“Opponents of capital punishment frequently proclaim that the State has no moral right to take the life of anyone, even a most reprehensible murderer. Yet that is absolutely the wrong conclusion for anyone who believes that capital punishment deters. To show why, suppose that for each murderer executed (instead of say receiving life imprisonment), the number of murders is reduced by three- which is a much lower number than Ehrlich’s estimate of the deterrent effect. This implies that for each murderer not given capital punishment, three generally innocent victims would die. This argument means that the government would indirectly be “taking” many lives if it did not use capital punishment. The lives so taken are usually much more worthwhile than that of the murderers who would be spared execution. For this reason, the State has a “moral” obligation to use capital punishment if such punishment significantly reduces the number of murders and saves lives of innocent victims”. — Gary Becker, winner of the Nobel Prize In Economics, blogging over at the Becker-Posner blog on Capital Punishment and the execution of Stanley “Tookie” Williams
I disagree with Becker here. Morality is not a numbers game. Just because activity A deters X number of immoral acts of B, it does not justify activity A.
For example, let’s say you could save 5 innocent victims of drunk driving accidents if cops were ordered to shoot on the spot anyone that was involved in a fatal car accident and that didn’t pass a breathalyzer. Should we scrap due process in just this situation to save those 5 innocent people?
I personally believe that capital punishment is morally justifiable in certain situations, I just don’t believe in giving that kind of power to the government. Life imprisonment accomplishes the goal of removing a murder from society, and that achieves the end of preventing that individual from ever doing harm to another person. Life in prison also accomplishes the goal of providing a big incentive not to commit murder (unlike in Washington DC where the majority of people convicted of murder serve less than two years). I think that is the way to go.
Hey Peter,
I see what you’re saying, but then that would depend on your justification of why capital punishment is morally wrong.
Your example, where cops shoot on the spot those who don’t pass a breathalyzer is clearly morally unjustified because A. the punishment does not fit the crime, and, closely related, B. you are killing a person who does not deserve death, in other words, committing murder.
Such is not the case with capital punishment. Killing someone who has committed murder is a proper punishment for the crime, especially when you factor in that executing that person would help save other innocent lives. Secondly, the person being executed is (assuming for the moment it has been established by DNA, for example) clearly not innocent, it is a person who does deserve a severe punishment.
You write, “I personally believe that capital punishment is morally justifiable in certain situations, I just don’t believe in giving that kind of power to the government”. Well, then, in my opinion, you have given away too much here. If capital punishment is morally justifiable in those situations, and execution in those situations could save more lives, one could actually make the argument (as Becker and others have here) that capital punishment is morally required. To say that you don’t particular want the government to have that much power, specifically in an area where the government could be morally required to perform a certain act, is to yourself support an act of moral injustice (the government to refuse to act in an area where it is morally required), don’t you think?
I ask these questions with sincerity; as you probably know, I myself have issues with the death penalty and have even come out against it in the past. However, the more I read about it, the harder it is to defend my position against it and have as of late, decided that I may be for it after all.