Death Penalty: The Philosophy of Killing Criminals

Black Swan

"Whoever has committed murder, must die," contended Immanuel Kant in The Metaphysics of Morals. In contrast to this position, the European Union is "opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances and has agreed to campaign for its universal abolition. That stance is rooted in our belief in the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person."

Threads that have addressed the death penalty (i.e., capital punishment) have appeared several times on boards.ie in past years. Most have been straw polls on the opinions of posters that were for or against this form of punishment. In this thread it is hoped that we can focus more upon the philosophy of the death penalty, citing sources in support of our arguments.

To begin our discussion, in reviewing the literature on the death penalty, one of the areas that drew the least amount of discussion was the role and related philosophy of the executioner.

Joseph de Maistre viewed humans as passionate creatures tempted to evil, and that the executioner was essential to the maintenance of social order. This executioner, according to Augustine in De Civitate Dei, is "One who owes a duty of obedience to the giver of the command does not himself kill; he is an instrument, a sword in its user's hand."

To what extent does this objectification of the executioner allow those in favour of the death penalty to distance themselves from the fact that they are asking a person to kill another? Further, when demanding an execution, do they consider the personal consequences that may affect the executioner?

Abbe Maury in Arasse, The Guillotine and the Terror, notes some of these personal consequences, as well as questioning the motive of one who would become an executioner:

“The exclusion of public executioners [from society] is not founded on a mere prejudice. It is in the heart of all good men to shudder at the sight of one who assassinates his fellow man in cold blood. The law requires this deed, it is said, but does the law command anyone to become a hangman?”

These very personal consequences were shared by one contemporary day executioner:

“Nothing, however, could prepare me for what I saw and felt when I supervised my first execution. There is nothing commonplace about walking a healthy young man to a room, strapping him into a chair, and coldly, methodically killing him… I stood there, worried about what my wife and children and my friends would think of me. But most of all, I wondered if my God would forgive me.”

Although some may favour the death penalty based upon the heinous crimes of the offender, the serious injuries done to the victims, or the threats to a peaceful society, how can they at the same time and in good conscience ask an innocent person to assume the role and personal consequences of becoming an executioner?

References:

• Abbe Maury in Arasse, The Guillotine and the Terror, quoted in Applbaum, A.I. (1999), Ethics for Adversaries: The Morality of Roles in Public and Professional Life, Princeton University Press, p. 21.
• Cabana, D.A. (1996). Death at Midnight: The Confession of an Executioner. Northeastern University Press.
• European Union, No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, as Amended by protocol No. 11.
• http://www.eurunion.org/eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1966&Itemid=26
• Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Mary Gregor, New York, Cambridge University press.

Joe1919

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

.........how can they at the same time and in good conscience ask an innocent person to assume the role and personal consequences of becoming an executioner?

I dont think this guy (Pierrepoint) had any problem with his job as hangman and could be quite boastful about this at times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint

If I can remember correctly, there were many applications for the job of shooting Gary Gilmore.
This article refers to the executionars as volunteers. Note that one blank bullet was used ( to add an element of doubt in the executioners mind that he possibily was the one with the blank bullet and hence did not kill)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_firing_squad

There are societies and situations (e.g. during wars) when the resources are not available to lock up people and it may be expedient and convenient, as well seen as necessary from the point of view of keeping order, to execute.

Hence, I can not give an absolute or definite argument against execution. It all depends on the situation I guess.........no clear formulae, a matter of practical wisdom (Aristotle)

Cork24

we had the Death penalty up till 1964 but if some one killed a Member of the State he could have faced the Death penalty It was up till 2001 Irish Law Article 28. that the Death Penalty was banned.
the last person to die under law was in 1954. Albert Pierrepoint Traveled from England to Hang Michael Manning.


international agreements forbidding the death penalty. These include Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights. which forbids capital punishment even during time of War.

The Capital Punishment (Ireland) Act 1842 she never be passed..

I dont Study Law, but why would some one want Death Penalty be in place? only some Roman Catholic living in 1800's would think of only something like this. Ireland was a scary place living in Fear under the Church. we do not want that here again..

Goduznt Xzst

In regards to the Executioner, the results from the "Milgram Experiment" should be relevant in regards to how we obey Authority Figures.

I'd imagine the mentality of an Executioner is no different to that of a front line Soldier, a person who assembles bombs... etc.
They are all actively involved in the business of killing humans but their conscience can justify it as they are not directly making the decision to have those people killed.

krd

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Joseph de Maistre viewed humans as passionate creatures tempted to evil, and that the executioner was essential to the maintenance of social order. This executioner, according to Augustine in De Civitate Dei, is "One who owes a duty of obedience to the giver of the command does not himself kill; he is an instrument, a sword in its user's hand.

Can you present an example of a single jurisdiction where execution is currently required for the maintenance of social order?

There are actually plenty. And executions are regularly carried out in parts of the world purely for the sake of maintaining social order.

It's important not to get confused. An immediate existential threat and a threat to the "social order" are two different things.

We would assume, that it is just to kill as a means of defence when faced with an existential threat. A threat to the social order is a little trickier.

Here, if we catch criminals, we don't need to execute them or chop off their hands - we can lock them up. The social order is protected. We can give well paid and high status positions to our police and jailers. Criminality here, is a nuisance. It's not a threat to our existence or to the social order.

In a country like Saudi Arabia - things like adultery or premarital sex - or women acting independently are threats to the social order. So, to maintain the "social order" every year scores of women are beheaded or occasionally stoned to death. The understanding is that a threat to the social order is an existential threat - so killing these women is justified.

If Suadi women were allowed marry and have sex with whoever they liked - Saudi society would change (break down).



