capital-punishment, Ethics, Jurisprudence, politics

Should we Abolish the Death Penalty? Practical Arguments

I have been engaging in a dialogue over the Death Penalty. I wanted to share some of it with my readers. For the other part of this conversation:

https://spirited-tech.com/2022/06/28/should-we-abolish-the-death-penalty-biblical-arguments/

MM said:

I will present the not quite as religious arguments first, starting with the merely practical.

1. Cost: 
It’s easy to find out that it’s way more expensive to seek the death penalty than, say, life without parole. For instance, defense costs for death penalty trials in Kansas averaged about $400,000 per case, compared to $100,000 per case when the death penalty was not sought. This doesn’t count execution drugs, doctor’s fees, medical staff training. (Which can run into the hundreds of thousands as well; see https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/oklahoma-is-paying-execution-doctor-15-000-plus-training-fees-for-each-execution#:~:text=Under%20the%20terms%20of%20the,the%20week%20of%20an%20execution. )   Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. Based on the 44 executions Florida had carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution. In Texas, the average death penalty case costs about three times more than life in prison. (Most of this information comes from the DPIC, but is presented on the Supreme Court’s website under facts about the death penalty, so we can reasonably assume it’s accurate– some of it comes from the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty; if you won’t consider that as a source, I can easily find it elsewhere.) Let us assume for a moment that morally there is nothing wrong with the death penalty. Even if this were the case, can we condone spending $24 million dollars on an execution instead of using that money in ways that benefitted more people in the state? (In 2020, the median household income in Florida amounted to 57,435 U.S. dollars) Wouldn’t it be far better to put this money into education, prison reform, charitable societies, homeless shelters, hospitals, better training for police, libraries, safer roads, etc.? Theoretically, no state wants more people in its prisons, so it seems reasonable to work on trying to help people live lives less likely to lead to crime. I can’t speak for everyone, but I’ve never had a lot of money, and let me tell you if I were a poor person in a state where the government spent 24 million on an execution, even if I approved of executions, I think I would a lot rather the state used the money in some other way– supporting single moms or homeless people or families who can’t afford clothes and basic necessities. (This is imagining I’m in one of those categories–if I were super rich, I might be less likely to care.)


2. Deterrence

It’s sometimes argued that execution = deterrence to violent crime. If we look at the ten states with the highest violent crime rates, 8 out of the top ten use the death penalty. (The exceptions are Alaska, which is probably partly explained by highest unemployment rate/ little contact with the rest of the US and New Mexico, which I believe is the second poorest state in the nation. NM also just abolished it recently, so it’s hard to count them as evidence for either side.) By contrast, out of the top safest, 8 out of ten do not have the death penalty. Only Wyoming, which hasn’t carried any out since 1992,  and Kentucky, which hasn’t done so since 2008, still have it permitted. I will be fair and admit that I believe one of the bottom ten mentioned above also hasn’t carried one out for quite a while, although I can’t remember which one. If we look on a broader scale, it gets a bit more complicated– the country with the highest rate of crime, Venezuela, does not have the death penalty, but doesn’t really count as an example because of regime changes/ other internal conflicts. (And it is believed they might carry out illegal executions anyway.) One of the other top ten, Afghanistan, does have the death penalty, but I won’t use it as evidence for my side of this, because of obvious problems in their use of it– even death penalty proponents aren’t likely to justify it. However, most European countries, none of which have the death penalty except for Belarus, are in the top fifty or so that have the lowest crime rates. So I think we can reasonably say that although capital punishment could deter someone from murder, it is not at all the most deciding factor, and probably has very little to do with it. We must remember that particularly in the US many death row inhabitants are poor, borderline intellectually disabled, and suffer from mental illness. I don’t think they would sit down and consider all the possible outcomes of a murder beforehand. In all honesty, I don’t think I would either– most murders are done in a fit of passion and you are probably not thinking about potential consequences. Especially because the likelihood of actually getting a death sentence is very low, I do not think most murderers are particularly worried about it.

