Reading 2.3
\n“Capital Punishment Saves Lives” by Ernest van den Haag
\nPage 1
\nCapital Punishment Saves Innocent Lives
\nExcerpted from “Chapter 5: Justice, Deterrence and the Death Penalty,” by Ernest van den Haag, Ernest van den Haag was a
\nJohn M. Olin Professor of jurisprudence and public policy at Fordham University in New York City. He died in March 2002.
\nThe sanction of capital punishment is needed to deter
\nmurder. Life sentences have less of a deterrent effect on
\nmurder than capital punishment because incarcerated
\nmurderers can escape, be released on furlough, or kill
\nother prisoners or prison staff. Furthermore, arguments
\nthat capital punishment is counterproductive in the fight
\nagainst crime are flawed. For instance, executions do not
\ndecrease the public’s sensitivity to the immorality of
\nmurder and result in the increase of homicide or violent
\n10 crime. Also, capital punishment is advantageous in
\nmurder prosecutions\u2014it can be used to persuade
\naccomplices to testify against murderers or elicit guilty
\npleas from murderers in exchange for a life sentence.
\nBecause it effectively saves the lives of innocent people,
\ncapital punishment must be enforced.
\nSuum cuique tribue (to give to everyone what he
\ndeserves) is to do justice. What is deserved? In penal
\njustice this depends on the gravity of the crime and the
\n20 culpability of the criminal, both hard to determine. There
\nis no objective measure of the cardinal gravity of a crime;
\nor of the cardinal severity of a punishment; nor, finally,
\ndo we have an objective indication of what punishment is
\ndeserved per se by each degree of gravity.
\nHowever, ordinal ranking is possible. Crimes of
\na similar kind can be arrayed according to comparative
\ngravity; and punishments according to comparative
\nseverity. Although ultimately it depends on subjective
\nAssessments too, ordinal ranking is helpful, e.g., by telling
\n30 us that murder with torture, or with premeditation, (or
\nmultiple murder), is more grove (and deserves more
\npunishment) than murder without\u2014even if we cannot
\ndetermine how much more. We can conjecture also that
\nmanslaughter deserves more punishment than assault, or
\ntheft, and menacing less. But we cannot determine how
\nmuch more or less, nor whether execution is more
\nsevere than life in prison (most convicts think so).
\nLex talionis
\n40
\nPhysical punishments, such as mutilations, are
\nmore readily coordinated with the crimes they punish.
\nThus, the ancient lex talionis1 required fewer decisions
\non the comparative gravity of harms and punishments.
\nBut the lex talionis is irrelevant to criminal justice. It
\ntreated crimes as torts, which entitled victims to
\nretaliation or compensation according to the harm
\ninflicted, whereas we consider crimes mainly as harms to
\nsociety, which entitle it (and only it) to retribution.
\n50 Retribution, as deserved by the crime, is the paramount
\nmoral purpose of punishment. It is an end in itself, a
\ncategorical imperative. Doing justice by retribution is an
\nexpressive, rather than an instrumental act, retrospective
\nby definition. The very notion of “punishment” is
\nretrospective.
\nStill, retributive punishment may yield
\nlegitimate, instrumental, non-moral (though not
\nimmoral) benefits. Being instrumental, these
\nbenefits are prospective. Thus, incapacitation of
\n60 the convict by imprisonment, while it lasts,
\nobviously protects society. Rehabilitation
\n(sometimes called specific deterrence) may help
\nto protect society by discouraging crimes by the
\nreleased convict. Deterrence, finally, restrains
\nothers than the convict from doing in the future
\nwhat he did in the past. It is the most important
\ninstrumental benefit of punishment.