It's a believe that integrity of the social order is absolutely essential for the maintenance of existence. And you don't need to go to Saudi to find these examples. Contraception was illegal in Ireland for a very long time - because the backward people who dominated the country believed it was threat to the social order (and to there existence). Backward people always interpret any innovation as a threat to their existence.

krd

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'd imagine the mentality of an Executioner is no different to that of a front line Soldier, a person who assembles bombs... etc.
They are all actively involved in the business of killing humans but their conscience can justify it as they are not directly making the decision to have those people killed.

The I was only following orders defence. It didn't fly in Nuremberg.

And I believe under British or US law - if a soldier commits a war crime under orders of senior officer, the soldier is still considered legally culpable.

Some, shtty legal advice I was once given by a sleazy weasel of an Irish solicitor. Supposedly, if a director of a company directs an employee to do something illegal, and the employee breaks the law - then only the company director is liable. Technically this is truish. In reality - the employee will be 100% liable for any criminal act and the company director will walk away scot free.

The same rules applied to Nuremberg. Junior officers received stiffer sentences (the rope )than many of the senior officers who had directed them. There was a class dimension to this too - middle-class German war criminals escaped with short sentences. Working class officers were hung - pour encourager les autres. And the same applies to the application of the death penalty around the world - apparently it's only ever needed as a deterrent to deter working class people.

In regards to the Executioner, the results from the "Milgram Experiment" should be relevant in regards to how we obey Authority Figures.

Milgram's experiment was a psychological experiment - it does not provide moral or ethical absolution to anyone.

Like a child can't use the defence of 'everyone else was doing it' or their best friend told them to do it.

Milgram's experiment shows, that his sample group at the time had an unhealthy respect for authority. A respect that would push most of them as far as killing at the request of authority.

Authority in itself is not justice. Power in itself is not justice.

Eric Hoffer's suggested prophylactic against tyranny is a healthy disregard for authority.

Just because someone else made you do something bad, does not absolve you. The right thing for you to do was to resist. To act morally is to suffer the consequences of resisting the power of the immoral or amoral.

If you've ever done something wrong because an authority figure put you up to it, you're even more culpable than they were. As you've failed to resist and you have committed wrong doing.

Manach

Cork24 wrote: »

I dont Study Law, but why would some one want Death Penalty be in place? only some Roman Catholic living in 1800's would think of only something like this. Ireland was a scary place living in Fear under the Church. we do not want that here again..

Firstly, thanks for working that gratutious attack on the Church into an argument where it is off-topic.

On topic, based on a series of pod-casts by Jonaton Simon. He himself does not favour the death penalty but introduces some thinkers that support it as a means of social stability, to display a spectacle of the state's power. Durkheim was mentioned in this context.
As well, the execution of Timotity McVeigh was held up as an exception as the ideal use of state capitial execution power where certain individuals go beyond the societal norms.

BTW: AFAIK for company crimes the UK introduced the Companies Homicide Act 2007 to specificy target companies whose actions lead to dead - through gross neglience (in partial response to the the "Herald of Free Enterprise").
As well, vicarious tort means that employers are in most cases reponsible for the actions of their employess in non-fatal offences.

carltoniII

bs meananderings especially krd when u consider how much paper work goes into each case of crime. there are a number of mitigating factors. trying to blame individuals for societies faults is stupid. i know loads of people who were naive and vulnerable when young and they were duly abused by people who should have known better. the damage is incalculable and some get over it some end up in jail/institutions whos to blame there?
if you want your kids to grow up in a extreme religious society then go to saudi arabia. in the west its called homeschooling. for the saudis stance towards women, in that region just think how many innocents people die. its universal u know death.

Linkus

Could a similar point not be made about Prison Guards?

They could sit in a visiting room, watching as the wife of an inmate brings in their child.
That child might never see her father in their house again.
That child could grow up without a father by her side.
The father might as well be dead when you consider his contribution to the family as a whole.

That Prison guard will no doubt see all this, and probably far more dramatic and emotional incidents.
That guard may see the same inmate, and numerous more, every day till the inmate is an old man. The same knowledge that his family is without him will not doubt come back multiple times.

Is the man who guards the inmate and suffers for 30+ years doing so in a worse position than the man who pushes a button and kills a man, yet does not see the man ever again?

Both men may have families who now lack a father. Both men may never see the world outside again.
Yet the one who is dead immediately will not be a reminder to all those around him and will be gone.

I know there's a lack of studies or otherwise evidence here but it's mostly based on simple logic.
Is a large wound that may go away quickly worse than a smaller wound that may never go away?

silverharp

I'd be in favour of something along the Weregild system of old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild


THe death penality seems to be more about the exercise of power by the state/king/dictator rarther then being grounded in any real concept of justice.

Cork24

silverharp wrote: »

I'd be in favour of something along the Weregild system of old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild


THe death penality seems to be more about the exercise of power by the state/king/dictator rarther then being grounded in any real concept of justice.

Sounds like a good system to be put in place

Drumpot

Its funny how the death penalty gets discussed and is certainly a debatable topic . .

Let me simplify some things :

- If somebody intentionally killed or raped my children/wife/family I would consider them worthy of the death penalty whether the state thinks or not . .

Had to write that because there is a common belief that the state has a moral authority over peoples grief . . I dont promote anarchy, but I certainly believe that the greater goods interest overrides that of those who are nuts or simply not capable of integrating in a reasonable way . .

What is reasonable ? Well , not having the compulsion to kill or rape on tap . .

Im sick of bleeding heart liberals accepting that people deserve this or that . . There are some things that are absolute and some people that dont deserve a second chance . . If you are willing to put peoples lives at harm for your own personal gain or religious beliefs etc, then you dont deserve the same rights as everybody else . .