3. Arbitrariness 1 
Assuming the death penalty is morally permissible, it would be reasonable to say it should be implemented in all cases of a certain degree of gravity, no matter the age, race, sex, wealth, or health of the prisoner, provided it did not violate the 8th Amendment. (i.e, if a prisoner had a medical condition where lethal injection would cause excruciating pain). A quick glance at death row statistics shows this is not the case. Age and physical health are fairly unbiased, although an older or ill prisoner is less likely to get a death sentence– this is proper and a way of showing mercy. But the others are not remotely reasonable. As of last October, there were 51 women on death row. This is a little over 2% of the entire death row population. While it is true that the majority of violent crimes such as murder and rape are carried out by men– approximately 80% of these offenders are men– this difference is not enough to explain the sentencing gap. It is often seen as cruel to sentence a woman to death; “ungentlemanly,” perhaps, or even “unchivalrous.” This may in part be caused by the fact that more judges/ lawyers are men, but it still does not offer a good reason. There is zero reason to give a woman who commits the same crime as a man in the same circumstances a more lenient sentence. Wealth too disproportionately affects the capital punishment process. Many death row prisoners are unable to afford their lawyers. It is true that as a general rule poor people are more likely to commit crime or at least be caught, but, again, the gap is not so large but that there should be a few more rich criminals on death row as well.
 The most obvious disproportionality in sentencing can be seen in race. This takes place in two different ways.
I. About 51% of offenders on death row in the US are non-white, with 41% being black. In contrast, about 40% percent of Americans are non-white. This is not a huge gap, but certainly large enough to take note of when you think of all the people involved and what it implies. It is also somewhat misleading when you look on a state-by-state basis. For instance, a 2014 study showed that jurors in Washington state are three times more likely to recommend a death sentence for a black defendant than for a white defendant in a similar case. Approximately 75% of the state’s citizens are white.  I am pretty certain this statistic would be the same or even higher in most southern states. For instance, of the 752 people executed in Alabama since 1812, 83% were African Americans. I had assumed that a high proportion of Alabama’s citizens were black, at least 70% or so, but on looking it up was shocked and horrified to see that it is currently only 26.8 percent, which would suggest extreme racial bias in the sentencing procedure. The prison population contains about 56% percent black inmates, which would lower the gap slightly but simultaneously reflects the fact that Alabama’s prison system is probably severely flawed and racist.
II.  The second way that racism plays a part in who gets the death penalty is the color of the victim.  In Louisiana, the odds of a death sentence were 97% higher for those whose victim was white than for those whose victim was black. (Pierce & Radelet, Louisiana Law Review, 2011). A study in California found that those convicted of killing whites were more than 3 times as likely to be sentenced to death as those convicted of killing blacks and more than 4 times more likely as those convicted of killing Latinos. (Pierce & Radelet, Santa Clara Law Review, 2005).  A comprehensive study of the death penalty in North Carolina found that the odds of receiving a death sentence rose by 3.5 times among those defendants whose victims were white. (Prof. Jack Boger and Dr. Isaac Unah, University of North Carolina, 2001).  In 96% of states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both. (Prof. Baldus report to the ABA, 1998). (Again, this is taken from the DPIC death penalty fact sheet.)

4. Arbitrariness 2 
Again, assuming that the death penalty is morally permissable, it would have to be applied to all offenders whose crimes met the criteria. This is clearly not the case for the simple reason that individual states are free to choose if and for whom they apply the death penalty. This is perfectly constitutional and in accordance with our structure of government. I am not one to advocate for limiting state’s rights. However, I would argue that this simple fact could easily make executions “unusual” for the simple reason that the majority of offenders would not receive the same sentence. If I commit a murder in New York, no matter how gruesome, the most that can happen is life in prison. If instead I am an accomplice to a murder– not necessarily the active murderer–  in for instance Louisiana, the death penalty is possible. Some states do not even require a unanimous jury. This bizarre arbitrariness makes plenty of executions unusual, and therefore I would argue unconstitutional.
If we say the death penalty is permissible, then before we could apply it, we would first have to work on all the factors above. The way things stand currently, it would be extremely immoral to carry out executions.
Okay, this is way too long by now, but we still have the religious arguments. I know you’re going to have religious arguments for it, and our religious views will be extremely different, despite the fact that we are both Christians. But here goes. I’m going to quote the Catholic Church’s catechism first, so you can see the “official” wording, and then elaborate.
“Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.” (CCC 2267)

That’s it in a nutshell. But let’s look at the Bible. In the Old Testament, there are many verses calling for severe punishments for evil doers, for instance–. “And a man who injures his countryman – as he has done, so it shall be done to him– fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as another person has received injury from him, so it will be given to him.” (Lev. 24:19–21). And of course we have the famous “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword” in Matthew’s gospel. Both of these (and similar Bible passages) are sometimes used as evidence that Jesus approved of the death penalty. This is not remotely the case. The first verse has different interpretations to begin with– different Jewish groups saw it to mean different things. Furthermore, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says to us: You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This is not a negation of the Old Testament verse, rather, it is its perfect and fulfilled interpretation. Jesus shows that the Old Testament laws were made as a set of guidelines before he came to earth. He is the New Law. Talking about a different law, he says– “But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. It was not so from the beginning.” Immediately after the sermon on the mount (and the turn the other cheek verse) he says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ” Jesus always, in word and deed, was merciful, loving, not punishing, despite the fact that he had every right to punish if he wanted to.

