9월 3일 (목) 1. Utilitarian Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment

1. Utilitarian Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment: Perhaps the most common defenses of capital punishment are on utilitarian grounds. For utilitarians, punishment in general is justified only insofar as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. From the utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1) prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a greater balance of happiness in society. There are several immediate problems with this line of reasoning.    First, the burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that the same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such as life imprisonment....  Italian political theorist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) argues this point in On Crimes and Punishment (1764), one of the first systematic critiques of capital punishment from the utilitarian point of view. According to Beccaria, capital punishment is not necessary to deter, and long term imprisonment is a more powerful deterrent since execution is transient.    A second and more basic problem with utilitarian defenses of capital punishment involves the fact gathering process. Since the utilitarian is making a factual claim about the beneficial social consequences of capital punishment, then his claim should be backed by empirical evidence. In the absence of such reliable empirical evidence, the utilitarian position must be dismissed, as is the case with any unverified factual claim...    A third problem with utilitarian justifications of punishment, as pointed out by contemporary political philosopher Adam Bedeau, concerns the ratio of innocent lives saved per execution. Perhaps, in the best possible situation, executing five of the most dangerous convicts will result in saving five innocent lives in the future.  As the number of executions increases, however, the number of innocent lives saved will not increase proportionally... So, eventually it must be determined how many executions justify the saving of one innocent life...    Finally, critics of capital punishment sometimes argue on utilitarian grounds that the expense involving executions is substantially greater than the cost of life imprisonment. The costs of appeals and legal counseling are the principal expenses. Thus, the extra financial burden of capital punishment contributes to a greater balance of unhappiness vs. happiness... [E]ven if this is a true description of the cost of capital punishment in the United States and other developed countries, it is not representative of the cost of criminal executions world wide. Indeed, one might reasonably expect that in many developing countries executions are substantially cheaper than life imprisonment costs...    2. Retributive Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment: The retributive notion of punishment in general is that (a) as a foundational matter of justice, criminals deserve punishment, and (b) punishment should be equal to the harm done... Historically, capital punishment is most often associated lex talionis retribution.  One of the most early written statements of capital punishment from the lex talionis or "eye for an eye" perspective is from the 18th century BCE Babylonian Law of Hammurabi: “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.”    Even if we grant that vengeance is a natural human emotion, critics argue that it is an impulse which should be tempered, just as we do natural feelings of fear, lust, and greed. Laws about punishment, then, should not be grounded in our extreme feelings, but should instead be based on our more tempered ones. When we moderate our natural feelings of vengeance, there should be little inclination to execute criminals.    Immanual Kant offered an alternative retributive justification of capital punishment which is not rooted in vengeance. Instead, for Kant, capital punishment is based on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy of respect because of their ability to make rational and free choices. The murder, too, is worthy of respect; we, thus, show him respect by treating him the same way he declares that people are to be treated.  Accordingly, we execute the murderer. A key problem with Kant's justification of capital punishment is that it tells us what to do with only ideally rational killers, although many killers are not rational.    3. Other Arguments for Capital Punishment: Some standard arguments for capital punishment do not fall neatly into either the retributive or utilitarian categories. For example, John Locke's famous defense of capital punishment has both a retributive and utilitarian component. Locke argued that a person forfeits his rights when committing even minor crimes.    Once rights are forfeited, Locke justifies punishment for two reasons: (1) from the retributive side, criminals deserve punishment, and, (2) from the utilitarian side, punishment is needed to protect our society by deterring crime through example... This includes taking away his life...    Another defense of capital punishment is based on an analogy that capital punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the individual. The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the individual is justified in protecting himself by self-defense with deadly force. Since society (or the political body) is like a large person, society, too, is justified in using deadly force through capital punishment...    4. Direct Attacks on Capital Punishment: As noted, most arguments against capital punishment are based on exposing flaws in defenses of capital punishment. However, some are more direct attacks, such as that capital punishment should be abolished since it is undignified, inhumane, or contrary to love.    A second direct attack on the practice of capital punishment is that, at least at present, it is virtually impossible to apply death sentences fairly. People on death row are typically poor and thus could not afford the best defense at their initial trial. They are also disproportionately Afro-American or Hispanic which raises larger issues of racial inequality in the US.    As ethnic minorities, they are also likely to receive more strict judgments from juries than their white counterparts who commit the same crime. These considerations recently prompted a US Supreme Court Justice to change his own views on capital punishment and reject the practice.    In addition to problems of class bias, the practice of capital punishment is further tainted by the tragic fact that innocent people are sometimes executed. Eliminating capital punishment not only prevents their wrongful execution, but gives them more time to clear their names and return to society. Questions  1. Do you believe the possibility of error? And how do you think about the argument that sometimes a person might be put to death who is innocent?  2. How do you think about that argument the capital punishment is inflicted disproportionately on the poor and minorities.  3. How do you think about the claim that the threat of capital punishment reduces violent crime is inconclusive, certainly not proven, extremely difficult to disprove, and morally suspect if any case?  4. One of the strongest arguments right now against capital punishment is that we are too incompetent to carry it out. That incompetence becomes another injustice. How do you think about this argument?  5. Persons who commit vicious crimes have often suffered from neglect, emotional trauma, violence, cruelty, abandonment, lack of love, and a host of destructive social conditions. Do you agree with this thought?