NEED ASSIGNMENT BY 4PM EST NO LATER $40 BUDGET
cencej263h
phil2306_ppt_ch12.pptTwo Main Questions Concerning the Morality of the Death Penalty
1. Is the death penalty ever a morally permissible form of punishment?
2. If it is ever morally permitted, what best explains why such killing is permissible?
Abolition vs. Retention
Abolitionists answer “no” to the first question.
Retentionists think that the death penalty is or could be morally justified.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
Two Theories about the Morality of Punishment
1. The Retributive Theory
R1: What morally justifies punishment of wrongdoers is that those who break the law deserve to be punished.
R2: The punishment for a particular offense against the law should “fit” the crime.
The Law of Retribution (lex talionis): For a punishment to fit the crime, the same kind of action must be done to the wrongdoer that he or she did to the victim(s).
The Principle of Proportionality: The punishment should be in proportion to the crime.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
2. The Consequentialist Theory
C1: Punishment as a response to crime is morally justified if and only if this practice, compared to any other response to crime, will likely produce as much overall intrinsic value as would any other response.
C2: A specific punishment for a certain crime is morally justified if and only if it would likely produce as much overall intrinsic value as would any other alternative punishment.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
Stephen Nathanson, “An Eye for an Eye?”
Overview
Nathanson criticizes pro-arguments that rely on the “eye for an eye” principle and proposes the idea of proportional retributivism. Goes on to suggest that there are two messages that we can send by abolishing the death penalty.
Two Problems for the Equal Punishment Principle
1. Does not provide a measure of moral desert
2. Does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
Stephen Nathanson, “An Eye for an Eye?”
Proportional Retributivism
The punishment should be proportional to the crime.
The worst crimes require the worst punishment.
This view does not require that murderers receive the death penalty.
Abolishing the Death Penalty: Two Messages
1. Respect for the dignity of human life
2. Restraint shows the impermissibility of killing and reinforces that killing should only be used as a defense.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
Ernest van den Haag, “A Defense of the Death Penalty”
Overview
Argues in favor of the death penalty on consequentialist grounds and responds to six common objections
Six Objections to the Death Penalty
1. Distribution: the death penalty is discriminatory.
2. Miscarriages of justice and irreversibility: innocent people have received the death penalty.
3. Deterrence: the death penalty is not a better deterrent than a punishment such as life imprisonment.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
Ernest van den Haag, “A Defense of the Death Penalty”
Six Objections to the Death Penalty (cont'd)
4. Cost: the death penalty is more costly than life imprisonment.
5. Suffering: the imposition of the death penalty may encourage and endorse unlawful killing, in addition to the worry that murderers who receive the death penalty suffer more than their victims.
6. Degradation: the penalty of death is excessive and always morally degrading.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
Jeffrey Reiman, “Civilization, Safety, and Deterrence”
Overview
Reiman claims that van den Haag's arguments in favor of the death penalty follow our common-sense intuitions—but argues that there are reasons to doubt common sense.
Four Reasons
1. One penalty that is feared more than another is not necessarily a better deterrent.
Criminals are not usually deterred by the likelihood of death.
Life imprisonment is as much of a deterrent as the death penalty.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
Jeffrey Reiman, “Civilization, Safety, and Deterrence”
Four Reasons (cont'd)
2. Criminals already face the risk of death.
500 to 700 criminals are killed by the police every year.
Public citizens own guns.
3. Refusal to execute has a civilizing effect and teaches the wrongfulness of murder.
Accounts for the failure to show that the death penalty has an increased deterrent effect
There is a deterrent effect from not executing criminals.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
Jeffrey Reiman, “Civilization, Safety, and Deterrence”
Four Reasons (cont'd)
4. van den Haag's argument proves more than it seems.
We must assume that if one punishment is more feared than another, it will deter criminals who are not deterred by a less fearful punishment.
van den Haag's arguments implies that we should institute death by torture if it is a more fearful punishment.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
J. S. Liebman, J. Fagan, V. West, and J. Lloyd, “Capital Attrition: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973–1995”
Overview
The authors of this paper report the findings of studies that have investigated the error rates in capital cases and find that 68 percent of the death sentences between 1975 and 1995 have been overturned.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
J. S. Liebman, J. Fagan, V. West, and J. Lloyd, “Capital Attrition: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973–1995”
Summary of Central Findings
“Serious error”: an error that substantially undermines the reliability of the guilt finding or the death sentence imposed at a trial
Common Errors
1. Incompetent defense lawyer in 37 percent of cases
2. Suppression of evidence by the prosecution in 19 percent of cases
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
J. S. Liebman, J. Fagan, V. West, and J. Lloyd, “Capital Attrition: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973–1995”
Relevant Statistics (1975–1995)
4,578 cases underwent a three-stage judicial review
5,760 death sentences, 313 executions
“Overall error rate”: frequency with which cases were overturned at one of the three review stages, 68 percent
Average time for a decision about whether a case is error-free, 7 years
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
J. S. Liebman, J. Fagan, V. West, and J. Lloyd, “Capital Attrition: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973–1995”
Implications
Costly reversals indicate a misuse of financial resources.
Public faith in the courts is a casualty.
© Oxford University Press
© Oxford University Press
*
