Utrum
Whether or not it is the case that capital punishment can be justified on moral grounds.
Videtur
It seems to be the case that capital punishment can be justified on moral grounds as it does more good than harm. In John Stuart Mill’s “Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment,” he argues that capital punishment is the most appropriate “mode in which society can attach to so great a crime the penal consequences which for the security of life it is indispensable to annex to it.” He argues this for many reasons. His first point is that capital punishment is more humane to the criminal than the prison system. At first glance, it appears that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because we, as humans, are scared to inflict death on another human, no matter what crime has been committed. However, Mill argues that while the “short pang of a rapid death” seems merciless, caging a criminal “in a living tomb” for a “long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil…debarred from all pleasant sights and sounds, and cut off from all earthly hope” is far crueler than it seems (Mill). This is seen in examples from Aaron Rodriguez to Mark Salling to Adolf Hitler. All of these people would rather commit suicide and die than be sentenced to life in prison. Thus, it can be argued that prison is “less severe indeed in appearance…but far more cruel in reality” (Mill).
Because of capital punishment’s appearance of severity, it serves as an effective deterrent for crime. Someone who is thinking of committing a horrible crime might not do so if he knows there is a possibility of death if he is caught. Some would argue that capital punishment does not deter crime, but Mill responds to this by asking, “Who is there who knows whom it has deterred?” to make the point that we cannot be certain how many people were or were not deterred from committing a crime because of the threat of the death penalty. Furthermore, he points out that the “influence of a punishment is not to be estimated by its effect on hardened criminals,” but rather the “impression it makes on those who are still innocent” (Mill). While it may seem that crime is not being deterred, the threat of capital punishment does influence people to not commit crimes. Imagine if there was no alarming threat of punishment for murder; certainly, there would be more murders. Capital punishment deters crime, which thus prevents unhappiness.
Mill also states that it is improbable “that the crime [of murder] was an exception to his general character rather than a consequence of it,” thus without punishment, nothing is stopping this person from committing the crime again. It is in their character to commit these heinous crimes. By executing criminals, they are being taken off of the streets, where they would commit more crimes. With fewer hardened criminals on the loose, there is less crime to be fearful of. Because the death penalty rids society of criminals that would inevitably commit more crimes, it thus reduces unhappiness.
To the critics that say that it is absurd to suppose “that we can teach respect for life by ourselves destroying it,” Mill responds by saying that the criminal justice system shows their respect for human life by being willing to take away the life of someone who violates that respect for someone else. Furthermore, he states that “it is not human life…that ought to be sacred to us, but human feelings” (Mill). Capital punishment does not hold the mere life of a human in the highest regard, but instead values the “human capacity of suffering” (Mill). From a utilitarian point of view, the punishment itself must not bring more suffering than necessary. In other words, the punishment must fit the crime. According to Mill, it does. The death penalty deters suffering by inflicting suffering, just as any other punishment for any other crime does.
Mill concedes that there is a possibility for failure in the system where “by an error of justice an innocent person is put to death,” but that these instances are so rare that this is not a serious demurral. If the criminal justice system was actually so liable to err that innocent people felt unsafe or if the courts were not seriously trusted by the people, then this would be a reasonable objection. However, Mill argues that the “defects of our procedure are the very opposite,” going so far as to say that “our rules of evidence are even too favorable to the prisoner.” Because we see the death penalty as a more severe crime than it is, Mill argues that the courts are going to require a higher standard for evidence of guilt. Thus, the worry of failure in the system is fallacious.
In conclusion, John Stuart Mill thinks capital punishment is morally justifiable because it deters crime, gets criminals off the streets, is more humane than prison, succeeds much more than it fails, and is compatible with respect for human life, ultimately doing more good than harm. One might endorse this view because they think that all these things will provide the best outcome and bring the most happiness for society as a whole. Capital punishment provides good retribution for what seems like an irredeemable action. When a person does this action, they are no longer worthy of life. Mill’s arguments are logical and it seems as if capital punishment will do more good than harm in society, making it moral.
