There are certain pieces of "conventional wisdom" that I’m quite skeptical of. One of them is "The death penalty doesn’t really deter murders." Really? How do we know this? Whether one supports or opposes capital punishment, this claim is at least counterintuitive.
It would seem that executing a murderer would at least prevent him from committing repeat offenses and deter those murders–whether or not it scares off potential murderers from killing others. Further, isn’t the whole idea of having penalties attached to laws generally regarded as providing a deterrent? Why should this penalty be any different? Could the "it doesn’t save lives" argument be just wishful thinking?
I can imagine arguments that having the death penalty fosters a culture of death such that it actually leads to more murders. Maybe. Weird things like that happen. But where’s the data?
That’s why it’s nice that God created economists. They can be a big help in testing received bits of conventional wisdom and seeing if they hold up or if they’re just wishful or prima facie thinking.
The Sydney Morning Herald recently carried an op/ed piece touching on this that was startling:
NEVER have those of us who oppose the death penalty felt more convinced that we are right. And never has there been a series of more impressive-sounding arguments to suggest that we are wrong.
For most of the past century we have been secure in the belief that executing murderers does little to stop murder. That’s what the psychologists and the criminologists have told us.
But now economists have entered the debate. And they have brought to the task a dazzling range of highly sophisticated techniques originally developed to answer more prosaic questions, such as whether tax breaks encourage saving.
More often than not the economists find that executions do save lives.
As they starkly report their central finding: each execution results in an average of 18 fewer murders. Or, to present the finding in an even more unsettling way: any state that refuses to impose the death penalty for murder is condemning 18 or so innocent people to death.
Now, I know that claims of this nature are controversial and subject to testing and revision and reversal themselves, but it’s nice to have additional research being done. That’s how science–including criminology–moves forward.
READ THE SUNSTEIN-VERMUELE PAPER. (WARNING! Evil file format [.pdf]!)
DISCUSS.
Executions could deter heretics, too. Bring back the Holy Inquisitions!
Weird how some of these articles get posted with the wrong date, and then show up as “new” on their appointed date again. Is that a Typepad bug?
I think (scratch that: I believe) that the risk of framed crimes and mistaken condemnations is reason enough to stop death penalty. Life imprisonment already stops a murderer from killing again, and this supposed deterring effect seems to me a frail base to justify the above mentioned risk.
“Life imprisonment already stops a murderer from killing again…”
Actually, no. Life imprisonment might keep a murderer from killing one of US, but violence to other prisoners, or to prison personnel is common.
Unless we hold that the lives of those in prison don’t count, or count less.
As per a late night show host, “Without capital punishment, there would be no Christianity”. Hmmm, should we thank Pontius Pilate then for our religion?
Don’t feed the troll, please folks.
Move along… nothing to see here…
One thing that seems usually (at least, in my experience) to be overlooked in discussions about the morality of the death penalty is the morality of prisons – specifically, their dehumanizing effect upon both guards and prisoners. Is it moral to cage people in this way? Granting that imprisonment prevents particular criminals (the imprisoned ones) from directly committing crimes upon those who do not enter prisons, what are the effects upon the convicts? Does it make them better persons, or worse? Do they generally become productive members of society once again upon their release?
I find people serenely happy with the prospect of the innocent rotting in jail their entire lives — rather morally disconcerting.
Innocent people, Mary?
I agree that the morality of the current prison system/industry needs to be seriously debated.
Then, Mary, are you comfortable with innocent people being killed by the state?
I am against the death penalty because we need to respect life from conception to natural death. I am also glad, except for the effect on the police officers and others involved, when a person is killed while escaping a serious crime. That leaves the judgement up to God.
We need to be able to keep serious criminals away from others who might be killed, raped or injured by them. But, I agree with Fred, about the dehumanizing of prison on both guards and prisoners.
I don’t have any answers, wish I did though.
Having met with some positive reaction, I’ll be bold and ask a couple other questions. 😉
What would a humane prison look like? Do we even need prisons? Okay, that sounds like a simply idiotic notion, I’ll grant. But when giving Israel the outlines of her civil law, God did not include prison terms among her sanctions – although prisons were certainly not unknown at the time (see: Joseph’s time in jail). On the other hand, he *did* include the death penalty. The fact that God deviated from the one cultural norm and not the other ought to give us something to think about, it seems to me. I’m not saying that we’re obligated to mimic Israel’s civil law, and I’m not saying that it was perfect (in the sense of ensuring perfect justice). I’m just wondering whether we can or should learn anything from this example – and if so, what exactly?
