Van Den Haag, The Death Penalty: A Debate

Incapacitation:

Murderers should be prevented from killing again.

Executing a murderer will definitely prevent him from killing again.

Therefore, we should have the DP.

VDH: This confusing incapacitation with a means of achieving it.

DP is not the only way.

Incapacitation is no guarantee that we will reduce the murder rate.

It would do so only if most murders done by someone who has killed before.

But most murders are done by 1^st time killers.

We need to stop potential murderers.

The important issue is general deterrence.

Admittedly, there is little empirical, statistical evidence to support the claim that the DP deters crime.

But it makes sense.

It seems to be true in general that:

The greater the penalty, the more it deters.

Death seems to be the greatest penalty.

People do everything they possibly can to avoid death,

even if the only alternative is life in prision.

Evidence: Most death row inmates seek desperately to get their sentence commuted to LiP.

What is dreaded and feared the most will be the greatest deterrent.

Death is dreaded and feared most of all.

The threat of DP is more likely to deter than LiP.

Those who premeditate crimes are more likely to be deterred by DP than by LiP.

With LiP, there is always the hope if getting out.

X is convicted of 1^st degree murder.

Choice:

Execute x

certain death of x

possible survival of an indefinite number of possible murder victims (those who would be killed if not for potential murderers being deterred because of the execution of x)

Do not execute x

certain survival of x

possible death of indefinite number of possible murder victims (those who would not have been killed if their murderers had been deterred had x been executed)

Execute convicted murderer, or put innocent lives at risk.

(How much risk?)

Is deterrence really the issue for those who oppose the DP?

What if DP did deter? Would it be right, or permissible?

Some say "No, not even then."

VDH can't understand this.

What might someone say?

It is wrong to treat a person as a mere means to an end,

if they don't benefit.

It is wrong to take advantage of people

1 version of Kant's categorical imperative:

"Treat each person as an end in himself, not as a mere means."

Society has various goals.

We normally don't think that it is OK to do anything you want to someone to achieve that goal.

Society has a goal of reducing crime.

We are not justified in doing anything we want just to achieve that goal.

Executing innocent people that were framed, that everyone though were guilty, might deter crime.

It wouldn't be OK.

It is wrong to kill someone, even for some greater goal, because everyone has a right to life.

Reply:

The murderer has forfeited his right to life.

Now it is OK to use him and his life, to kill him, to achieve this social goal of lowering crime.

His life is no longer worthy of respect.

(Is that what we want to say?_

VDH: Special cases when DP seems most appropriate,

when there is special need of a deterrent.

-- Prisoners serving life in prison without parole

-- Killer of an arresting officer

-- Spies

-- Wartime deserters

Van den Haag's two basic arguments for DP

I. "Moral"

1. Punishment should be proportional to the gravity of the crime.

2. Premeditated murder is so grave a crime,

DP is the only proportional punishment.

C: The punishment for murder should be DP.

II. "Factual"

1. DP deters murder more than LiP.

2. We should deter murder as much as possible.

C: We should have the DP.

Counter Arguments:

Human Dignity

1. DP is inconsistent with human dignity.

2. We shouldn't do anything that is inconsistent with human dignity.

C: We shouldn't have the DP

Reply:

1. Many things are inconsistent with human dignity.

Debilitation and death from certain illnesses is undignified.

However, these illnesses are often unavoidable.

DP, on the other hand, is avoidable.

The criminal made a choice to commit the crime.

He lost his dignity when he made that choice.

2. The dignity of society includes protecting innocents

and upholding the law.

Letting people trample all over the laws and innocent people would be undignified.

Religion

DP is contrary to God's will.

Only God can take a life.

Reply:

1. Opposition to DP is not traditionally part of a religious view.

DP is in scripture.

DP has been a part of many theocratic and religious societies.

2. Such an argument has no place in a secular society.

(Separation of Church and State.)