\nAlthough a desirable effect consistent
\nwith it, deterrence is not part of the moral aim
\n70 of justice. Deterrence can be justified, however,
\nas an important instrumental purpose of
\npunishment, if not as an independent one. It
\nwould be unjust to punish any person, guilty or
\ninnocent, merely to deter others. However, the
\ndeterrent effect of just (deserved) punishment,
\nintended or not, is morally justifiable, since the
\nconvict volunteered for risking the punishment
\nwhich has deterrent effects. He is not punished
\nmerely to deter others, which would be
\n80 inconsistent with justice, even if he is guilty.
\nHowever, if his deserved punishment deters
\nothers, it helps to repay for the harm the crime
\ndid to the social order\u2014to pay his “debt to
\nsociety.”
\nMany abolitionists insist that the death
\npenalty is no more deterrent than life in prison.
\nThis empirical question is, in principle,
\nanswerable by experiments, which, however, are
\nseldom practical, feasible, or conclusive. But the
\n90 justice of a punishment, such as the death
\npenalty, as distinguished from deterrent effects,
\ncannot be proved or disproved by any
\nexperiment….
\nDeterrence is the only purpose of the
\nthreats of the criminal law. Punishment of those
\nwho were not deterred carries out these
\nthreats and 1) retributes, and 2) keeps the
\npromise of the law (a threat is a negative
\npromise and promises must be kept\u2014pacta sunt
\n100 servanda). So much for the moral purposes of
\npunishment.
\nThere are two non-moral
\n(instrumental) purposes of punishment as well:
\n1) Legal threats of punishment would become
\nincredible and lose their deterrent effectiveness
\nif not carried out by actual punishment; and 2)
\nthe conditional threat of punishment addressed
\nto prospective criminals is also a positive
\nReading 2.3
\n“Capital Punishment Saves Lives” by Ernest van den Haag
\nPage 2
\npromise to the law abiding, which may help to keep them
\nlaw abiding. If threats were not carried out against those
\nnot deterred by them, the law abiding, who took the
\nthreats seriously and formed the habit of abiding by the
\nlaw, would have been fooled. At least some of them may
\nhave foregone crimes in part because they believed that
\nthey would be punished if they committed them. If those
\nwho were not deterred are not punished, the legal
\nthreats which helped restrain the law abiding would be
\n10 revealed as bluffs. Criminals would have gained an
\nadvantage by breaking the law, while the law abiding
\nwould have been placed at a disadvantage by trusting the
\nlaw. The social order which depends on the formation of
\nlaw abiding habits would be undermined.
\nThe most grave of crimes
\nTraditionally murder has been thought the most
\ngrave of crimes, deserving the most severe punishment.
\n20 Other crimes, such as theft, or even rape, leave the
\nvictim capable of recovering. Murder does not. It is final.
\nSo is the death penalty, which, therefore, traditionally has
\nbeen thought fitting.
\nCan any crime be horrible enough to forfeit the
\nlife of the criminal? Can death ever be a deserved
\npunishment? Some abolitionists do not think so. Others
\neven believe, for unintelligible reasons, that no society
\nhas a moral right to impose the death penalty. I am
\nconfident that the following excerpt may help answer this
\n30 question. (Res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself].)
\n… The appellant, after telling [seventeen-yearold] Donna Marie Dixon how pretty she was, raised his
\nfist and hit her across the face. When she stood up, he
\ngrabbed her by her blouse, ripping it off. He then
\nproceeded to remove her bra and tied her hands behind
\nher back with a nylon stocking. Timothy McCorquodale
\nthen removed his belt, which was fastened with a rather
\nlarge buckle, and repeatedly struck Donna across the
\n40 back with the buckle end of the belt. He then took off all
\nher clothing and then bound her mouth with tape and a
\nwashcloth. Leroy then kicked Donna and she fell to the
\nfloor. McCorquodale took his cigarette and burned the
\nvictim on the breasts, the thigh, and the navel. He then
\nbit one of Donna’s nipples and she began to bleed. He
\nasked for a razorblade and then sliced the other nipple.