The “sword” verse is similarly against violence. If it applies to murderers, it must also apply to the government. Furthermore, think about the context– Jesus says it to Peter, who is defending Jesus by attacking his captors. Peter is acting, in our eyes, quite reasonably– he is not randomly attacking some innocent passerby. (although I’ve always been annoyed that of everyone there he attacked the high priest’s slave, which seems both cowardly and useless.)

There is further evidence to be found in the Bible. The most obvious example is the story of the woman caught in adultery. Under your philosophy, (assuming you are a hard-core Van Tilian and Christian Reconstructionist) the death penalty would be the appropriate punishment for her. So, too, think the old testament leaders. But what does Jesus do? He steps in and stops her execution. “He that is without sin among you, cast the first stone.” Of course, none of them are sinless, and they all slink away. This brings us to one of the fundamental points. None of us has the right to exact the ultimate punishment. We are all sinners, all of us are fallen human beings. Perhaps we are not murderers in the practical sense, but we are still not innocent of sin. As a human being, we simply do not have the right to kill another human being, except of course in defense. Even if the death penalty were permissible, we would not have the right to use it.  We cannot create life, so we may not take it. Each one of us is infinitely valuable, infinitely capable of change and goodness. Our dignity and beauty as a human being is inviolable. Nothing can take it away from us. We are human, and more importantly, we are created in the image and likeness of God. We are told by God to see him in every single person. If we see Jesus in someone, if we know someone is created by God, loved by God, watched over by God, how can we DARE to assume we have the right to kill that person?!?!?

I honestly find capital punishment less understandable than many “regular” murders. Murder  is usually done in a fit of passion; in an execution, the prisoner is completely at the mercy of the state, unarmed, tied down, paralyzed so you have no way of knowing if he feels pain, it is fully premeditated, and often there are people expressing their pleasure that the prisoner will die. It is despicable and dishonorable. Can you say if there were no one else to do it, you would be willing to be the one injecting? Because if not, I don’t think you can honestly applaud capital punishment. Could you really look someone in the eye and cold-bloodedly kill them? Which brings us to another point. The actual executioners are often overlooked afterwards, but many of them develope trauma and PTSD. I also can’t imagine what it’s like for their children. “What is your father’s job?–”  But let us return to Jesus. After everyone else has left, only Jesus, who would have every right to kill the woman, and is certainly sinless, is left. And what happens? “Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.” I obviously can not say it better than Jesus, so I will end on this note, leaving the rest of the religious arguments for another time. It is worth pointing out, however, that other grave offenders in the Bible are also offered mercy by God– Cain, for instance, and Adam and Eve. I will end with a few more Bible verses– “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”

“Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.”

“Be you merciful, as your Father also is merciful.”

God alone should have power over life and death.

VincenttheFakeGregBahnsen said:


1. Cost:

” It’s easy to find out that it’s way more expensive to seek the death penalty than, say, life without parole. For instance, defense costs for death penalty trials in Kansas averaged about $400,000 per case, compared to $100,000 per case when the death penalty was not sought. This doesn’t count execution drugs, doctor’s fees, medical staff training.”

I think the matter the cost is truly irrelevant in our time. The matter truly isn’t the cost, but the moral status of the action in question. For if it were cheaper than life imprisonment, I hardly suppose you would change your mind. Furthermore, if it is good like I suppose, then the discussion should turn to how we can lower the costs of executions. This reminds me of my experience with communists, everyone that has some view of what is good will try to ascertain such at almost any cost. There is also where the cost argument becomes more self-caused by our legal system. With the high expenses and multitude of appeals someone can have, they can create major legal costs (you see this phenomenon when corporations don’t fight cases because they wish to avoid legal costs). I think it is our legal system and activists that are the major contributors to why the death penalty is so expensive. This from my perspective this a self-fulfilling argument by the parties usually that have set up the conditions for such an issue.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20reasons%20for,the%20relative%20rarity%20of%20executions.

There is also a level in which the unjust release of prisoners is at the highest chance since the 70s. I’ve been following a movement that has been documenting that leftist theories of justice are bound to push through in the future. Theories that deny the punitive nature of justice and maintain humans are just the material results of their situation. They lean towards rehabilitation instead of punishment. They do this in trying to release certain criminals that are clearly and demonstrably guilty (eg Julius Jones, or the Green River Killer Gary Ridgway)

https://www.q13fox.com/news/gary-ridgway-could-be-released-from-prison-if-bill-passes-that-would-end-life-without-parole

Lastly, with most of the issues of life, there are many trade-offs one makes. I think there on costs that cannot be calculated with regards to the prison system. Humans will still have the ability to do irreparable damage once again to the lives of others (eg other prisoners, guards, or civilians by escape). The deaths, rapes, and plethora of lesser crimes cannot be satisfactorily enumerated in costs. In this regard, the absence of the death penalty serves as an undeniable cost to society. Especially, when one looks at it as a good and the heart of civil government’s justice. One must assume that the death penalty is morally wrong in order to make these types of arguments work.

