Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Why Do We Kill People Who Kill People to Show That Killing People Is Wrong?”

« Nguyatcher Nguyenners | Main | Shades of the Cuban Missile Crisis »

June 11, 2007

Why Do We Kill People Who Kill People to Show That Killing People Is Wrong?

Hatched by Dafydd

Yes, another entry in the infamous list of "Questions that answer themselves." (It made a cool velvet black-light poster back in the 1960s, however.)

Even easier if we reinsert the adjectives that were stripped out to fabricate a pseudoargument: Why do we kill evil people who kill innocent people to show that killing innocent people is wrong? Duh...

I suppose most of you will be startled right out of your falsies to learn that criminologists and economists, who are best able to evaluate the difficult statistics in such studies, have by and large agreed that the evidence is conclusive: Executing murderers really does save lives:

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations - pointing out flaws in the justice system - has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument - whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

I have always believed (since I was 11 or 12) that the moral argument in favor of capital punishment was by far most convincing to me: If you take an innocent life, or at least a life that you had no just cause to take, then your own life is forfeit; regardless of the deterrance value, it is the only coin valuable enough to pay for your evil deed. That always seemed self-evident to me.

But it is nice to know there is a practical advantage, as well. I always suspected it, but now we're starting to see clear and convincing proof.

In days of yore, the unlawful taking of a human life could oft be expiated by paying money, "weregeld" (literally, man-gold) to the victim's kin or tribe, mostly to prevent a bloody clan feud that could last for generations.

But in those days, the individual life was worth less than it is today. A person had value mostly as an ordinal number, not a cardinal number -- for the slot he filled in society rather than any intrinsic value he held as a person. Thus, it was possible to calculate how much gold was required to replace him.

But today, especially in our individualist society, we value people for their uniqueness and irreplaceability, and no amount of money fully makes up for the loss. Thus, the only punishment that is not an offensively gross underestimation of the crime is the execution of the murderer.

(When the intent is less than murder, so too is the crime; I don't support the death penalty for negligent homicide or even manslaughter.)

Naturally, there are other factors in saving lives by executing murderers: Sureness and swiftness of punishment can dramatically improve deterrance:

Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

Thus, if murderers spent only 3 years on death row before being fried instead of 20 years, each execution might save 25 lives, rather than a scant 18 lives. But don't expect any actual, you know, science to make a dent in the liberal braincase; they love to cite scientists in the global-warming debate -- assuming the scientists are reliably supportive of the wild guesses of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; but woe betide you if you dare cite actual scientists on such a moral issue as capital punishment:

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive." [Where "inconclusive" is here defined as "tending towards a conclusion we really, really hate.]

Still, at least a few liberal (in a sense) legal scholars are having, if not a dark night of the soul, at least some nights tossing and moaning with "restless brain syndrome." Cass Sunstein, for example:

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

So take heart; if other criminological battles (over carrying a concealed weapon, e.g.) define the norm, then in only a few decades, legislatures will finally start admitting that there really can occasionally be a scientific answer to a scientific question, even if it touches upon some critical aspect of the vision of the anointed.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 11, 2007, at the time of 1:23 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2166

Comments

The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

The Carnegie delicatessan murders occurred in Manhattan where the D.A. has made it clear that he will never ask for the death penalty. In those murders, the killers snuffed out five lives to prevent witnesses. I have always thought that the D.A. effectively killed those poor people.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens at June 11, 2007 6:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: habu

I just talked with an Eric @ Grassroots which is a spinoff of the NRA.

I mentioned to him that we celebrate our Bill of Rights in many tangible, overt ways. We blog, write letters to editors,practice the religion we want., etc.

However the 2nd amendment that secures all the others is a day we do not demonstrably celebrate. Gun ownership was so important it was the second amendment passed.

I suggested that on a day such as the 4th of July gun owners shoulder their weapons and carry them *EMPTY* to the local parade, or to the State Capitol , or to the City Hall. Long guns only.

It is a powerful visual image. I don't know how many gun owners there are in the USA but if 10% or 20% participated the numbers would be in the millions.

The message. That we are willing to exercise all of our rights as citizens,

especially the one that protects all the others.

Let the press cover that story! And our enemies take note.

The above hissed in response by: habu at June 11, 2007 7:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

Most interesting. I'm deeply divided on the death penalty. On the one hand, I also think that it acts as a deterrent, but I worry about the quality of both prosecutors and defense attorneys. For years that has made me reluctant to embrace the death penalty because there are simply too many cases where the courts have gotten it wrong and innocent people have been wrongly convicted. And it is quite obvious that once you execute a person it is very difficult to do much in the way of apologizing or offering any restitution to that person for wrongly convicting him. Now, if the studies hold true, there is at least some benefit from executing the wrong person. While that is of little consolation to the person executed and his family, the benefit to society helps mitigate the injustice of it for the rest of us.