I also wonder whether the pursuit of perfect justice on our part isn’t a simply wrongheaded approach to the problem. I cannot imagine a humanly-administered justice system that will never condemn the innocent nor vindicate the guilty. There will be errors simply because we are fallible – to say nothing of the effects of human sinfulness upon the results of the justice system. And what if some law or other is itself unjust?
Here again I wonder whether we might learn from Israel’s example. Their justice system clearly had opportunities for error and for evil: witnesses might misinterpret what they saw, or they might even be liars. God warned them repeatedly against resorting to evil in their administration of justice, but the fact remains that both error and evil could have undermined it. The point: we should not expect human justice to be perfect, and that fact doesn’t mean that we must shirk the duty of exercising our imperfect justice. Does it?
Do you think that an honest error in justice, when justice has been faithfully, honestly, and diligently pursued, is a thing for which God will hold judges and jurors and rulers accountable? Certainly they must not be negligent in their duties, but I don’t see how a truly innocent error in the administration of justice can be construed as sinful. The consequences may be dreadful, certainly, but that doesn’t make the error itself a sin. Does it?
I think (scratch that: I believe) that the risk of framed crimes and mistaken condemnations is reason enough to stop death penalty. Life imprisonment already stops a murderer from killing again, and this supposed deterring effect seems to me a frail base to justify the above mentioned risk.
As someone pointed out, life imprisonment does _not_ stop someone from killing again.
But I think you’ve missed the point of the article Jimmy quoted: Statistics show that each application of the death penalty stops 18 murders that other penalties (including life imprisonment) don’t stop.
In other words: vote for life imprisonment in a particular case and 18 innocent people die. Vote for the death penalty and they all survive.
“Is it moral to cage people in this way?” Yes. It’s called protecting the sheep from the wolves.
“Do they generally become productive members of society again upon their release?” Again? That assumes that they were once productive members of society. After release, some will, some will not. But the first duty of society is to protect the good from the bad. Get the bad people out of society, then work on rehabilitating them. The only ones who will be rehabilitated are those who wish to be. Many criminals are sociopaths, whose only goal is what they want now. All other people are here for their use.
I think prison is, obviously, the only alternative for the hard cases. It is less clear, though, the effect that prison has on first timers, or non-violent offenders.
From what I can gather, if inmates aren’t violent when they enter federal prison, they will be made so by the time they leave. There is strong peer pressure to join with one gang or other while incarcerated.
It would be interesting to see what could be accomplished with more emphasis on restoring property, or even with a kind of indentured servitude. For some that are not too far gone, mandatory military service might actaully help them.
Tim J,
You sure have problems coming to terms with the reality of our religion. I repeat what I have noted in the past, Pontius Pilate could just have easily sent Jesus to work the salt mines or banished him to Crete so our religion should be based on the works and sayings of Jesus not the whims of some second rate governor.
Of course if you want to say God created Pontius Pilate to kill Jesus, that is your God-given gift of free will.
Realist-
My only intention was to keep you from highjacking yet another thread with your inflammatory comments that have NOTHING TO DO with the discussion of the death penalty.
I was pretty successful, too.
Please give us your thoughts on the death penalty, and leave your wacky Crossan-tics on the doorstep.
Tim J.,
The thoughts about the need for capital punishment/death penalty for Jesus’ crucifixion is not from Crossan but, as I indicated, from a TV commentator. The reality of it is bothersome. It bothered me when I first heard it but after thinking about it, the fellow’s analysis is correct.
Again, you might want to read Crossan’s books before passing judgement.
Actually, I had a similar thought when I walked through the WTC site in November 2001. That is, that ever since Jesus was executed, execution has been sanctified in a way that makes it too good for anyone else, especially the perpetrator of what I saw that day.
As someone pointed out, life imprisonment does _not_ stop someone from killing again.
It sometimes doesn’t because of the way most prison systems are set up (ie: they allow for violence). What about improving prisons, instead of killing the potential offender? (Seriously, read again the point of this objection: “If we imprison him for life, we might screw up and allow him to kill another inmate. Let’s just kill him to be sure.” I’m sorry if this offends you, but it sounds more than a little bit crazy, and not too much Christian.)
But I think you’ve missed the point of the article Jimmy quoted: Statistics show that each application of the death penalty stops 18 murders that other penalties (including life imprisonment) don’t stop.
