Glover, “Executions” Con’t

V. Criticisms of General Deterrence Justifications of Punishment. Glover rejects the idea that capital punishment is justified by its deterrence value. On his view, there is little reason to think it deters more effectively than other punishments. Now this may seem odd given the naturalness of deterrence justifications. But it is important not to overstate the implications of the very plausible fact that people are less likely to commit a crime as the cost goes up. This doesn’t entail that every increase in cost necessarily results in a reduction in the relevant crime.

A Kantian Objection. Kant rejects all utilitarian justifications: "What then is to be said of such a proposal as to keep a criminal alive who has been condemned to death on his being given to understand that if he agreed to certain dangerous experiments being performed upon him, he would be allowed to survive if he came happily through them? It is argued that physicians might thus obtain new information that would be of value to the commonweal. But a court of justice would repudiate with scorn any proposal of this kind if made to it by the medical faculty; for justice would cease to be justice, if it were bartered away for any consideration whatever." (p. 336).

VI. Retributive justifications of capital punishment. According to retributivism, the aim of punishment is independent of any beneficial social consequences it might have; on the strongest form of this view, it is wrong not to execute murderers because it is wrong not give people what they deserve and murderers deserve executions.

A. A retributivist justification for the institution of punishment. The idea here is that punishment is permissible because people deserve it. But how does my deserving punishment translate into its being permissible for you or some other group of strangers to hold me against my will and punish me?

Kant argues as follows: “Even if a Civil Society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members … the last Murderer lying in the prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that everyone may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain upon the people; for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation” (116).

This very strong argument can be summed up as follows:

1. We have a moral duty to respect human dignity by restoring the balance of justice in the world that is disturbed by a criminal act (for without justice, human life has no value)--i.e., to give the criminal what she deserves. .

2. The only way to restore the balance of justice is to inflict that punishment on the criminal that she deserves. (The Retributivist Principle).

3. Therefore, we have a moral duty to inflict that punishment on the criminal that she deserves.

Notice that this analysis tells us nothing about what kind of punishment a criminal deserves in any given instance.

B. Equality retributivism. Equality retributivism is often expressed in the form of the principle “an eye for an eye.” The idea is based on another intuitive principle, namely that we ought to treat people as they have treated others. Equality retributivism is, then, ultimately based on the claim that the criminal deserves exactly the same sort of mistreatment as she has inflicted on the victim. Thus, according to equality retributivism, we punish criminals by doing exactly to them what they do to their victims. The punishment must be equal to the crime.

Death Penalty. Thus, according to equality retributivism, the death penalty is justified for murder. Moreover, on this view, the punishment should be carried out in exactly the same fashion as the murder was carried out. Thus, if the murder was preceded by 3 hours of torture, then the execution should be preceded by 3 hours of torture.

OBJECTIONS:

C. Proportional Retributivism. According to Kant, the principle of equality determines the level of punishment. According to the principle of equality, the form and level of punishment must be in exact proportion to the seriousness of the wrongdoing:

Principle of Equality. What a criminal deserves in response to her wrongdoing is that punishment that is in exact proportion to the harm inflicted by the wrongful act.

Here the punishment is determined by the degree of seriousness. One inflicts on the criminal a suffering that is proportional to the suffering she inflicts on the victim.

Thus, Kant adds two more steps to the above argument:

4. The only punishment in exact proportion to the harm inflicted by a murder is the death penalty.

5. Therefore, we have a moral duty to punish a murderer with the death penalty (because she deserves it).

VII. Objections to Proportional Retributivism.

QUESTION: Do all homicides deserve the death penalty? Are they all equally culpable. Consider the following cases:

Case A: Drunk driver A runs into a gun shop and in a freak accident a fragment of window causes a loaded gun to discharge, killing an innocent bystander instantly and without pain. A has never killed before.

Case B: One night person B walks behind up someone who murderer who killed a close friend of B’s and served 15 years in prison for the killing and shoots him in the head. The victim dies instantly and without pain. B has never killed before.

Case C: One night after having been teased and tormented (in some cases, beaten up) for months, C walks up behind his tormentor and shoots him in the head. The victim dies instantly and without pain. C has an IQ of 65. C has never killed before.

Case D: To obtain money for an operation to save his mother, D kills a known mobster for money. The victim dies instantly and without pain. D has never killed before.

Case E: One night E walks up behind a total stranger and shoots him in the head for no other reason than “the fun of it.” E’s intent was to cause paralysis, but the bullet kills the victim instantly and without pain. E has never killed before.