eight or twenty executions? If the "banality of evil" includes those who only moved paper from desk to desk, what of the governor who orders executions?

They’re people doing their jobs. I brought up Judgement at Nuremberg at some earlier point (different thread), the distinction between an Eichmann and one of our governors signing a death warrant was spelled out well enough there.

Did Ted Bundy deserve to die? If so, who then is your vampire slayer? We find sociopaths to kill other sociopaths for us and we ignore the collateral damage. We know empirically that executions cause violence. When executions were public that was true; and it remains true today when the only spectacle is a brief news report.

Are you concerned that the guy in the black hood etc. throwing the switch is going to become a killer? In the outside world? Have there been any cases?

Let the victims and their agents meet with the perpetator and their agents and let justice be done according to their common agreement.

We’re talking about murder cases, not some contract dispute subject to arbitration/mediation.

(OJ? All I know is what comes up on CNN.com. Were you there for any of it?)

I brought up OJ because he wasn’t ever considered a death penalty case. I’m not sure why, but probably because his was a crime of passion. It shows that the death penalty is not a turnkey proposition, which is how I read your line about Kantian deontology. Also, his record on the subject of restitution is a disgrace.

[Christopher]

The problem is eloquently stated in Michael's post:

My life is not yours to take and destroy. One of the functions of government is to act as my agent in ensuring that my life has an equivalent value should you decide that my life actually is yours to take and destroy. My agent will take yours and destroy it as repayment. That's the only currency that makes any sense on that level.

This is simply not true. Human life cannot be a currency in an objective value system. Look into your minds. Humans relate to humans in a way that cannot be calculated like an orange. Life is not property, nor does Rand ever explicitly suggest that it is. The mindset that requires us to deal with human life as if human life were inanimate in some balancing equation disconnects us from the experiential awareness of life, and this experiential awareness is representative of an authentic value. To the degree that we treat life as currency, we fall back into an awareness compatible with socialism.

[syrakusos]

Are you concerned that the guy in the black hood etc. throwing the switch is going to become a killer? In the outside world? Have there been any cases?

They’re people doing their jobs. I brought up Judgement at Nuremberg at some earlier point (different thread), the distinction between an Eichmann and one of our governors signing a death warrant was spelled out well enough there.

We’re talking about murder cases, not some contract dispute subject to arbitration/mediation.

As far as we know from limited evidence, executioners commit suicide. Taking a human life is a hard task.

The Nuremberg Problem does not go away by saying that US state governors who order executions are only doing their jobs.

Christopher brings up an essential problem: is the value of human life measurable? Ninth Doctor also wants to differentiate loss of life from other harms. Would that not invalidate the concept of life insurance?

The goal of justice is to restore the balance, by restoring the victim to whatever extent is possible. If you take the life of the adult parent of minor children, should you not be responsible for their material loss, even if you can do nothing about their grief?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Christopher]

The goal of justice is to restore the balance, by restoring the victim to whatever extent is possible. If you take the life of the adult parent of minor children, should you not be responsible for their material loss, even if you can do nothing about their grief?

This is a good point. Capital punishment would actually undermine the process of fiscal fairness.

I would assert in coordination with your perspective that justice has three responsibilities in dealing with the criminal here:

1. balancing financial responsibility associated to the loss - criminal assumes financial responsibility for dependents

2. criminal is positioned in such a manner that the criminal cannot further harm society

3. some level of financial burden be assumed due to experiential loss for the children

One is about property justice, two is protection of life. The last point is a mid-ground between life and property related specifically to the pursuit of happiness. In today's law, we understand that although some reparations cannot be made exactly (poking an eye out - cannot replace), the negative experience can to a degree be alleviated through financial restitution.

[anonrobt]

Justice is defined as the application of rationality to the evaluation and treatment of other individuals. This means that "....one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit" [Rand].

In this regard, I think there has been a slight misunderstanding of what justice is - and as such, how it is to properly be applied...

[9thdoctor]

As far as we know from limited evidence, executioners commit suicide. Taking a human life is a hard task.

So? There’s plenty of careers to choose from, its not like in Anthem where the hero is assigned to be a street sweeper. Or Nazi Germany where you could be drafted and wind up a concentration camp guard.

The Nuremberg Problem does not go away by saying that US state governors who order executions are only doing their jobs.

Do US governors sign death warrants for people they know to be innocent? I don’t know what you mean by Nuremberg Problem, but that was what I meant by my reply. FWIW Eichmann isn’t a good parallel case, he committed genocide, a better choice is Roland Freisler, the vile Nazi judge who died in a bombing attack. For arguments sake let’s assume he was tried and executed at Nuremberg. Before people say that everything Hitler did was legal, they should first look into the deeds of this creep, but I digress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Freisler

Christopher brings up an essential problem: is the value of human life measurable? Ninth Doctor also wants to differentiate loss of life from other harms. Would that not invalidate the concept of life insurance?

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean, what you’re getting at, nothing.

The goal of justice is to restore the balance, by restoring the victim to whatever extent is possible. If you take the life of the adult parent of minor children, should you not be responsible for their material loss, even if you can do nothing about their grief?

Are you suggesting that murderers should become the slaves of the survivors? If they have a big bank account they do usually get sued (e.g. OJ), otherwise what? Or if they pay off the survivors that should be the end of it? The Polanski case comes to mind, he paid off his victim long ago, but I again digress, his isn’t a murder case.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

In a perfect world, we would not have to kill anything living to eat. Nor would we have to kill the living things that destroy us to keep them from destroying us.

But we do. We kill to live. There is no other way.

If you want to throw out political principles like trade to make your structure for a society, at least throw that into the metaphysical mix.

You also might want to look to history to observe what kind of animal man is and whether it is foreign to his nature to kill other members of his species, or whether that practice comes with the package, say, for 100% of human history everywhere on earth.

Michael