Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

The biggest problem with the statistics on deterrence (which indicate very strongly (as per the graph which Tangle has put up) that capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent), is that the statistics are counter-intuitive.This site enjoys an abundance of debates, where counter-intuitive reality has met a brick wall of "common sense", and the data generally make little impact on that brick wall.I think that if we are to make more headway in abandoning old, barbaric punishments, and in encouraging more states like Connecticut to abolish capital punishment, then the battleground has to be our schools. I took part in two debates on the death penalty when I was a kid, and as I recall, the teachers were excellent in allowing the debate to flow, and not guide it too strongly. And we came to the conclusion that the death penalty was unjustified.It won't happen that way every time of course, but younger minds are more open minds, and I would welcome debates on the death penalty being added to every school's curriculum.(Of course, the proponents of the death penalty will recognise the danger here, and fight any such thinking, claiming that a liberal agenda is seeking to influence their children's minds, but hey, it's good to dream)

I don't know how good that kind of fishing is 'round these here parts

The only time I have ever seen a death penalty advocate ("DPA") pause was in relation to a discussion about the possibility of an innocent person being put to death.As you say, Rahvin, the issue was broadly glossed over by the DPA, but the questioner managed to drill down a little, and the DPA confirmed his belief that cases of innocents being executed were extremely rare - DNA evidence was excellent - burden of proof might be higher etc - and finally, given that it would be very few instances where this occurred, he felt it was a price society could pay.When he was asked if he felt that it would still be a price worth paying if that innocent person was his child (the child was present at the time of the discussion and listening attentively), his reply took some time...A nice illustration of the very true bubble you referred to.

So does the feeling of people that the punishment fits the crime, and that it is fair and right and proper, justify the inevitable execution by mistake of an innocent person ?If all that we gain is a feeling that the right thing was done, a sense of satisfaction that things are evened out, then that doesn't seem to me to be worth the price of one innocent life.Edited by vimesey, : typo

I don't agree that the war analogy is a good one. War should be the only resort that is left to a society, after all other options have failed or become ineffective, in order to protect itself or protect innocent lives. (Certainly any war which you are holding up as morally justified, to support moral justification for capital punishment). I distinguish this from capital punishment, in that it is not the only resort that is left to a society, to punish a murderer and to protect its innocent members from that murderer - there always exists the option to imprison the murderer for life. Capital punishment is never the only resort left.I do see circumstances in which societies should go to war, where there is no viable alternative. I do not see that we should execute people, because we do have viable alternatives.And locking someone in a jail cell, forgotten forever, until they die does strike me as being better. Because if I get it wrong, I stand a chance of releasing them, and trying to compensate them in some way.I reiterate my view - a warm glow that justice has been well served is not worth a single innocent person's life being taken from them - not when we have alternatives.

You are mixing two separate issues together.There is a debate to be had about whether any war is justified. I believe that in extreme and critical circumstances, it is possible to justify a war. Those circumstances always require that innocent lives are protected, or that freedom from inhuman oppression be maintained. These requirements are what allow us to countenance the loss of innocent life in a war - greater loss of innocent life is being prevented or greater freedom from oppression is being preserved.That debate is always nuanced, and always difficult. And of course, never perfect.It is entirely separate from a debate about capital punishment. Capital punishment does not require extreme and critical circumstances. It takes place in the peaceful bosom of gentle democracy, and does not require us to weigh the cost of killing against a risk of future loss of innocent life or future protection from inhuman oppression, in the same way that war does.(Note: the reason that it does not require us to weigh against a risk of future loss of innocent life, is that the convicted murderer can instead be imprisoned for life, rather than executed, to protect those innocent future lives).We can (and should) legitimately have the capital punishment debate without any need to cross-refer to war. The reason that you do so is to attack the straw man that killing innocent people in a war is more justified than executing a murderer. I am not arguing that point - I am not making that comparison, because neither that nor any other comparison is needed to analyse the justification for capital punishment.The point which I reiterate once again (and which I would like you to address) is whether (in relation to capital punishment) the warm glow that justice has been done is worth the execution of a single innocent person.(And the fact that you view someone rotting away in prison as being not in any way better or more humane, does I think help my point - if you believe it is horrifying to do that, then isn't your sense of justice being well done to a murderer even better served ? Don't you feel even more strongly that they got their just desserts ? And in addition, I can agree with you that life imprisonment is the way to go, because that way my clincher (of refusing to allow even one innocent person to be killed in my name) is also well served).