Easily answered (though I do not deny it is an interesting observation). Suppose we discovered a hacker is hiding in a small town, and is about to start hacking into various military computer systems and fire missile attacks at random cities. The quickest available solution is to obliterate the town and hope that we saved more lives than we killed. Should we do it?
The answer to this question depends on one thing: what are our chances of stopping the would-be mass murderer without necessarily harming other people? One extreme case is that there is literally no other option, so bombing the town becomes morally obligatory; the other extreme is that a bloodless solution exists and is no more problematic than the violent one. In the latter case, bombing the town is a crime.
Returning to the death penalty question, the above problem becomes: is the death-penalty-using government reasonably capable of making the prisons more secure against inmate violence, evasions and loss of personal dignity, thus eliminating the need for the death penalty (i.e. saving lives)? My answer is a resonant YES (you can look at http://www.prisonstudies.org to see where to begin).
By the way, for those of you who are Catholic, I recommend a reading of this 2000 document by the USCCB. It has a lot of recommendations which should be heard, but I’d like to underline this paragraph:
“Although overall crime rates in the United States rose significantly between 1960 and 1991, the crime and victimization rates have fallen steadily since that time. Why criminal activity has dropped in the last decade has been the subject of considerable debate. Some argue that high incarceration rates and tougher sentences have made the difference. Others point to community policing, economic prosperity, and fewer young people. Experts do not agree on the determining factors, suggesting that many forces, taken together, have contributed to this decline. But regardless of their impact, not all methods of reducing crime are consistent with the teachings of the Church and the ideals of our nation. For example, even if the death penalty were proven to be a deterrent to crime, the Catholic bishops would still oppose its use because there are alternative means to protect society available to us today.” (emphasis mine)
It sometimes doesn’t because of the way most prison systems are set up (ie: they allow for violence).
There’s a man currently on death row because he got a life sentence for murder and arranged for the witnesses to be murdered, with the plan of appealing his conviction and getting off because there were no witnesses against him.
The set-up required is NO communication with the outside. Codes and the like mean that innocuous messages can be means of murder.
The set-up required is NO communication with the outside. Codes and the like mean that innocuous messages can be means of murder.
Is that even possible to accomplish in the criminal justice system what with having a right to an attorney and all?
This is scary territory. Let me posit explicitly that the death penalty in and of itself is not an offense against justice. However, premeditated murder of people on the speculative grounds that inevitably they will commit some crime in the future is an afront to justice. Be it statistics or speculation about the murder of an inmate or prison guard, these are not licit arguments for capital punishment. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a murderer has a 99% chance of killing again, the murderer does not merit capital punishment on these grounds. Such speculation is utopian scheming and the denial of humanity. Carried further one could justify murdering all children of single mothers on the grounds that they have a significant risk of killing. In fact, you may be allowing 18 or so innocent people a year to die by allowing these children to live. Now you may object that some innocent children would likely be killed, and that is precisely my point: the justice of capital punishment is not predicated on the speculation of a crime occuring, but upon the crime that has been commited.
I must agree (at least in part) with M.Z. Forrest’s last point: “the justice of capital punishment is not predicated upon the speculation of a crime occurring, but upon the crime that has been committed.”
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image” (Gn. 9:6). What is the justification given here? The fact that we are made in God’s image – so that an attack upon man is implicitly an attack upon God. It seems to me that Christian arguments against *any* use of the death penalty must address this.
As to whether the death penalty is a deterrent: personally I’ve always considered denials of this to be out of touch with reality. Setting aside for the moment what the Bible says about it (not because it has no force, but only because it seems no one is appealing to Scripture in this case, for some reason or other that I just don’t understand), it’s completely contrary to personal experience. I certainly know that as a child I carefully avoided doing things that would result in a spanking. I know that I studied hard for tests in school, in part because I feared the failing grade. I have watched my own child reach out his hand to do something that he knew he ought not to do – and then withdraw that hand from doing it when he saw me watching and knew that discipline would surely follow.
If such comparatively trivial things have any deterrent force, then a fortiori the death penalty most certainly does. That is not to say that such things have a universally deterrent effect: Children still disobey, even when they know they might be punished. But to pretend that there is *no* deterrent effect is surely absurd.
Consequently arguments against the death penalty are, in my opinion, weakened to the degree that they rely upon the supposition that capital punishment has no effect in dissuading people from committing murder (an inconsistently applied death penalty may not do so very well, but that is a different question).
Perhaps this should encourage us to move away from a utilitarian-based system of ethics. (Not that we should be there anyways…)
I remember when a couple of crooks hijacked a car with a grandmother and her granddaughter inside it, at gun point, in Rio.
