Morally Justified Killing? Part 1
A Dialogue: Does the death penalty in a civilized society make sense?
Justin Bailey and Maxximilian Seijo, friends with differing perspectives, dialogue about a difficult question.
Max starts…
The recent botched execution in Oklahoma has relaunched the national debate about the death penalty.
According to Amnesty International, the U.S. is fifth in the world in state sponsored executions behind China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
A recent study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) shows that at least 4.1% of executed death row inmates are innocent.
With all of that in mind, the question is:
Should the U.S. have a death penalty?
Simple Answers
Max: No.
Justin: Yes.
Justin // Answer
Before I give my thoughts on why a very limited capital punishment system is still applicable in the U.S., I want to strongly acknowledge that every fiber of my being tends to quiver a bit by answering… yes. Taking life is always a big deal, as is protecting it.
After being sentenced to life for the murder of one man, Robert Gleason Jr. murdered two fellow inmates. He admitted to strangling these victims with strips of bedsheets, citing his one mentally ill cellmate as frustrating. During the subsequent trial, Gleason vowed to kill again until he was put to death. This three time murderer was unapologetic, comparing killing to “going to the fridge to get a beer.”
I think his execution was justified, not for retribution’s sake, but to make absolutely sure no other innocent life would be taken.
Human life has intrinsic worth and it is objectively “right” to protect it.
One does not have to search their moral intuition for long to sense the intrinsic value of life, especially human life. The human expression of life encompasses many unique and puzzling features, including the potential to ascertain “right” from “wrong”. Your question assumes as much, and I agree. So, for the sake of this discussion, I will assume a few premises:
- Human life has intrinsic worth and it is objectively “right” to protect it.
- Human individuals have the ability to make free choices, albeit limited in scope.
- Human individuals, and at times societies, go horrifyingly and unapologetically “wrong”.
Gleason’s execution ensured the protection of potential future victims, whether it be inside or outside of prison. The PNAS percentages of innocent death row inmates (4.1%) must be addressed, but this is not a sufficient reason to, in principle, abolish capital punishment entirely. This type of individual is part of the 96% that continues to make capital trials relevant.
In situations like Gleason’s, when does it become protecting the life of the unapologetic guilty over the unfortunate innocent? When does it become a greater violation of intrinsic human worth by risking further innocent loss?
This issue has so many layers of complexity, and I am interested to read your perspective, though I think there is still a limited role for capital punishment as long as men like Robert Gleason Jr. exist.
Max // Response
I’m glad you brought up this aspect of the issue. I agree that men like Robert Gleason Jr. need to be segregated from both the general population, and the prison population. But, does the death penalty make for safer prisons for inmates?
Using this Bureau of Justice Statistics data on prison deaths between 2001-2010, I was able to calculate the average amount of prison homicides per 100,000 inmates per year in both death penalty and non death penalty states. Homicides per year per 100,000 inmates in non death penalty states: 3.86. Homicides per year per 100,000 inmates in death penalty states: 4.46. Essentially my point is that in some circumstances extremely violent criminals need to be isolated from the prison population, but the existence of a death penalty doesn’t correlate with safer prisons. In fact, the opposite is true. That’s not to say that the lack of the death penalty in non death penalty states causally makes prisons there safer. That of course depends on a lot of variables. But, I think it’s safe to say that based on the above data, the death penalty itself doesn’t make prisons safer.
Once somebody is dead, there is no recourse if they were innocent, and I’d rather land on the side of allowing more extremely violent criminals to live, than execute one innocent person.
With regards to the 4.1% of executed death row inmates that were innocent. Do you think that we will always be able to certainly say that the man that we will be executing is guilty and deserving of death? Because for me, that would be the only way that I would look at this issue in a different light. Once somebody is dead, there is no recourse if they were innocent, and I’d rather land on the side of allowing more extremely violent criminals life, than execute one innocent person.
As a nation, we need to be better than the criminals we are executing, because, as Mahatma Ghandi said, “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”
Justin // Response
Your calculation was thought provoking, though it opposes a point I am not defending. It seems one thing follows from the statistic, given its margin of error: Imprisoned persons, on average, are no more deterred from committing homicide by living in a capital punishment state. I agree, but the limited capital punishment system I would defend is not for the “average” inmate. It would also not have any misplaced hopes of added deterrence through striking fear into one who does not share even the most fundamental of human values.
Additionally, meaningful quantifications of deterrence from either perspective would have to take into account all variables, which are likely unknowable. In Oxford’s Debating the Death Penalty, Hyman Barshay is quoted, “The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.”
For there to be any validity in a limited capital punishment system, certainty of guilt is required and the purpose cannot be retribution.
You are right. For there to be any validity in a limited capital punishment system, certainty of guilt is required and the purpose cannot be retribution. In the case of Robert Gleason Jr., and his unapologetic vow to continue to take life, is this not what we have? Like a sheriff protecting his life and the lives others from an assailant with murderous intent, Gleason’s extreme example reveals an unfortunate dilemma where the end may justify the means.
Though we ultimately disagree on how to address the problems, I believe those who thoughtfully argue against capital punishment do the society great service. They help further check against humanity’s tendency to easily justify ending a life, force defenders to articulate and refine their position, and in the end will help create a more civilized system than the U.S. currently has; one that serves to remove the 4.1%.
I hope we all want that, and I hope we all want to do everything possible to protect the intrinsic worth of a human life — with a precedent on innocent life — from those who openly equivocate such a gift to a midnight beer run to the fridge.
Max // Final Response
I really think what you said in your final paragraph is something to be highlighted. No matter the angle at which we approach this issue, as long as we are discussing and actively trying to take steps that reduce the amount of un-needed death in the world, we should be respectful when addressing the opinions of others. For intrinsically we are searching with the same goals.
With regards to Hyman Barshay quote, while I understand the point he is trying to make (that prevention is harder to quantify) I do think that if you measured the amount of shipwrecks in a given area before a lighthouse was built, then post-construction did the same measurement, you would be able to determine if the lighthouse reduced shipwrecks or not.
Let’s think of this in the realm of trends, no one will be able to tell you the exact number of murders that the death penalty has prevented (if any), but we would be able to see a change in the general trend if there was a proper control. The argument that Barshay furthers is one that I see as intellectually lazy. The notion that the data says one thing, but I think that the effects of the policy are immeasurable, so therefore it should be kept. This is in no way an attack on your logic, but merely an insight into what I see on a daily basis in the field of statistical analysis.
How are we structurally going to be able to determine certain guilt? Because the way that we are doing it now is ineffective. The way that we have trials in the US is that we have one person (or many people) whose sole job is to get the jury/judge to convict the defendant and sentence him to the worst possible punishment, and we have one person (or many people) whose sole job is to convince the jury/judge to acquit the defendant on all charges. Is this system conducive to flawlessness? No, so I will leave with the question.
If we are going to keep a form of the death penalty, how are we going to change our judicial system to ensure that there are absolutely no innocent men or women executed?
Thought Provoking Quotes… from the other’s perspective.
Each participant is asked to select a favorite/thought provoking quote from the other’s perspective.
Max: “Though we ultimately disagree on how to address the problems, I believe those who thoughtfully argue against capital punishment do the society great service.”
Justin: “No matter the angle at which we approach this issue, as long as we are discussing and actively trying to take steps that reduce the amount of un-needed death in the world, we should be respectful when addressing the opinions of others.”