It even seems that because of the belief in euthanasia the cost of death (painless) is closest to being readily available.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/434yaj/a-doctor-built-a-machine-that-helps-people-die

2. Deterrence:

“So I think we can reasonably say that although capital punishment could deter someone from murder, it is not at all the most deciding factor, and probably has very little to do with it.”

Firstly, we recognize that death is deterrence in most affairs (and even with certain madmen) by our very nature. We see that N. Korea hasn’t nuked the US because of the fear of death. We often see this in the area of political affairs of the world, but refuse to recognize it in common days affairs because of how modern psychologists try to measure deterrence. Men by nature desire happiness (whatever that is according to their scheme). Death in most cases imposes on their goals to achieve such. Remember, deterrence isn’t the idea that it utterly prevents, but at some level can motivate an agent not to take some course of actions (eg possessing weapons doesn’t entail that house won’t be robbed, but it can motivate those not to violate your private property). Secondly, it is difficult in some situations to figure out what motivations can be true given the fact we cannot enter the mind to see these things for ourselves.

Secondly, we should recognize that God invoked it as a deterrence (so if it wasn’t possible God would be ignorant). In biblical law, one of the enumerated motive clauses for the various death penalty statutes reads as follows: “[T]he rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.” (Deut. 19:20; see also Dt. 13:11, Dt. 17:13, and Dt. 21:21.) Scripture affirms that the death penalty is the God-ordained means of criminal deterrence.

There also seems to be a performative inconsistency from Anti-Captial punishment advocates. They maintain that it isn’t a deterrence (not saying you are claiming this) and turn around to state that this punishment is too cruel. Is it so cruel that it isn’t desired? Or is it hardly a deterrent? I also think the modern political climate has taken the bite away from it. Killers are often aware of the appeals processes and so forth that can get around this. I remember a serial killer in California that enjoyed manipulating the system in order to never be executed for their murders and recorded rape sessions.

Lastly, we should recognize that this still wouldn’t show the greater point that it simply begs the greater question of whether we ought to think the death penalty is just.

3. Arbitrainess:

The argument at this point turns into something that truly doesn’t deal with my distinctive position. This if true would only mean that the justice system as it needs an objective criterion to sentence criminals in regards to capital cases. I agree with this position and think this is a fault in the American system itself.

I maintain there should be an amendment added to the constitution that cannot be changed. It defines what a human being is and under the circumstances, a person can lose their right to life.

I think the issues surrounding race and sex probably have to do with standards of evidence, disparity of crimes committed, etc. Arguments to the effect that these issues suffer inherent racism aren’t the strongest. I think even if they were true, then we aren’t discussing the moral status of the death penalty but the credibility of the justice system. This entails we can’t trust convictions of life imprisonment as well because these are all applicable to those sentences as well. It seems a self-refuting argument at worst and irrelevant at best.

” This is clearly not the case for the simple reason that individual states are free to choose if and for whom they apply the death penalty. This is perfectly constitutional and in accordance with our structure of government. I am not one to advocate for limiting state’s rights. However, I would argue that this simple fact could easily make executions “unusual” for the simple reason that the majority of offenders would not receive the same sentence.”

Frankly, I’m not sure I have an issue if I don’t think states have the right to define what human beings are and the issues where they lose such rights (such as to life). That seems like a federal issue that we have been dancing around since the founding. It has also led to the greatest amount of murder in American history (Slavery, Abortion, Jim Crow, Natives, etc).

I also think that this would violate your own principle. If the state has the right to define their punishments in regards to taking human life, then they can have some say as to whether they find it to be unusual. Furthermore, given human history, it is unlikely to be unusual in any way. When America was a majority pro-Captial punishment life imprisonment as the alternative was an uncommon position. So, that position would be considered unusual.

4. The Biblical Arguments:

There are several issues:

You appealed to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). You should note that you are dealing with one of the largest variant readings of the NT that has cast much doubt on it being original.

https://youtu.be/NAVDboQrNuU

Even if it were, Theonomists have given their take on the passage:

https://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2009/04/anti-theonomists-are-often-quick-to.html

I would find that more interaction is necessary with notions in these sources to refute such.