Responsio
As opposed to John Stuart Mill, who argues that capital punishment is justified on moral grounds, I answer that capital punishment cannot be justified on moral grounds.
Ergo
Hence, because of the overlooked negative side effects that the death penalty has on a society that Mill did not take into account, it must be the case that capital punishment does not provide the best outcome for society, and so cannot be morally justifiable. In this part of the Utrum, I will provide reasons for why we should reject Mill’s arguments that are better than the reasons why one might accept his argument. Further, I will list my own arguments, along with fractions of Bentham’s The Rationale of Punishment, as to why capital punishment is not morally justifiable.
One reason why life in prison for murder produces more good than capital punishment does is economically base. Labor done in prison is convertible to profit. While some crimes can be fined, “money is a casual fund,” while labor is a fund “that cannot fail” (Bentham 161). Executed criminals cannot provide compensation, whether that compensation to be the victim or to the state. Bentham finds that laborious punishment may be more profitable on the whole, and is thus better for society by giving it back something that it economically needs. Proponents of the death penalty might say that it is economically cheaper to execute convicts than to imprison them for life, so the money lost caused by their death that would compensate is offset by the fact that no money is lost by keeping them in permanent custody. This argument, however, is mistaken. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, every state that uses the death penalty as a form of punishment is paying more for capital cases than ordinary murder trials. In California, “maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population” (“Costs”). Texas is spending “an estimated $2.3 million per case,” while its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country (“Costs”). This also disproves Mill’s argument that capital punishment is a practical deterrent for crime. There is “not the slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide” (Donohue). While it may seem that capital punishment is getting criminals off of the streets, it is also permanently erasing redeemable people from society. Mill says that capital punishment is compatible with respect for human life; however, the death penalty assumes that the human life that commits a murder is no longer worthy of living. It admonishes the sanctity of the human soul and mind, and a person’s ability to be redeemed.
There are also societal effects that come in to play when the state is legally taking the life of one of its own members, like the brutalization effect that capital punishment has on society. The brutalization effect is the idea that when violence is condoned through the death penalty, more violence occurs. Studies “have consistently shown that homicide actually increases in the time period surrounding an execution” (“Crime”). Killing becomes legitimized because it was just done legally and the people of society become desensitized to killing and deaths. Thus, the death penalty makes society more dangerous by further increasing violence through the brutalization effect. The death penalty is also inhumane and hypocritical. Killing people through state-sanctioned executions makes us like the murderers that the state is trying to prosecute. How can a society that kills killers defend itself?
The greatest argument against capital punishment is that of mistakes. While Mill says that mistakes are so rare in the criminal justice system that they are no cause for concern, statistics say otherwise. Capital punishment in America is full of errors, which is unacceptable. For every “nine people who have been executed” in America, there has been “one innocent person who has been exonerated and released from death row” (Stevenson). Skydivers would never jump out of a plane if, for every nine jumpers that took off, one parachute would not open. This is an unacceptable rate of error in any country. Furthermore, in the states of the Old South, citizens are “22 times more likely to get [the death penalty] if the defendant is black and the victim is white” (Stevenson). These are in states where there were public lynchings, where black men and women were executed illegally because of their race. Now, they are being executed legally with a lot of statistics indicating that it is because of their race. This is indefensible and unacceptable. There is no way to correct the mistakes of the death penalty, while “an erroneous sentence may be annulled” and an innocent person can be given retribution for the mistake (Bentham 239). There is a finality to death, and society should not be so confident in itself to think that they have they are infallible with the power to take someone’s life. As the death penalty also becomes an issue with race and class, it leads to even worse effects on society. Therefore, though it seems like capital punishment brings more good than harm, it, in fact, does not due to the brutalizing effects it has on society and the economy.
2018-12-21-1545353023