[Jennifer]

I am having a difficult time finding out the Objectivist position on the Death Penalty on the internet. Could someone clarify for me if the death penalty would be allowed in an Objectivist society, and why? Could someone clarify if it is moral and why? At what point does a person deserve the death penalty over life imprisonment without parole (which is, debatebly, worse, because they must live the rest of their life without freedom, etc. and then meet the same fate in the end).

Thanks

This post has been edited by Jennifer: 20 November 2009 - 08:54 PM

[ex_banana-eater]

Jennifer, on Nov 20 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

I am having a difficult time finding out the Objectivist position on the Death Penalty on the internet. Could someone clarify for me if the death penalty would be allowed in an Objectivist society, and why? Could someone clarify if it is moral and why? At what point does a person deserve the death penalty over life imprisonment without parole (which is, debatebly, worse, because they must live the rest of their life without freedom, etc. and then meet the same fate in the end).

Thanks

There's really no Objectivist position since Objectivism is a philosophy, not a set of legal rules. Or in other words, this doesn't fall under the major branches of philosophy. Politically and ethically, the state is inclined to sentence a person to a just punishment, and a criminal gives up his rights when he violates the rights of others. So, certainly a criminal would have no "right" to live. Whether the punishment is just is whether it "fits the crime" so to speak and that's an issue of legal philosophy and not Objectivism.

Branden did once publish a short blurb on capital punishment that appeared in her newsletter, which I essentially agree with (and she probably agreed philosophically although who is to say whether she agreed on the practical legal matters):

Quote

What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment?

There are grounds for debate -- though not out of sympathy or pity for murderers.

If it were possible to by fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem. There have been instances recorded where all the available evidence pointed overwhelmingly to a man's guilt, and the man was convicted, and then subsequently discovered to be innocent. It is the possibility of executing an innocent man that raises doubts about the legal advisability of capital punishment. It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisonment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death.

[Rudmer]

Jennifer, on Nov 20 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

I am having a difficult time finding out the Objectivist position on the Death Penalty on the internet. Could someone clarify for me if the death penalty would be allowed in an Objectivist society, and why? Could someone clarify if it is moral and why? At what point does a person deserve the death penalty over life imprisonment without parole (which is, debatebly, worse, because they must live the rest of their life without freedom, etc. and then meet the same fate in the end).

Thanks

It is my understanding that Ayn Rand approved of the death penalty for capital crimes in principle, but thought that there was much too high a probability of mistaken witnesses, judicial misconduct, false confession, misleading or forged evidence, and general human error to ever implement it justly. I am of the persuasion that it is better to let any number of murderers live than to execute one innocent person, and since the United States alone has executed many innocent people, I think that the death penalty should be abolished.

This post has been edited by Rudmer: 20 November 2009 - 09:34 PM

[Randroid]

Rudmer, on Nov 21 2009, 04:34 AM, said:

I am of the persuasion that it is better to let any number of murderers live than to execute one innocent person, and since the United States alone has executed many innocent people, I think that the death penalty should be abolished.

I fully agree with you, Rudmer, but I'm fairly certain that so far there have been no executions of convicts later proven to be innocent. People who had been sentenced to death have been proven to be innocent (and subsequently released from death row) numerous times, but an actual execution of an innocent man would 1) make the whole movie "The Life of David Gale" entirely pointless and 2) be at the top of a Google search.

It is only a matter of time, though.

[Grames]

Rudmer, on Nov 20 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

It is my understanding that Ayn Rand approved of the death penalty for capital crimes in principle, but thought that there was much too high a probability of mistaken witnesses, judicial misconduct, false confession, misleading or forged evidence, and general human error to ever implement it justly. I am of the persuasion that it is better to let any number of murderers live than to execute one innocent person, and since the United States alone has executed many innocent people, I think that the death penalty should be abolished.

Those are real problems, but sometimes we are certain they have been overcome. I am in favor of keeping the death penalty for those cases. There should definitely be additional evidentiary standards to meet for eligibility for the death penalty, not just conviction for a crime that meets outrage threshold X.

[DavidOdden]

Randroid, on Nov 21 2009, 04:01 AM, said:

I fully agree with you, Rudmer, but I'm fairly certain that so far there have been no executions of convicts later proven to be innocent. People who had been sentenced to death have been proven to be innocent (and subsequently released from death row) numerous times, but an actual execution of an innocent man would 1) make the whole movie "The Life of David Gale" entirely pointless and 2) be at the top of a Google search.

In fact, there is only a technical reason. Once a person is executed, then no court can entertain a motion that will result in a finding of actual innocence -- courts do not entertain moot motions.

[softwareNerd]

Randroid, on Nov 21 2009, 04:01 AM, said:

sentenced[/i] to death have been proven to be innocent (and subsequently released from death row) numerous times, but an actual execution of an innocent man ...

Michigan used to have the death penalty. In a 1835 death-bed confession, a man said he raped and murdered a woman. Unfortunately, his room-mate had been convicted and hung for the crime in 1828. When Michigan became a state, in 1846, this case was instrumental in abolishing the death-penalty from their constitution.