The other passage you relied on is one I’ve discussed as proof the law is a continuing authority for the modern age. That being Matthew 5-7 which has been called the “Sermon on the Mount”. I think you should look at an interpretation that maintains this is Jesus refuting the Pharisaical interpolations of the religious rulers of his day. You relied on a verse where Jesus cites the Lex talionis principle, but the issue is Jesus clearly believed that punishments ought to fit their crimes. That seems to be a fairly rational principle!

I maintain that this is a clear example that Pharisees held an interpretation that was against the OT law. Dr. Greg Welty put it this way:

” The fact of the matter is that there is no contrast between Jesus’ teaching and the lex talionis, since the OT itself forbid taking vengeance by any means. This is because there is a principled distinction between vindication and vindictiveness, between justice and revenge. “

https://www.the-highway.com/mosaic-law_Welty.html

I have also written on this topic:

https://spirited-tech.com/2018/07/18/the-law-and-the-new-testament-2/

I would maintain that Gen. 9:6 is the strongest passage showing the death penalty is obligatory of all nations for murderers:

Genesis 9:6

6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

This is probably the strongest text in favor of CP. It ground CP in the fact that humans are made in the image of God. The image of “shed blood” is to point to the unjustified taking of human life. This is grounded in the image of God, which also remains true today. Furthermore, it is apart of the Noaich covenant made with all mankind. So, it also seems plausible that it is still true today. Dr. Wayne Grudem states it in his work on Christian ethics:

The word “sheds” in this statement translates the Hebrew verb shāphak, which in this passage means “to pour out in large amount, causing death.” Therefore, “In this verse, ‘shedding blood’ refers to the violent, unjustified taking of human life (cf. Gen. 37:22; Num. 35:33; 1 Kings 2:31; Ezek. 22:4).”7 This commandment from God says that when someone murders another person, the murderer himself should be put to death. This execution of a murderer was not going to be carried out directly by God, but by a human agent: “by man shall his blood be shed.” Yet this was not to be seen as human vengeance, but as carrying out God’s own requirement of justice. God explains what he means when he says, “From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man” (Gen. 9:5). The reason God gives for this is the immense value of human life: “for God made man in his own image” (v. 6). To be in the image of God is the highest status and privilege in all creation, and only human beings share in it (see Gen. 1:27). To be in God’s image means that human beings are more like God than anything else on the earth, and it also means that they are God’s representatives in this world (for they are like him and thus can best represent him). Therefore, to murder a human being is to murder someone who is more like God than any other creature on the earth. The murder of another human being is therefore a kind of attack against God himself, for it is an attack against his representative on the earth, an attack against the “image” of himself that he has left on the earth. …

This passage from Genesis 9 came long before the establishment of the nation of Israel (at the exodus from Egypt) or the giving of the laws of the Mosaic covenant (in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Therefore, the application of this passage is not limited to the nation of Israel for a specific period of time, but is for all people for all time. The covenant God made with Noah after the flood is nowhere called the “old covenant,” and it is nowhere said to be abolished or no longer in effect. The covenant God made with Noah applies to all human beings on the earth for all generations: When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth. (Gen. 9:16)

I maintain that the Lex Talonis comes from this similar vein of thought that is codified in the Law. Thus strengthening the continuing authority of the prior argument in the broader scheme of things.

https://spirited-tech.com/2020/07/05/whoever-sheds-mans-blood/

Lastly, I take the death penalty to vindicate Protestantism over Catholcism. It shows a clear change in tradition and contradiction to holy writ. I also have a multitude of resources on my blog and my podcast on Catholicism:

https://spirited-tech.com/category/roman-catholicism/


MM said:

Just a quick thought before I start — although you offered counter arguments to mine, you didn’t really offer arguments for your position. I would have been interested in seeing some more of these.

 
“I think the matter of the cost is truly irrelevant in our time. The matter truly isn’t the cost, but the moral status of the action in question” 
 
I don’t think this makes a lot of sense. To consider whether an action is just and advisable, we must look at all aspects of it. These could contribute to the morality of the action. For instance, I would hold that if a very poor country were putting lots of resources into executions, regardless of the morality of the execution in isolation, it would be treating its citizens unjustly — furthering one “good ” while neglecting another. If there is a better use for the money, the government should consider that better use. What good is it if a country no longer has any criminals but the people are suffering poverty?  (The idea of using resources to kill someone is absurd anyway, if you really think about it.) An action very rarely just has one “part” to it. Depending on the circumstances, it can be right or wrong, or in varying degrees. As an example, the act of stealing of itself is wrong, but if a poor person steals some medicine or food for their family, this is obviously less wrong than if I were to go and rob a homeless person. We must think not only in theory but also in practice.
Sure, there is always a risk of releasing someone who shouldn’t be. But please remember I was never suggesting we do away with prison. Obviously a form of punishment for crime is necessary. But this risk is one we must accept in a democratic moral society. Democracy automatically comes with risks. Freedom comes with risks. That’s something we need to accept. And the risk of releasing the wrong person is better than the risk of executing the wrong person. As for crimes committed in prison, this is a two way street. Guards commit horrible acts of brutality against prisoners as well.
I’m not completely sure what this has to do with euthanasia– at any rate, I totally disapprove of euthanasia. We don’t have the right to take our own lives, or that of our elderly friends, anymore than the life of others.
Deterrence
 
