Two absolutist views: retributivism and pacifism -- both reject utilitarianism
1. Retributive - the aim of punishment is independent of the consequences of punishment. There are "metaphysical benefits" - note the Kantian claim that if society were to dissolve, its last act ought to be to execute murderers.
2. The pacifist rejection of retributivism
-
a. The period of waiting
for the condemned person is torture
b. Capital punishment
is ritualized killing - barbaric
c. CP is the ultimate
rejection of a person by society
A critique of the pacifist - CP is NOT too barbarous to use - consider
social utility.
3. Utilitarianism and CP (social utility) - CP is justified if the number of lives saved exceeds the number of executions.
4. Some considerations regarding CP and its
application:
a. Suffering of family
and friends of the convicted person ought to be taken into account.
b. What of the harmful
effects on wardens, executioners, and chaplains involved in CP?
c. People who WANT
to execute others are themselves of questionable moral character
d. The death penalty
makes juries less likely to convict an offender
5. Does CP deter murder? Three major
arguments-
a. Statistical - no
major correlation exists between absence of CP and rise in murder rate.
Conclusion: a) CP is not a great deterrent. 2) We do not know
whether it is a deterrent.
Under the view that CP is justified only when there is good evidence that
it is a substantial deterrent, both views of the statistical model fail
to justify CP.
b. Intuitive -
i. CP provides for certain, inevitable death - not in fact.
ii. The threat of instant death -- not in fact.
c. "Best Bet" - it
is better to gamble with the lives of murderers than it is to gamble with
the lives of victims.
Major problem with this view - the victims are already dead.
Rejoinder - the murderer definitely can't do it again.