\nHe then called for a box of salt and poured it into the
\nwounds he had made on her breasts. At this point Linda
\n[McCorquodale’s girlfriend], who was eight months
\n50 pregnant, became ill and went into the bedroom and
\nclosed the door. McCorquodale then lit a candle and
\nproceeded to drip hot wax over Donna’s body. He held
\nthe candle about \u00bd inch from Donna’s vagina and
\ndripped the hot wax into this part of her body. He then
\nused a pair of surgical scissors to cut around the victim’s
\nclitoris.
\nWhile bleeding from her nose and
\nvagina, Leroy forced the victim to perform oral
\n60 sex on him while McCorquodale had
\nintercourse with her. Then Leroy had
\nintercourse with the victim while McCorquodale
\nforced his penis into the victim’s mouth.
\nMcCorquodale then found a hard plastic bottle
\nwhich was about 5 inches in height and placed
\nan antiseptic solution within it, forcing this
\nbottle into Donna’s vagina and squirted the
\nsolution into her. The victim was then permitted
\nto go to the bathroom to “get cleaned up.”
\n70 While she was in the bathroom, McCorquodale
\nsecured a piece of nylon rope and told Bonnie
\nand her roommate that he was going “to kill the
\ngirl.” He hid in a closet across the hall from the
\nbathroom and when Donna came out of the
\nbathroom he wrapped the nylon cord around
\nher neck. Donna screamed, “My God, you’re
\nkilling me.” As McCorquodale tried to strangle
\nher, the cord cut into his hands and Donna fell
\nto the floor. He fell on top of her and began to
\n80 strangle her with his bare hands. He removed
\nhis hands and the victim began to have
\nconvulsions. He again strangled her and then
\npulled her head up and forward to break her
\nneck. He covered her lifeless body with a sheet
\nand departed the apartment to search for a
\nmeans of transporting her body from the scene.
\nBy this time, it was approximately 6:00 a.m. on
\nthe morning of January 17, 1974.
\n90 McCorquodale soon returned to the
\napartment and asked Bonnie for her trunk and
\nLeroy and McCorquodale tried to place Donna’s
\nbody in the trunk. Finding that the body was too
\nlarge for the trunk McCorquodale proceeded to
\nbreak Donna’s arms and legs by holding them
\nupright while he stomped on them with his foot.
\nDonna’s body was then placed in the trunk and
\nthe trunk was placed in the closet behind the
\ncurtains. McCorquodale and Leroy then went to
\n100 sleep on the couch in the living room for the
\ngreater portion of the day, leaving the
\napartment sometime during the afternoon.
\nBecause a strong odor began to
\nemanate from the body, and her efforts to mask
\nthe smell with deodorant spray had been
\nunsuccessful, Linda called Bonnie to request that
\nMcCorquodale remove the trunk from the
\napartment. Shortly after 8:00 p.m.
\n110 McCorquodale arrived at the apartment with a
\nperson named Larry. As they attempted to
\nmove the trunk from the closet, blood began
\nReading 2.3
\n“Capital Punishment Saves Lives” by Ernest van den Haag
\nPage 3
\nspilling from the trunk onto the living room floor.
\nMcCorquodale placed a towel under the trunk to absorb
\nthe blood as they carried the trunk to Larry’s car. When
\nMcCorquodale and Larry returned to the apartment they
\ntold Linda that the body had been dumped out of the
\ntrunk into a road and that the trunk was placed under
\nsome boxes in a “Dempsey Dumpster.” Donna’s body
\nwas found about half a mile off Highway No. 42 in
\nClayton County, Georgia. [McCorquodale was convicted
\n10 of murder, and executed on September 21, 1987.]
\nThe sanctity of life
\nFormer Supreme Court Justice William Brennan
\nthought the death penalty inconsistent with “the sanctity
\nof life.” His unargued notion may derive from the ancient
\nhomo homini res sacra (man is a sacred object to man).