I don’t think this is very convincing. The dictator of North Korea is not your average murderer, nor is an average murder committed with nuclear weapons. Also it’s quite possible it’s not so much the fear of death but the fear of losing power that is the real deterrent there. “Men by nature desire happiness (whatever that is according to their scheme).” Yes — and to a murderer (or at any rate a serial killer) that’s why they’re commiting murder. It’s short term happiness, maybe revenge for something, or to get money, or just because they’re psychopathic. Most murderers do not think much about the death penalty. I’d be willing to bet a decent amount on that.
Also, the death penalty could certainly both not be a deterrent and be too cruel. Those don’t exclude each other.
Before I go on– you say a lot of my arguments aren’t really against the (im) morality of the death penalty but about how it is used. Well, sure. How it’s used can make it immoral. Even if it were moral it would be immoral as currently used in the US. 
 
“I maintain there should be an amendment added to the constitution that cannot be changed. It defines what a human being is and under the circumstances, a person can lose their right to life. ” Unimportant side note — you can’t amend the constitution in such a way that it can’t be changed. The whole point is that it can be changed. More importantly — this is an extremely dangerous idea. If the government is allowed to determine when someone is no longer a human being, think what can happen with the wrong government. What if they decide disabled people aren’t human? Or people of a certain race or faith? Basically, you could get Nazi Germany. I’m not saying anything this drastic would happen, but it would open the door to all sorts of evils.
“This entails we can’t trust convictions of life imprisonment as well because these are all applicable to those sentences as well. “ Of course. It does. There are widespread problems in our sentencing system. This is another reason not to use the death penalty. An unjust prison sentence can be changed, but death cannot be undone.
No, I don’t think the states should be allowed to decide who fits the criteria for execution or what those criteria are because it’s not really a right of theirs. It is a legal right but not a moral right. There should be an amendment to the constitution prohibiting capital punishment. 😉


VincenttheFakeGregBahnsen said:


“If there is a better use for the money”

At this point, you were explaining that we need to take into account the cost of such actions. In my experience, this statement from you shows precisely why what you’re saying isn’t the case. We have to strive towards what is just in our notions before discussing costs. For something to be a better use of resources already supposes a moral framework in which the action in question isn’t important or necessary. That is just to beg the question in the first place regarding its moral status.


“The dictator of North Korea is not your average murderer, nor is an average murder committed with nuclear weapons.”I think the point is that he is a murderous tyrant. If death can be deterrent for people like such, then it is good evidence that it is a good deterrent for murderers.”Also it’s quite possible it’s not so much the fear of death but the fear of losing power that is the real deterrent there.”Well, dying is a problem for anyone with long-term goals. But that just shows why death is a deterrent. It causes him to desire his goal of maintaining power over early destruction.” “Men by nature desire happiness (whatever that is according to their scheme).” Yes — and to a murderer (or at any rate a serial killer) that’s why they’re commiting murder. It’s short term happiness, maybe revenge for something, or to get money, or just because they’re psychopathic. Most murderers do not think much about the death penalty. I’d be willing to bet a decent amount on that.” This is somewhat true, but the point is to establish death can be a deterrent. I gave arguments from analogy by dictator, when God states that it is, and facts about human nature to establish such a notion. We recognize the fact that deterrence doesn’t negate the option that someone will have greater desires. If execution isn’t sufficient to stop wickedness, then nothing really will. Such people are uncivilized and ought to die if they murder or some other capital offense.”Also, the death penalty could certainly both not be a deterrent and be too cruel. Those don’t exclude each other.”I think this just begs the question of the moral status of the death penalty. If you think it is barbaric, then you will reason that way. I obviously think it is necessary for justice.” Before I go on– you say a lot of my arguments aren’t really against the (im) morality of the death penalty but about how it is used. Well, sure. How it’s used can make it immoral. Even if it were moral it would be immoral as currently used in the US.”

 

The issue with this is that all arguments could amount to is that the US should execute people differently. This doesn’t achieve the conclusion that the death penalty is morally evil. I think the US is evil for not using it, but I’m more interested in the fact that it is a moral practice at all.”Unimportant side note — you can’t amend the constitution in such a way that it can’t be changed. The whole point is that it can be changed.”