*** Update: Fixed dates. Thanks Steve.

This post has been edited by softwareNerd: 21 November 2009 - 11:40 AM

[Steve D'Ippolito]

softwareNerd, on Nov 21 2009, 07:05 AM, said:

Michigan used to have the death penalty. In a 1835 death-bed confession, a man said he raped and murdered a woman. Unfortunately, his room-mate had been convicted and hung for the crime in 1928. When Michigan became a state, in 1946, this case was instrumental in abolishing the death-penalty from their constitution.

You have your centuries confused.

[L-C]

This quote by Branden mirrors my own sentiments about the subject:

Quote

What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment?

There are grounds for debate -- though not out of sympathy or pity for murderers.

If it were possible to by fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem. There have been instances recorded where all the available evidence pointed overwhelmingly to a man's guilt, and the man was convicted, and then subsequently discovered to be innocent. It is the possibility of executing an innocent man that raises doubts about the legal advisability of capital punishment. It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisonment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death.

It would be different if the choice were between death and release, but it's not. Life in prison offers virtually the same benefits (especially under a proper legal/prison system in LFC) but without the inevitable horror of execution of innocents.

Don't rush to the death penalty as a solution because the current prison system operates on a revolving door principle. The consequence of innocents being executed is a ridiculous price to pay for whatever marginal benefits that would be gained by a murderer being killed rather than locked up forever.

[DavidOdden]

L-C, on Nov 25 2009, 10:24 AM, said:

Life in prison offers virtually the same benefits (especially under a proper legal/prison system in LFC) but without the inevitable horror of execution of innocents.

If execution is limited to just those cases where there is no possibility of error, then the argument against execution goes away -- i.e. the horror is not inevitable. Life in prison may be similar to execution, but it is not the same. The fundamental difference is that the murderer does not continue to live, just as his victim(s) do not continue to live. This would be an instance of the concept "justice". It is not justice to preserve those who destroy life.

[FeatherFall]

As long as there is a more vigorous standard of certainty, the death penalty would be fine. Take the Fort Hood shooting - every time I hear "alleged" shooter on the radio, my sense of justice reacts violently. I understand there's yet to be a trial, but the murderer's guilt is already far beyond a reasonable doubt. Execution should be an option in sentencing.

[D'kian]

L-C, on Nov 25 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

It would be different if the choice were between death and release, but it's not. Life in prison offers virtually the same benefits (especially under a proper legal/prison system in LFC) but without the inevitable horror of execution of innocents.

Don't underestimate the sympathies with murderers and otehr criminals. Some states ahve life sentences rather than capital punishment (death, if you rpeffer, and to rpove I don't hide behind euphimisms). There are movements in such states arguing that life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment.

I see only two problems with life without parole vs death penalty, but if we make it the ultimate punishment then eventually it will be degraded to some fixed, maximum term, or it will be possible to obtain parole.

More later.

[Black Wolf]

How about capitalizing off of murderers and rapists?

Put them in a collisseum, and have people pay for the entertainment.

[DavidOdden]

Black Wolf, on Nov 25 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

How about capitalizing off of murderers and rapists?

Put them in a collisseum, and have people pay for the entertainment.

If that's successful, you could drag in ordinary citizens for even more entertainment.

[Jake_Ellison]

Black Wolf, on Nov 26 2009, 05:12 AM, said:

How about capitalizing off of murderers and rapists?

Put them in a collisseum, and have people pay for the entertainment.

Good idea. Juvenal would disapprove, but who cares about some old poet, and the fact that you're doing your best to live down to his view of humanity:

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who
once upon a time handed out military command, high civil
office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and
anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

Collisseum it is. And if there's a rebellion, we'll crucify them on the side of the road all the way to Rome, to set an example for the others:

[Juxtys]

Capital punishment is not at all punishment. If the murderer dies, he will not see much consequences of his actions. Leaving him alive and letting him think about his crime for 10, 20 or more years is far more of a punishment because the criminal will have the sense of punishment.

[jparagons]

Here's a related question: If the number of innocents saved by executing murderers (through deterrence and future killings of guards, inmates with lesser crimes, etc from said murderers) is greater than the number of innocents killed, does that override the fact that innocents were killed?

[Jake_Ellison]

jparagons, on Nov 26 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

Here's a related question: If the number of innocents saved by executing murderers (through deterrence and future killings of guards, inmates with lesser crimes, etc from said murderers) is greater than the number of innocents killed, does that override the fact that innocents were killed?

No. You can't sentence people based on future crimes. The solution is to require a higher degree of proof in death penalty cases, and when the death penalty doesn't apply, isolate dangerous criminals, so that they can't murder anyone.

[L-C]

DavidOdden, on Nov 25 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

If execution is limited to just those cases where there is no possibility of error, then the argument against execution goes away

I would have no problem with the death penalty if it's only used in cases where guilt has been 100% proven and there is zero possibility of error. Which basically means people like Hussein.

[DavidOdden]

jparagons, on Nov 26 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

If the number of innocents saved by executing murderers (through deterrence and future killings of guards, inmates with lesser crimes, etc from said murderers) is greater than the number of innocents killed, does that override the fact that innocents were killed?

It is not the function of government to sacrifice a few people to save more people. The credo "Violate the rights of fewer to benefit the masses" leads to such obscenities as outlawing guns because some people use them to murder others. It is morally better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish 1 innocent man.