\nBut the Romans, who coined the phrase, believed the
\nsanctity of life best safeguarded by executing murderers
\n20 who had not respected it. Brennan may also have based
\nhis view on the Constitution. However, it does not grant
\nan imprescriptible right to life which murderers would be
\nas entitled to as their victims. He also held that execution
\nis a “denial of the executed person’s humanity.” Yet,
\nphilosophers, such as Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel,
\nthought that punishments, including the death penalty,
\nrecognize and asseverate the humanity of the convict,
\neven though he himself may have repudiated it by his
\ncrime.
\n30 We protect ourselves from ferocious beasts,
\nbut we do not punish them, because, unlike criminals,
\nthey cannot tell right from wrong or restrain themselves
\naccordingly. Animals therefore are not, but criminals are
\nresponsible for their actions because they are human.
\nTheir punishment acknowledges rather than denies their
\nresponsibility and, thereby, their humanity. Brennan
\nfinally asserts that “the deliberate extinguishment of
\nhuman life by the state is uniquely degrading to human
\ndignity.” He does not tell whether the criminal or the
\n40 executioner is degraded, nor wherein the degradation
\nlies, or whether any crime could degrade humanity and
\ncall for a degrading punishment.
\nCapital punishment, a deliberate expulsion from
\nhuman society, is meant to add deserved moral ignominy
\nto death. This irks some abolitionists, who feel that
\nnobody should be blamed for whatever he does. But
\nmurder deserves blame. Death may well be less
\npunishment than what some criminals deserve. Even
\ntorture may be. But, although they may deserve it, we no
\n50 longer torture criminals. Unlike death, torture is
\navoidable. It is now repulsive to most people, and no
\nlonger thought entertaining, as it was in the past.
\nHowever much deserved, the death penalty
\nshould not be imposed if, by not threatening it, we can
\nsave innocent lives. If (unlike the Supreme Court) we
\nbelieve that rape deserves capital punishment, we
\nnevertheless should not impose it because the
\nthreat would be an incentive to the rapist to
\nmurder his victim and make apprehension and
\n60 conviction less likely without increasing the
\nseverity of his punishment if convicted. Indeed,
\ncapital punishment should be threatened rarely,
\nbecause it would give threatened criminals\u2014e.g.
\nburglars\u2014an incentive to kill victims, witnesses
\nand arresting officers. However, the importance
\nof trying to deter a first murder by the threat of
\ncapital punishment outweighs the usefulness of
\nnot encouraging additional murders by not
\nthreatening capital punishment for the first.
\n70 Therefore, the threat of capital punishment for
\nmurder is not counter-productive, whereas it
\nmight be for most other crimes.
\nNature has sentenced us all to death.
\nExecution hastens, but does not create the
\nunavoidable end of human life. What makes
\nexecution different is that it brands the
\nexecuted as morally unworthy to belong to
\nhuman society. The phrase “death is different,”
\ndarkly intoned by abolitionists, is impressive and
\n80 rings true, although it applies to execution more
\nthan to death. What follows from it? More
\ncapital punishment, or less? Or just caution in
\ninflicting it?
\nRetributive justice
\nThe paramount moral purpose of
\npunishment is retributive justice. But there are
\nimportant non-moral purposes as well, such as
\n90 protection of life and property. They are
\nachieved mainly by deterrence. It seems obvious
\nthat more severe and certain punishments deter
\nmore than less severe and certain ones. Yet,
\nabolitionists contend that the death penalty is
\nno more deterrent than life in prison, or,
\nalternatively, that the additional deterrence is
\nredundant. As mentioned, this empirical
\nquestion could be decided by experiment. We
\ncould threaten capital punishment for murders
\n100 committed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and
\nFridays (MWF) and life imprisonment on the
\nother days. If fewer murders are committed on
\nMWF, the death penalty would be likely to be
\nmore deterrent than life in prison. However, the
\nMWF murders do not deserve more
\npunishment than the others. It would be morally
\ncapricious to impose the death penalty just on
\nMWF murderers. We will have to rely on
\nobservation and statistical analysis, rather than
\n110 experiment, to establish degrees of deterrence.