 

I assume that we both recognize the bill of rights can be (in theory) amended, but I doubt that anyone thought entire sections of the bill of rights can be abolished. I assume they thought this was an unchanging part of the constitution. It only could be extended or fully realized (13th,14th,15th amendments). I am not dedicated to a document of human creation that doesn’t affirm the personhood of the unborn. I think these are unchanging and necessary for even the notion of a right. So, I think the constitution ought to define human beings as to know what actually has rights in this country.” More importantly — this is an extremely dangerous idea.”

 

In the words of Darkwing Duck “Let’s Get Dangerous”.”If the government is allowed to determine when someone is no longer a human being, think what can happen with the wrong government. What if they decide disabled people aren’t human? Or people of a certain race or faith? Basically, you could get Nazi Germany. I’m not saying anything this drastic would happen, but it would open the door to all sorts of evils.”

 

I don’t mean to offend you, but this is a moment to smell the roses because we live in that kind of government. It is called slavery and abortion. The government already decides who they protect and allow to die. Abortion is the genocide of the lab and the American baby murderers celebrate it. I’m suggesting Christians have the exclusive right because God has told us that humans start in the womb. These genocidal maniacs who murder children for personal convenience ought to be persecuted by the state. Instead, they run the government.

“This entails we can’t trust convictions of life imprisonment as well because these are all applicable to those sentences as well. “ “Of course. It does. There are widespread problems in our sentencing system. This is another reason not to use the death penalty. An unjust prison sentence can be changed, but death cannot be undone.”

 

This means we should not have anyone condemned by the government, because of biases and so forth. This means we should have no form of punishment. The issue is that means your view is inherently at odds with any form of justice.


MM said:

I can’t really agree with these points for the most part. After all, with any action that has serious consequences, we must see if the good of the action outweighs the bad. We must see if the costs (not just monetary ones of course) are less than the benefits. I still hold that, even assuming the death penalty were justifiable, it would be unjustifiable to use such large sums of money as are currently used in the US for capital punishment for it, given the many good things we could use the money for instead. And one can’t forget that there are many other costs, in particular the moral and mental strains on those involved — the doctors, the prison personnel, etc. There have been studies showing that many have lasting health effects from carrying out executions. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/talking-about-trauma/201810/prison-executioners-face-job-related-trauma%3famp) This article is just one example showing this.

Again, I think it’s a bit odd to be using Kim Jong-Un as an example here because we can’t really compare him to most people on death row in America. It’s a bit like comparing, say, Julius Caesar to Biden — they were both leaders of powerful nations but that doesn’t mean they have anything in common. I have found essentially no evidence suggesting that capital punishment actually deters murder. (An interesting article: https://math.dartmouth.edu/~lamperti/my%20DP%20paper,%20current%20edit.htm)
“If execution isn’t sufficient to stop wickedness, then nothing really will.” If this is true, then it stands to reason that there is no useful purpose in executing people. And how exactly would it stop wickedness? It would stop the evil career of one individual (an individual who has the potential to turn his life around, with God’s help, and do great good) but it will have no “purifying” effect on the rest of the population.
 
“The issue with this is that all arguments could amount to is that the US should execute people differently. This doesn’t achieve the conclusion that the death penalty is morally evil. I think the US is evil for not using it, but I’m more interested in the fact that it is a moral practice at all. ” This is true, of course, but it was still worth mentioning because, although I am of course against the death penalty in all circumstances unless there were no other option for some bizarre reason, I was at this point just showing some of the flaws in how the death penalty is applied in the US.
I think we can skip the constitutional argument because it’s not really part of our discussion. (Although I, too, believe that the constitution should be amended to clearly define the unborn as persons with rights.)
About being dangerous– of course, I don’t object to things being dangerous, provided that there is a good and clear reason for the danger.
I don’t think your next argument here quite makes sense (or rather, I think you may have understood my previous arguments differently than I meant them, which could be my fault). I didn’t say (or mean, at least)  that the government isn’t allowed to point out certain people who very clearly are people and say “you have full rights as a human being.” Obviously it was necessary to amend the constitution, for instance, to give people of color voting rights. I would also have nothing against an amendment to protect the rights of the unborn. I only meant that the government is not allowed to point out someone who was previously defined as a person, (and is a person,) and say “you no longer have the rights of a human being.”
 
“This means we should not have anyone condemned by the government, because of biases and so forth. This means we should have no form of punishment. The issue is that means your view is inherently at odds with any form of justice. “ No, not at all. It means instead that we can’t use an irrevocable punishment, such as death. (And in most cases, life without parole as well.) It is inevitable that there will be mistakes in a justice system. Therefore, we can’t use the ultimate punishment because we can’t rectify it if an innocent person is executed.


