Death Penalty decision imminent for Boston Bomber

[bedstuy]

If you're going to have the death penalty, which I think we should, there's no better case for it than this guy.  You don't have to see it as revenge, think of it as rehabilitation for the rest of the world that doesn't need to have this miscreant living on the planet.

[bedstuy]

I don't really, philosophically, understand the point of punishing bad people if it doesn't deter them or other bad people.  They "deserve it"?  It's totally pointless.  It doesn't make sense.  It doesn't do anything.  I don't see the point of getting pleasure out of it, and generally speaking, I think it's kind of scary to get pleasure out of someone else's suffering, even if they're a bad person.

I can see how someone would be relatively apathetic to the suffering of bad people, but enjoying it just seems to be indulging a scary, jealous, potentially dangerous part of human instinct.

Here's why you're wrong.  First, even if the individual wrongdoer if not influenced by deterrence, there can be a deterrence value to society at large.  But, deterrence isn't the only reason why we punish morally wrongdoing.

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough? 

I suppose the objection to this would be that punishment also raises social consciousness and when people hear about the punishment, they will also be deterred from murder.  Then, say we also have a pill we can drop into the water supply that will raise the social consciousness about the wrongfulness of murder as much as life in prison or the death penalty.

In this world, would we be OK letting murders go free with no punishment at all?  I suspect most people would not.

[bedstuy]

Here's why you're wrong.  First, even if the individual wrongdoer if not influenced by deterrence, there can be a deterrence value to society at large.  But, deterrence isn't the only reason why we punish morally wrongdoing.

I don't understand where you got the idea that I'm neglecting the possibility of deterrence to society at large.  I even mentioned it specifically: "I don't really, philosophically, understand the point of punishing bad people if it doesn't deter them or other bad people."  I also explicitly stated I'm putting aside deterrence, since deterrence doesn't seem to have much to do with claims that certain people "deserve to die."

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?  

I suppose the objection to this would be that punishment also raises social consciousness and when people hear about the punishment, they will also be deterred from murder.  Then, say we also have a pill we can drop into the water supply that will raise the social consciousness about the wrongfulness of murder as much as life in prison or the death penalty.

In this world, would we be OK letting murders go free with no punishment at all?  I suspect most people would not.

The short answer (because it's late and I'm tired) is: ask most mrder victim's families.

You didn't explain how I'm "wrong" at all.  You just indicated that most people disagree with me.  Why do they disagree with me?  What's the logical reason?  Personal catharsis?  If so, do you think finding catharsis in cruelty/killing is something we should be encouraging and celebrating?  (Maybe the answer is "yes" in respect to crime victims' families, but is this behavior healthy when it manifests like it did in this thread, from people who probably weren't hit very hard emotionally by these events?)

In any case, none of this still explains the idea that someone "deserves" to die.  It explains why their death is useful to others' emotional well-being.  And, yes, actually, if there were a pill that magically cured someone of their malevolent tendencies, and we removed the variable of detterence, I would not necessarily support punishing the person.  There would be no utility to punishing the person.  Best case scenario, you'd be inflicting suffering on a bad person with no capacity for malevolence (pointless cruelty); worst case scenario, you'd be inflicting suffering on a now-good person (pretty sadistic).  Our animal minds may tell us this is "just," but our animal minds can be pretty perverse.  That's why we have any of these problems in the first place.

I'm glad you addressed my hypothetical in that way.  This is really complicated philosophical stuff and I think we can benefit from getting our difference out in the open.  What you're saying is that there's no retribution you would support.  Is that right though?

In the case of murder in my no deterrence world, would oppose tort damages for their family members in a civil suit?  If not, then the problem is that the death penalty or jail is not compensatory for the family?

[bedstuy]

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?

No. Not because of the lack of punishment but because of the lack of prophylaxis.  Assuming that magic pill has no side effects, why isn't it's use being required of everyone rather than being given to those who already murdered?

The magic only works on people who have already committed murder before.

[bedstuy]

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?

No. Not because of the lack of punishment but because of the lack of prophylaxis.  Assuming that magic pill has no side effects, why isn't it's use being required of everyone rather than being given to those who already murdered?

The magic only works on people who have already committed murder before.

Well then issuing it prophylactically would still stop serial murderers from repeating their crimes before they are caught.

It only works if you take it after you murder someone, and anyway, that's not the point of my hypothetical.  My point is that deterrence is not the only reason we punish people.

[bedstuy]

I'm glad you addressed my hypothetical in that way.  This is really complicated philosophical stuff and I think we can benefit from getting our difference out in the open.  What you're saying is that there's no retribution you would support.  Is that right though?

If we're defining retribution as a punishment based entirely off the idea that someone "deserves" to suffer for bad conduct, yes.

In the case of murder in my no deterrence world, would oppose tort damages for their family members in a civil suit?  If not, then the problem is that the death penalty or jail is not compensatory for the family?

No, because I don't see those as exclusively retribution: it's compensatory.  Are you arguing for the state-sanctioned execution of a criminal as being compensation toward the victim's family?  That's a plausible argument, but it seems kind of troublesome...

OK, so your problem with punishing people is that it's not either compensatory or deterrent. 

Here's my basic position.  I think the family or estate of a victim is not necessarily relevant to the criminal punishment.  That would be revenge and a criminal case is brought by the state so it doesn't really fit.

I think criminal law is partly based on the equitable principle that if you deprive someone of liberty and break the social contract with the state, you should suffer to bring about equity in society.  Equity as between the criminal and the rest of society, so that the criminal isn't benefiting from the peace of society without reciprocating.  Equity as between the victim and the criminal so that the criminal has an equitable reduction in his liberty to prevent a type of quasi-unjust enrichment of liberty.

[bedstuy]

I think criminal law is partly based on the equitable principle that if you deprive someone of liberty and break the social contract with the state, you should suffer to bring about equity in society.  Equity as between the criminal and the rest of society, so that the criminal isn't benefiting from the peace of society without reciprocating.  Equity as between the victim and the criminal so that the criminal has an equitable reduction in his liberty to prevent a type of quasi-unjust enrichment of liberty.

I understand what you're saying, but that seems to basically be the a legalistic paraphrase of the same moral claim I'm objecting to.  Yeah, I get that people feel that justice has been violated and the way of "restoring the balance" is by inflicting suffering on the person responsible.  I think it ties into the instinctual human hatred of inequity.  Except, in this case, the way of fulfilling the desire for inequity is the state executing someone.  Very occasionally, that person didn't even commit the crime.  This is not some sort of bland, procedural thing.  This isn't restitution.  This isn't based on some straightforward moral principle.  It's having the state kill people because it satisfies a very instinctual sense of "justice" that we can't really explain coherently.  How comfortable are you with that?

I'm against the death penalty for 99% of normal homicides for the reason you say.  We generally can't be sure of the guilt of an accused murderer.  I would only allow the death penalty in cases where there is no conceivable way the person is not guilty and there is outrageous anti-social behavior without any type of mental health excuse.  The Boston bomber is about 100% likely to be guilty and engaged in terrorism, that would be my basic reasoning here.

And, on the philosophical point, I'm comfortable with the basic moral idea I proposed, yes.  The idea of extremely harsh punishments like life in prison and the death penalty, I'm not too keen on in general.  And, I feel empathy even with murderers and I don't want anyone to be treated cruelly.  But, it's a sliding scale.  There are murderers and there are murderers.  I don't feel any empathy for the people who commit the most heinous crimes.