\nPreponderantly, though not conclusively, the
\ndata tend to show the death penalty to be the
\nReading 2.3
\n“Capital Punishment Saves Lives” by Ernest van den Haag
\nPage 4
\nmost deterrent punishment available. Possibly, people
\nfear the death penalty irrationally, despite low probability
\n(executions are rare), just as they are irrationally
\nattracted to lotteries with high prizes despite the low
\nprobability of winning.
\nApart from less deterrence, life imprisonment,
\nthe alternative to capital punishment, also protects
\nsociety less than capital punishment does. The convict
\nmay escape, he may be granted a furlough, or his
\n10 sentence may be commuted by governors who,
\nunavoidably, retain the right to pardon. Not least, the
\nlifer may endanger guards and fellow prisoners, since
\nwithout the death penalty there is no further punishment
\nto deter him.
\nTo proponents of capital punishment,
\ndeterrence, though important, is not decisive. Justice is.
\nStill, most believe that the threat of execution does deter
\nmore than life imprisonment. In contrast, abolitionists
\nbelieve that capital punishment not only is morally
\n20 unjustifiable, but also has no more deterrent effect than
\nlife imprisonment. However, they would continue to
\nadvocate abolition, even if the death penalty were shown
\nto deter more than life imprisonment. In effect,
\nabolitionists appear to believe that the non-execution of
\nmurderers is morally more important than saving the
\ninnocent lives execution would save if it deters more
\nthan imprisonment. Asked whether they would execute
\nmurderers if each execution were to deter ten murders,
\nthereby saving ten innocent lives, all abolitionists I have
\n30 questioned answer in the negative.
\nThe vulgar argument that holds execution to be
\nwrong, because it does to the murderer what he did to
\nhis victim, neglects to note that many punishments do to
\nthe criminal what he did to his victim. In the past this was
\nthought to be the essence of justice. The difference
\nbetween a crime and a punishment is social, not physical.
\nThere is no need for physical dissimilarity. A crime is an
\nunlawful act, legal punishment is a lawful act. Taking a
\nperson from his family and confining him against his will
\n40 in a small cell may be an unlawful kidnaping, or a lawful
\narrest. The difference is not physical. Neither is the
\ndifference between murder and execution, or being fined
\nand being robbed.
\nThere is no evidence for brutalization caused by
\nthe death penalty. The idea that legal killing will lead to
\nimitation by illegal killing, or to any increase in violent
\ncrime, is unsubstantiated. And proponents do not explain
\nwhy legal imprisonment does not lead to kidnapings, or
\nwhy violent crime in Singapore and Saudi Arabia, both
\n50 renowned for executions and physical punishments, is so
\ninfrequent.
\nThe brutalization argument might be somewhat
\nmore valid against televising executions, although there
\nare more salient arguments against televising. The
\nexecutions would be sandwiched between sitcoms,
\nsports, advertisements, contests and popular songs. The
\neffect would be not so much to brutalize as to
\ntrivialize executions. Until two hundred years
\nago they served as popular entertainment.
\n60 Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis\u2014we
\nshould not go back to using punishments as
\nentertainment. Moreover, TV could show how
\nthe murderer is deprived of his life, but not
\nwhat he did to his victim. The uninformed
\nwould be unduly stirred to pity for the criminal
\nrather than the victim….
\nWe have more than 20,000 homicides
\nannually, but only about 300 death sentences
\n(and less than 50 executions). At this rate most
\n70 of the about 3,000 murderers now on death
\nrow are far more likely to die of old age than by
\nexecution. On the average convicts spend more
\nthan eight years appealing their convictions. This
\nseems a long time. Many appeals are repetitious
\nas well as frivolous. Despite elaborate
\nprecautions, nothing short of abolishing
\npunishment can avoid miscarriages altogether.
\nThe salient question about the death penalty is
\nnot: Could innocents be executed by mistake?