Some related thoughts. I would like to see legislation passed that would hold those in law enforcement to much higher standards than the rest of us. For example, the Atlanta policemen who lied to get the search warrants for Kathryn Johnston should have been tried for aggravated murder, and if found guilty punished as such. If deterrence works at all, then the penalties for those in law enforcement need to be so high that they will make it a point not to violate the law. I'm not sure what the penalty should be for someone like Mike Nifong, but it needs to be high enough to where all prosecutors will think more than once about how they proceed. The sad fact is that there are far too many instances of those in law enforcement being part of the problem rather than the solution. Yet we need to be careful and make sure we don't overreact to mistakes because we are all guilty of making them. However, the two cases I've cited seem far more than simple mistakes.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz at June 11, 2007 8:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

It might surprise you Dafydd, but I'm one of those Anti-Capital Punishment absolutists. Call me one of the anointed who has had a vision if you must... but I base my decision on logic.

The US Declaration of Independence cites the point that certain unalienable Rights are granted by our Creator. The US Constitution bases it's restrictions upon Congress in the Bill of Rights on the basis that Congress has no power to overturn that which is decided by a Higher Authority.

I'm not a legal scholar, but I believe that the Declaration is correct in that one of the things granted us by our Creator is "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and if the Higher Authority has granted Life, what power allows our Government to overturn that act?

I like O'Reilly's plan to incarcerate folks in a prison until Death. But I don't support that Death caused by the State.

The idea that an execution prevents further murders is plausible, I haven't read the study. But would incarceration until Death remove the romantic 'Bad Boy' image and become even MORE of a deterrent? If deterrents are to become an overriding factor in our legal decision making process, can we honestly continue to allow individuals to drive their cars on the open roads without a Death Penalty for causing a death behind the wheel? Certainly thousands of lives could be saved...

If that's the most important goal, all KINDS of changes can be made to our Society...

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at June 11, 2007 8:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

I think you can make a factual argument that someone who is executed for murder will at the least never, ever kill again.

And that has some unmitigable value in itself, does it not?

Wasn't it just last year (or was it two?) that those guys on death row got out and killed a few guards on their way by?

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 at June 11, 2007 12:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

More foolish laws of mankind. From the moment each human is born, that same human starts to die...so to speak of a rather simple fact. Only mankind could come up with a law that makes it illegal to kill an already dying human.

It is OK, under mankind’s laws to chop up cows and chickens, to mow over 100’s of thousands of blades of grass in one mowing, to rip innocent tomatoes from their vines and then devour them or boil them or mash them, etc.; however, kill (AKA “MURDER!”) one human, and you are labeled a “criminal”!?!

Such are the Ways of mankind’s laws…

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at June 11, 2007 12:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mikey

By the same token, Mr. Michael, the Declaration also speaks of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness being granted by our creator. What power permits our Government to curtail those acts by imprisoning someone?

The above hissed in response by: Mikey at June 11, 2007 12:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Mr. Michael:

I'm not a legal scholar, but I believe that the Declaration is correct in that one of the things granted us by our Creator is "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and if the Higher Authority has granted Life, what power allows our Government to overturn that act?

By that same reasoning, what power allows our government to overturn the divine grant of liberty? To be consistent, if you argue from the Declaration against capital punishment (which the Founders embraced), mustn't you also argue against incarceration?

(Ah, I see Mikey beat me to it!)

If deterrents are to become an overriding factor in our legal decision making process, can we honestly continue to allow individuals to drive their cars on the open roads without a Death Penalty for causing a death behind the wheel? Certainly thousands of lives could be saved...

Nobody ever argued that deterrence was to be the only factor; this is a straw-man argument. There is also the requirement of a mens rea. And yes, anybody who deliberately and maliciously kills using a car should get the death penalty, if there are special circumstances: The choice of weapon should not exonerate the murderer.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 11, 2007 1:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

The choice of weapon should not exonerate the murderer.

Well, what if the weapon were particularly creative? Like, say, harsh invective spiced with a side of cheese that the guy was allergic to?

I, for one, am all for mitigating punishment on a "style point" system. ;)

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 at June 11, 2007 1:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Argh - in finally. Not sure why but typekey booted my sorry butt ages ago. Probably tried one too many times to log in from a remote location. You would think Al Gore could have invented a better set-up.

By I digress. Or regress. I'm certainly gressing in some direction. Where was I?

Cap punishment - I never understood why it wasn't swiftly and absolutely applied in all cases where there was little doubt as to the perp. Say someone confesses, or is caught on film performing the crime, or is linked to the crime by so much circumstantial evidence as to be irrefutable. Fast and swift. That should yeild enough of a deterrent on the rest.

When there is doubt, real doubt, them capitol punishment should be off the table. Who can argue with that?

The above hissed in response by: Big D at June 11, 2007 7:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: RFYoung

The social concept, before it was distorted by bleeding hearts, was never 'to execute someone to teach that killing was wrong'. The concept was to have society to take organized retribution for the unjust death in lieu of families and clan going to perpetual war.

First our spineless society no longer fulfills its part of the bargin, and second i am content to execute the unjust killer just to prevent his ever killing again.

This preventative should be applied to child molesters also. It would save the trouble of keeping all of those lists.

The above hissed in response by: RFYoung at June 13, 2007 1:30 PM