However, that old lady happened to be the mother of a major drug lord. A chill went down their spines!
They drove the victims back to her apartment and later returned the car squeaky clean.
What deterred this theft and kidnapping?
Certain forms of ethical arguments based upon utility are made by God. “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God is giving you” (Ex. 20:12). He even makes a sort of “utilitarian” argument in favor of the deterrent effect of the death penalty in at least one case: “You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do such wickedness as this among you” (Deut. 13:10-11).
Now I certainly don’t believe that utilitarianism is something we want to enshrine, but that’s different, it seems to me, from acknowledging the cases where God endorses the utility of a thing.
If life imprisonment really existed, I would support it. But the reality is that it is a fable. Charles Manson was given a 300 year sentence. He comes up for parole every 7 years. So much for life without parole.
The other reason to support it is that just as there are no athiests in fox holes, neither are there any on death row (criminally insane not wthstanding).
Augustine, you just reminded me of something. About 20 years ago, a Catholic church in Howard Beach, NY, was burglarized. Some gold and silver chalices, thurifers, and candlesticks were taken. This church happened to be the one that John Gotti’s wife attended. Word was put out on the street: “If the items are returned within 24 hours, no questions will be asked. If they are not returned in that time, you better hope the police find you before we do.” All the items were returned in short order.
As those of you with children know, for the threat of punishment to be effective, it must be: 1) Sure; and 2) Swift. Unfortunately, our criminal justice system has a ways to go in both those regards.
Deterence isn’t difficult. Heck back in the communist days of Russia, the government would occaisonally shoot everyone standing on a street corner late at night. Needless to say, Russia in those days had significantly lower levels of open air drug deals and street prositution.
M.Z.-
You said:
“However, premeditated murder of people on the speculative grounds that inevitably they will commit some crime in the future is an afront to justice.”.
But, isn’t that, in large part, also why we lock people up in prison in the first place?
Society determines that certain people are likely to victimize others in the future, so they are locked up. Is that, because it is “speculative”, also an affront to justice?
Are all penalties to be understood as punishment for crimes already committed? If so, isn’t the death penalty (sometimes) a just punishment for murder?
Obviously we can’t execute people just because we think they are going to commit crimes in the future. We can, however, refrain from executing those whose crime justly deserves death when a non-bloody means of protecting society is available (which is what the Catechism instructs us to do).
But, isn’t that, in large part, also why we lock people up in prison in the first place?
To say that imprisonment serves such a purpose I would agree. I would argue that this isn’t the objective though. For example, we don’t imprison, at least on a long term basis, petty thieves. These criminals most likely will commit this crime again. In no way is their punishment in proportion to their liklihood to recommit.
If so, isn’t the death penalty (sometimes) a just punishment for murder?
The only quible I would have with this statement is qualifing it with “sometimes.” I would argue that the death penalty can be an offense against mercy though. It is easy to appeal to justice. The difficulty is seeing that every man is worthy of mercy. Not to sound too pious, but very few of us would see the light of heaven if we weren’t deemed worthy of mercy by Christ.
Clarence Ray Allen
Mr. Allen was convicted of murder and sent to prison. From prison, he directed the murder of three witnesses – a fourth witnes was seriously injured.
From the catechism:
[2267] Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
It looks like in this case the state could not protect society through incarceration. I think capital punishment is justified. What complicates this case is that after almost 30 years waiting for execution, the man’s health is severely degraded. Not worth carrying out the sentence.
http://www.cjlf.org/publctns/Overdue/ODIntro.htm
Understand, I am not an advocate either for or against the death penalty. I have not made up my mind on the subject.
I understand that the Catechism does not absolutely prohibit the death penalty.
In advanced societies, though, we could certainly use other methods.
We should not sugar-coat what that means, however. The latest trend in maximum-security prisons amounts to a high-tech living hell.
23-24 hours a day on lockdown in a cell,
no personal (face-to-face) contact with other inmates,
little contact with prison personnel,
monitored mail and phone calls,
meals passed through a hole in the door,
cell lights on 24-7 so that guards can monitor behavior through the bullet-proof glass,
and the constant howls and gibbering of other inmates, many of whom are certifiably insane.
So, the choice is not between a humane punishment (prison) and an inhumane one (death), but between one inhumane punishment and another.
Tragically, there are people who simply can’t be treated humanely without outrageous consequences to society.
