Current moral study guide Van Den HaagI. Distribution Believes death penalty is harshest punishment Even if there were equal distribution between races , it would not make it moral Discrimination does not provide a reason to abolish the death penalty Misdistribution does not occur more in capital punishment than in any other punishment Although the maldistribution between the innocent and the guilty is unjust, nearly all human activities kill some innocent bystanders but none of these practices are outlawed\ Guilt is strictly personal, the punishment should be based on whether they deserve it Justice and inequality are separate issues, also equality is morally less important than justice Also adds that murderers of white are thought to be more likely to be executed than murderers of blacks but black victims are less fully vindicated than white ones. Most black murderes kill blacks so therefore black murderers are spared the death penalty more often than white murderers II. Miscarriage of Justice All human activities cost the lives of innocent bystanders but we do not give up these activities because the advantages outweigh the unintended losses III. Deterrence No conclusive statistical evidence that demonstrates that the death penalty is a better deterrent than are alternative punishments Most abolitionist acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than the alternatives would deter Adds that abolitionist seem to value life of convicted murderer more highly than they value the lives of innocent victims that might be spared by deterring prospective murderers He adds that he would favor the retention of the death penalty as retribution even if it were shown that the threat of execution could not deter prospective murderes not already deterred by the threat of punishment Uses common sense/ intuitive argument“Some men, probably, abstain from murder because they fear that they would be hanged. Hundreds of thousands abstain from it because they regard it with horror. One great reason why they regard it with horror is that murders are hanged. Severity and finality of death penalty is appropriate to the seriousness and finality of murder IV. Incidental Issues: Cost, Relative Suffering, Brutalization He argues that the argument that capital sentence is more costly than life prisoners is flawed because they assume that life prisoners will not incur any more judicial costs during their imprisonment Others say that a person sentenced to death suffers more than the victim suffers and that excess suffering is undue according to lex taliones ( rule of retaliation) but this was meant to restrain private vengeance not social retribution Punishment is to vindicate the law and social order undermined by the crime Says that Beccaria argued that by killing a murdered we encourage or legitimize unlawful killing. Van Den Haag argues Imprisonment is not thought to legitimize kidnapping neither are fines thought to legitimize robbery V. Justice, Excess, and Degradation Said that by committing a crime the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime so the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal. There are two moral objections. One is that it is morally degrading He argues that to regard the death penalty as excessive one must believe that no crime not matter how heinous could justify capital punishment Justice Brennan insisted that it is inhumane but he does not say why he thinks justice in uncivilized. He adds that it has been disregarded in western Europe because it has become unfashionable because of the abuse by the totalitarian regimes Kant and others have insisted that when deserved execution affirms his rationality and responsibility for the crime and is required for the sake of the convict’s dignity The self degradation is self inflicted because he has murdered and therefore his fellow men have expelled him from the community of the living. He says that executions of those who have murdered may deter only one murder per year if it does is seems warrant and is the only fitting retribution he can think of Reinman There are two arguments A majority of Americans feel deeply that justice requires payment in kind that thus murderers should die Others feel that the state ought not be in the business of putting people to death Provides argument to the abolishment of the death penalty that although the death penalty is a just punishment for murder, abolition of the death penalty is part of the civilizing mission of the united states I. Just Deserts and Just Punishment Believes that death penalty is a just punishment for murder Explain proportional retributivism- ex worst crime is punished with societies worst punishment Standard problem of those trying to justify retributivism is that is seems to serve no purpose than to hurt the offender back this seems primitive So you have to show that it serves more of a purpose A torturer should not be brought close to death and then revived to be killed again if he committed several murders So proportional retributivism should be matched with more morally acceptable punishments Progress in civilization is characterized by lower tolerance for one’s pain and suffering of others Reasons for doubting common sense 1. Death Penalty vs. Life without parole- have to show that death penalty deters more ppl than life without parole 2. There are more guns in America than the number of households so the person is already taking a risk of ending up dead so whoever is not already deterred by this would not be deterred by the death penalty 3. Refusal to execute even those who deserve it has a civilizing effect then the refusal to execute teaches a lesson about the wrongfulness of murder Answers Van Van Haag’s argument by saying that even if some potential murderers will be deterred by the prospect of the death penalty, if there is a deterrent affect by not executing than this effect will be balanced out. So you will risk innocent lives either way 4. Uses Reductio Ad Absurdum If A is right, then B is right B is unacceptable Therefore something must be wrong with A (A cant be right) Van Dan Haag The most feared punishment is the best deterrent Dp is more feared than life without parole We should use that punishment which is the beset deterrent Therefore we should use the death penalty * If you replace death penalty with by slow torture than it seems incomprehensible that we would do that He adds that until we have conclusive evidence that capital punishment is a greater deterrent to murder than life imprisonment he must grant either that we should not follow common sense and not impose the death penalty or we should follow the common sense and torture murderers to death
