Transcript Document

Death Penalty
Soazig Le Bihan - University of
Montana
1
Outline
1. Dead Man Walking
2. The morality of punishment
3. Death Penalty and Deterrence
4. Death Penalty and Human Dignity
2
Outline
1. Dead Man Walking
2. The morality of punishment
3. Death Penalty and Deterrence
4. Death Penalty and Human Dignity
3
Dead Man Walking
View of human beings
Views on Death Penalty
4
Outline
1. Dead Man Walking
2. The morality of punishment
3. Death Penalty and Deterrence
4. Death Penalty and Human Dignity
5
The Morality of Punishment
Four ways of justifying punishment:
1.
Retribution
DUTY THEORIES
1.
2.
3.
Deterrence
Rehabilitation
Reconciliation
UTILITARIANISM
6
The Morality of Punishment:
Utilitarianism
Punishment and making the world a better place for
everybody concerned:
(U) Punishing a criminal is right because it has beneficial
consequences, in particular, that fewer crimes will be
perpetrated.
Conditions for a just – i.e. efficient – punishment:
(U1) Applied consistently
(U2) Applied quickly
Example: Cheating
7
The Morality of Punishment:
Duty Theory
Retribution and Respect:
(DT) Punishing a criminal is right because it is the only
way in which we can respect her as a rational,
autonomous agent
Two Principles for a just punishment:
(DT1) Punish only the guilty
(DT2) Punish in proportion to the offense: lex talionis
Ex: stealing
8
The Morality of Punishment:
Conclusion
UTILITARIANISM
DUTY THEORY
Justification
Consequences
Principles
Requirements
Efficiency
Justice
 Application: to what extent is death penalty
justified?
9
Outline
1. Dead Man Walking
2. The morality of punishment
3. Death Penalty and Deterrence
4. Death Penalty and Human Dignity
10
Death Penalty and Deterrence
The Facts
Facts: At best not conclusive:
- Social Studies: Some argue that it saves lives / Some
argue that the number of capital crimes increases after
an execution
- Checking for ourselves
Compare Canada / France and US
Compare North and South Dakota
 Whether or not death penalty serves as a good
deterrent is far from clear
11
Death Penalty and Deterrence
The Arguments
Bedau:
A punishment is just, i.e. effective as deterrent, only if:
(U1) Applied consistently
(U2) Applied quickly
(U3) The crimes are deliberated
 What about cases involving death penalty?
12
Death Penalty and Deterrence
More Facts
(U1) violated: Unfair Distribution
Race / Gender / Wealth
(U2) violated: Extremely long procedures
And for good reasons!
(U3) violated: Most murders are not deliberated
Passion / Accident
 Death Penalty cannot be a good deterrent
Death Penalty is not right from a utilitarian point of
view
13
Death Penalty and Deterrence
The Arguments
Van den Haag’s answer on unfair distribution:
That a punishment is unfairly distributed does not make the
punishment unjust: It is always just to punish the
guilty – Guilt is personal!
Van den Haag’s general answer on deterrence:
Admits that there is no conclusive evidence
But claims that this is not the point!
 Can Death Penalty be justified from a Kantian
point of view?
14
Outline
1. Dead Man Walking
2. The morality of punishment
3. Death Penalty and Deterrence
4. Death Penalty and Human Dignity
15
Death Penalty and Human Dignity
The Argument
Van den Haag:
“Execution, when deserved, is required for the sake of the
convict’s dignity”
Reminder: Two Principles for a just punishment:
(DT1) Punish only the guilty
(DT2) Punish in proportion to the offense: lex talionis
 How does Death Penalty do regarding such
principles?
16
Death Penalty and Human Dignity
The Facts about Wrongful Convictions
Facts: 245 post-conviction DNA exonerations since 1989
17
Death Penalty and Human Dignity
The Arguments on Wrongful Convictions
Bedau:
Because errors are inevitable,
we should not apply any
irreversible punishment
Van den Haag’s answer:
SO BE IT!
The moral benefits will
outweigh the cost of
innocents’ being killed
 Van den Haag: some criminals deserve death
penalty.
18
Death Penalty and Human Dignity
The Significance of the Lex Talionis
Understanding the lex talionis: Two interpretations:
(I1) A scale of punishments, corresponding to a scale of
offences
(I2) Exact pay back?
(I2) cannot be true:
Raping the rapist? Killing all the family members of the
one who murdered the family of someone? Killing an
entire community…?
 The Lex Talionis is about a SCALE, not about
exact payback.
19
Death Penalty and Human Dignity
The Significance of the Lex Talionis
What should be the upper limit of the scale?
Painful Death? Non-painful Death? Life sentence? 30
years? 20 years?
 Duty Theory does not tell us!
 Duty Theory does not justify death penalty
20
Death Penalty and Human Dignity
The Moral Integrity of the Executioners
Appeal to virtue ethics:
What kind of person do we want to be?
What kind of punishment makes us lose our moral
integrity?
 There is no doubt that awful people deserve awful
treatment. But what kind of punishment do we
want to be responsible for?
21
Outline
CONCLUSION !
22
Conclusion:
Is Death Penalty morally right?
1. From the point of view of Utilitarianism:
There is no convincing evidence or argument that
applying death penalty has beneficial
consequences:
- Unfair distribution
- Slow procedures
- No premeditation most of the time
23
Conclusion:
Is Death Penalty morally right?
2. From the point of view of Duty Theory
Duty Theory does not support death penalty either:
- Problem of Wrongful Convictions
- Duty Theory justifies that a proportionate punishment
be applied, but does not tell us about what the
highest level punishment should be
Your call!
24