I Googled the term “dangerous prisoner” and found this piece from the BBC that illustrates my point;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1393970.stm
The prisoner in question has, while in prison, murdered two inmates AND a guard.
He is now being held in solitary confinement, with very little freedom of movement or human contact.
The ACLU and Amnesty International say that this is cruel and unusual punishment!
Like I say, some people just can’t be treated humanely.
Richard Posner and Gary Becker have commented on this vary issue on their mutual blog: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/
Anyone here who uses the utilitarian argument (killing one to save 18) to justify capital punishment, please take the time to apply that exact same argument to the effects of contraceptives against AIDS in Africa. Thank you.
Nihil,
Your argument doesn’t follow. CP is a legitimate response to an immoral act (murder) to save innocent lives. Contraceptives (condoms, etc.) are an immoral response to immoral acts (adultry/fornification) – which may or may not save innocent lives.
The argument that we should oppose the dealth penalty because it may hypothetically kill innocents is insufficient. (That is, if it is true that each execution saves 18 innocents). Should we oppose the 65 mph speed limit because it kills innocents? After all, if we all drove 25 mph, highway fatalities would be virtually zero.
No, no, there are other, better reasons to oppose the death penalty. If we can accept the deaths of innocents for convenience in getting from point a to point b, we can accept the deaths of innocents in order to save the lives of innocents.
Your argument doesn’t follow. CP is a legitimate response to an immoral act (murder) to save innocent lives. Contraceptives (condoms, etc.) are an immoral response to immoral acts (adultry/fornification) – which may or may not save innocent lives.
The death penalty can be legitimate *only because* it saves innocent lives (again, assuming the paper is correct). If it doesn’t, it is practically manslaughter, which is a tad sinful. Contraceptives may be sinful, but once they save innocent lives in Africa they should receive the same benefit as the death penalty.
You seem to be misunderstanding a point: the people who would use contraceptives are still guilty of fornication, with or without condoms. But once we know the whole Africa is having unprotected sex while AIDS is around, and that it is unrealistic to make them all go abstinent, giving them condoms means saving a LOT of lives (note that it doesn’t prevent Catholics from preaching about keeping sex between husband and wives).
“The death penalty can be legitimate only because it saves innocent lives…If it doesn’t, it is practically manslaughter, which is a tad sinful.” If that is the case, then God committed sin when He commanded the death penalty for adultery, which wouldn’t save any lives.
From a practical point of view, using condoms to prevent AIDS is like playing Russian Roulette with a couple of extra cylinders in the gun. Catholic moral theology teaches that the ends never justify the means, that one cannot do evil that good may come of it. Uganda, alone among African nations, has eschewed condoms and emmphasized abstinence, and has seen the spread of AIDS plummet.
Under your logic, Nihil, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justified, having saved lives, overall.
The death penalty can be legitimate *only because* it saves innocent lives (again, assuming the paper is correct).
Let me clarify my point. That capital punishment saves innocent lives is a secondary issue/benefit. The primary issue for CP is justice.
Again from the Catechism:
“[2266] The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.”
Your comment on CP being “practically manslaughter” (if it doesn’t save innocent lives) would be true if carried out by an individual. But in every case in this country, CP is carried out by legitimate public authority, thus it can never be manslaughter, or worse.
Regarding the economics of the death penalty, the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment because of the appeals processes. Therefore it makes sense to scrap the death penalty.
Even if you support the death penalty in principle, it is probable that it cannot be dealt fairly, so abolishing it is the best solution.
Regarding the economics of the death penalty, the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment because of the appeals processes. Therefore it makes sense to scrap the death penalty.
By using that logic: Life imprisonment costs more than setting the killer free. Therefore it makes sense to scrap life imprisonment.
Of course, one could always reform the appeals process to reduce costs and take away any financial differences.
Two notable responses to Sunstein and Vermeule’s suggestions…
We conclude that existing estimates appear to reflect a small and unrepresentative sample of the estimates that arise from alternative approaches. Sampling from the broader universe of plausible approaches suggests not just “reasonable doubt” about whether there is any deterrent effect of the death penalty, but profound uncertainty — even about its sign.
http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/issue3/donohue.pdf
While there is ample reason to reject this argument on the ground that the empirical studies are deeply flawed (as economists John Donohue and Justin Wolfers elaborate in a separate essay above), this response directly addresses Sunstein and Vermeule’s moral argument.
http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/issue3/steiker.pdf
Sunstein and Vermeule’s reply to the above
http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/issue3/sunstein2.pdf
Soma.
Soma-fitness. Soma to florida. Soma.