Ok, if we're talking about capital punishment being justified because it removes from society an unpredictable killer, then we're on more empirical ground. I will go away and do a little more research on this, because my gut instinct is that the number of prison guards/therapists etc killed by inmates who would otherwise have been executed (particularly bearing in mind the point you make about the amount of time they spend in jail anyway, going through appeals) is going to be extremely low when compared with the number of innocent people released over the years for what would be (or are) capital crimes. (The number of misconvicted innocents in the UK alone I can straight away put into double figures, right off the top of my head). But I don't have the data to hand, so I will do some looking.What causes me greater difficulty is your answer "Yes", that a feeling that justice is being done is worth the loss of a single innocent life. That life is buying a feeling for you - an emotional state of affairs - a warm glow. I don't think an innocent life is worth that - no matter how many depraved monsters you do actually execute.

Not that tiny, I suspect, and possibly not a minority.I would diverge a little from your earlier post, suggesting that criminals who would in some states receive a death penalty for their crime, should serve prison terms with the possibility of parole/early release if they no longer pose a threat to society. I am more comfortable, personally, with a prison term which deprives murderers of their freedom for their lives, as fair punishment for having (in a premediated fashion) deprived someone of their life. I agree with your assessment of many prisons as being cesspools, but I would view that more as an argument for reform of the prisons, than as an argument for early parole. And in addition, imprisoning a murder for what is genuinely the rest of their life, I think gives a stronger argument against capital punishment.On every other element of what you have very eloquently written, I am with you 100%.

Hi Rahvin - there's a few points I'd like to respond on, following your response yesterday to me. I can agree with a viewpoint that an individual's desire for someone to be punished for a wrong they committed, is ultimately a negative and empty emotion. It can be characterised as a desire for revenge by that person, and a desire for revenge is not something that most of us would put high up our list of civilised behaviour.Since our justice systems do involve punishing people, it's more than possible to similarly characterise punishment by the justice system, as institutionalised revenge, and to attribute to that aspect of justice, the same analysis - ie undesirable.For me, though, I would distinguish punishment by the justice system from retribution or revenge.I would argue that all of us have a social contract with wider society. We agree to abide by the rules which we collectively decide upon, (and express through our laws), and so constrain our behaviour. We all accept some limitations on our individual freedoms, in order that everyone collectively can enjoy the widest possible freedoms.And in return, we expect society to enforce the rules and laws which we agree to abide by. If they aren't enforced by society, then we start to override the rights of others before they override ours - we express justice through individual action, which becomes vigilanteism. The enforcment of rules and laws by society is, I believe, a very large part of the glue which holds society together.And since we cannot simply procure that people will always obey the rules, we make it unpleasant for them if they break the rules, by punishing them. This is the disincentive we introduce for breaking the law, to encourage people not to.This is of course a deterrence argument, and I know that such arguments are open to attack, because deterrents do exist, and yet crime is still committed. However, I am very firmly of the view that the existence of punishment by the justice system does deter a large majority of people from breaking the law. If people see lawbreakers going unpunished, then you will get the response "if they can get away with it, then I damn well will too !"(This specific analysis is rarely applicable in relation to murder, of course, since most peoples' moral compasses would never allow them to say "if they can get away with it, then I damn well will too !" in relation to murder. But it still leads to the same sense of outrage on the part of members of society to see someone go unpunished for breaking one of the laws which we all collectively agree to abide by. And the societal-fabric-glue I mentioned earlier would still weaken).So I come from a position where I admire the purity and integrity of a moral view which condemns any sort of punishment or revenge or retribution. I have the same admiration for it as I have for the parents of murdered children, who publicly forgive their child's killer. But I believe that the pragmatic benefits to society of having our justice system include an element of punishment outweigh any desire I have to follow that moral view completely.We are 100% ad idem, when it comes to capital punishment. I believe that a genuine life term imprisonment for murder does satisfy society's requirement that justice be seen to be done - that a punishment be given for that crime. Expecting the punishment to be the killing of the criminal by society, however, is tipping the balance of my analysis way too far in favour of pragmatism - the moral outrage is hugely greater when it comes to killing, obviously.So yes, I would acknowledge and agree that on a purely moral analysis, there is no real justification for any aspect of punishment at all in our justice system. However, I think that society gains a great deal of strength from an element of punishment. My analogy of fabric glue is very abstract, I admit, but I do believe that my view is correct.(On a final point, please note that I do broadly agree with what you say in relation to rehabilitation, and in doing what we can to give people a second chance. Where I differ is in believing that (1) such an approach in relation to murder again serves to weaken my societal-fabric-glue, and (2) I have met some people who are, quite frankly, evil-minded, dyed in the wool, nasty pieces of work, who are beyond our best hopes for rehabilitation. Our rehabilitation systems need to allow for these issues).