VincenttheFakeGregBahnsen said:


“I can’t really agree with these points for the most part. After all, with any action that has serious consequences, we must see if the good of the action outweighs the bad. We must see if the costs (not just monetary ones of course) are less than the benefits. I still hold that, even assuming the death penalty were justifiable, it would be unjustifiable to use such large sums of money as are currently used in the US for capital punishment for it, given the many good things we could use the money for instead. And one can’t forget that there are many other costs, in particular the moral and mental strains on those involved — the doctors, the prison personnel, etc. There have been studies showing that many have lasting health effects from carrying out executions.”

I agree that the cost is high. Of course, in the time of the welfare state, they don’t compare to US programs. I can only point out that our moral beliefs will drive what costs we find utterly unacceptable and those we are okay with. The cost of most government institutions is acceptable, but I find it arbitrarily pointed out that the cost of the death penalty is just to ignore all the fiscal troubles of state-run programs or prisons.

The psychological costs are just a sad result. It is like that of US soldiers that returned from WW2. It doesn’t show that fighting the murderous regimes of the Germans and Japanese wasn’t truly their obligation but is just the casualties of sin.

” Again, I think it’s a bit odd to be using Kim Jong-Un as an example here because we can’t really compare him to most people on death row in America. It’s a bit like comparing, say, Julius Caesar to Biden — they were both leaders of powerful nations but that doesn’t mean they have anything in common. I have found essentially no evidence suggesting that capital punishment actually deters murder.”

I think comparisons between leaders are an apt comparison because it shows you what truly drives human beings. I accept any valid comparisons. Because human nature hasn’t changed, mankind is still evil and acts on their desires. The threat of pain and death has always motivated the acts of human beings. Even bloodthirsty ones like N. Korea’s leadership.

Secondly, the OT states that God implemented in Israel as a deterrent. This shows that it can be used as a deterrent.

The other issue is that it seems to me that these studies can only rely on testimony, while that has some value. We really can’t look into a person’s mind to truly ascertain the person’s motivation. These are private mental states.

” “If execution isn’t sufficient to stop wickedness, then nothing really will.” If this is true, then it stands to reason that there is no useful purpose in executing people. And how exactly would it stop wickedness? It would stop the evil career of one individual (an individual who has the potential to turn his life around, with God’s help, and do great good) but it will have no “purifying” effect on the rest of the population. “

I agree that if executions can’t stop sinfulness, then no punishment will. But this means all forms of punishment are useless unless one accepts the fact that the death penalty is a deterrence to some degree. I recommend you listen to Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s lecture on capital punishment. It would deter and stop evildoers. It doesn’t utterly deter, but neither does any form of deterrence. Deterrence only means it gives rational agents reasons to not act or believe certain things. I also think God blesses nations that follow his commands.

” “The issue with this is that all arguments could amount to is that the US should execute people differently. This doesn’t achieve the conclusion that the death penalty is morally evil. I think the US is evil for not using it, but I’m more interested in the fact that it is a moral practice at all. ” This is true, of course, but it was still worth mentioning because, although I am of course against the death penalty in all circumstances unless there were no other option for some bizarre reason, I was at this point just showing some of the flaws in how the death penalty is applied in the US. “

I agree. Even though, I think the claims of systemic racism are mythical and have no basis in reality.

“I think we can skip the constitutional argument because it’s not really part of our discussion. (Although I, too, believe that the constitution should be amended to clearly define the unborn as persons with rights.)

About being dangerous– of course, I don’t object to things being dangerous, provided that there is a good and clear reason for the danger.

I don’t think your next argument here quite makes sense (or rather, I think you may have understood my previous arguments differently than I meant them, which could be my fault). I didn’t say (or mean, at least)  that the government isn’t allowed to point out certain people who very clearly are people and say “you have full rights as a human being.” Obviously it was necessary to amend the constitution, for instance, to give people of color voting rights. I would also have nothing against an amendment to protect the rights of the unborn. I only meant that the government is not allowed to point out someone who was previously defined as a person, (and is a person,) and say “you no longer have the rights of a human being.” “

I agree they shouldn’t. Legally, the government can do such. That is just because the constitution is an enlightenment document not grounded in the God of the Bible. That was their mistake as times change people will take new notions and wicked ones will arise and merely reinterpret or ignore the constitution (this is what Post-modernism did since the ’70s).

 

One thought on “Should we Abolish the Death Penalty? Practical Arguments”

  1. Pingback: Should we Abolish the Death Penalty? Biblical Arguments - The Council

Leave a comment