What are the arguments?---- That it is a fitting response to heinous crime, and therefore validates the system of accountability and hierarchy of values reflected in the determination of offenses. It is expensive precisely because we bend over backwards to avoid mistake, and therefore shows the scrupulousness of the system. Whether or not it is a deterrent to murderers(and that is a matter of controversy), it impresses upon the minds of the populace the seriousness with which we take the administration of justice, and vindicates the moral order, and thus has a culture- forming value. And if the exercise of the death penalty is in itself a legitimate activity, and we have taken due precautions against mistakes, the fact that we may inadvertently execute the wrong person is no more momentous that the fact that people die due to otherwise legitimate activities all the time.
You are quite right that we may change our judgement of the matter upon further reflection. However, it is not arbitrary, and must be congruent with the overall tenor of our moral reflection, or it is an assault upon the societal order. The death penalty is a fitting response to heinous crimes (not merely murder, but murder with aggravating circumstances) because we must preserve a sense of proportionality in sentencing, and in the schedule of penalties. By the time we reach simple murder, we exhaust our recourse to simple imprisonment as punishment. If we want to differentiate between the ordinary crime and even fouler acts, we resort to execution. We could, of course,chronically torture the inmates to achieve a similar effect, but we have decided that execution is more humane than torture.
For these reasons, I think one starts with the assumption that execution is a fitting response to some crimes, and then asks if there is, nevertheless, reason to abstain. I have already said why I think the reasons of expense and concern for mistakes are insufficient. I should add that I think that calling it "barbaric" is somewhat absurd. There is nothing inherent in the notion of civilization that precludes execution for a restricted list of offenses. Civilization would preclude making the execution a "circus", instead of a solemn occasion, or executing for trivial reasons. It would dictate that the execution be relatively humane, as is the case with lethal injection, for example. But it would not preclude the act itself. |