\n80 (The answer is yes\u2014courts are fallible) but:
\nDoes the death penalty save more innocent lives
\nthan it takes? Is there a net gain or loss?
\nMany desirable social practices cannot
\navoid killing innocents by accident. For instance,
\nambulances save many lives, but also run over
\nsome pedestrians. We do not abolish
\nambulances, because they save more innocents
\nthan they kill. So does the death penalty, if it
\ndeters some murders, as is likely, and if the
\n90 miscarriages are few, as is likely too. It seems
\nsafer then, to rely on executions, which through
\ndeterrence, may save innocent lives, than it
\nwould be not to execute and risk not saving an
\nindefinite number of innocents who could have
\nbeen saved. If we execute a convicted murderer
\nand his execution does not produce additional
\ndeterrence, his execution, though just, would
\nnot have been useful. But if his execution deters
\nprospective murderers, not executing him
\n100 would sacrifice innocent people who would have
\nbeen spared had he been executed….
\nThe “root” of criminality
\nPerhaps college education helps explain
\nopposition to the death penalty. Students are
\ntaught, accurately, that the great majority of
\ncriminals, including murderers, were mistreated
\nand abused as children. Students infer,
\n110 incorrectly, that mistreatment is the cause, or
\n“root,” of criminality. Unfortunately, they are
\nnot taught that the majority of mistreated and
\nReading 2.3
\n“Capital Punishment Saves Lives” by Ernest van den Haag
\nPage 5
\nabused children do not become criminals, let alone
\nmurderers. Mistreatment and abuse are neither
\nnecessary nor sufficient causes of murder. To be sure,
\npoverty, lack of education, childhood abuse, and, more
\nimportant perhaps, the absence of a law-abiding family,
\nmay dispose to crime more than affluence and suburban
\nliving. But the former circumstances do not make it
\nimpossible to avoid crime. The responsibility for it
\nremains with the individual who volunteers for crime.
\n10 The threat of punishment is meant precisely to
\ndeter persons who, for whatever reason, are disposed to
\ncrime. The legal threat is not needed for others. The so
\ncalled causes of crime are, at best, explanations, but
\nneither justifications nor excuses, let alone exculpations.
\nCauses are exculpatory only if they compel crime and
\nthus eliminate responsibility. It is reasonable to assume
\nthat there are some exceptional factors in the
\nbackground of murderers, since murder is an exceptional
\naction. Such factors may help explain criminal acts. They
\n20 cannot exculpate.
\nAnatole France2 sarcastically remarked “the law
\nin its majestic equality prohibits rich and poor alike to
\nsteal bread or to sleep under bridges,” implying that the
\nrich are hardly tempted to commit the crimes that may
\nbe nearly, but not quite, irresistible to the poor. No one
\nany longer arrests the homeless who sleep under bridges,
\nnor a hungry person who steals bread. Still, the law is
\nmeant to prohibit stealing by those tempted by their
\ncircumstances as well as by those who are not. For the
\n30 latter the prohibition is academic, for the former
\nburdensome. Is this unjust, as Anatole France suggests?
\nHardly. Although its prohibitions apply to everyone, the
\ncriminal law necessarily burdens mainly those who by
\ntheir circumstances are tempted to do what it prohibits.
\nThey are the ones that need to be deterred. There
\nwould be no need for criminal laws if no one were
\ntempted to break them. And, surely, the most
\ndisadvantaged groups are most tempted to engage in
\nunlawful acts, since they have the fewest legitimate
\n40 resources to fulfill their desires. The prohibition of
\nstealing imposes a greater burden on the poor than on
\nthe rich. But the greater temptation does not justify
\nyielding to it.
\nEducation tends to influence most those who
\nget most of it, the professional classes. In modern times
\neducation may induce students to regard nothing as final
\nand to feel that no decision ever should be. Since
\nshowing that the earth is not flat science has undermined
\nmany certainties and sewn many doubts. Thus the
\n50 uneasiness about certainty among the educated. Death is
\nand remains final. However, inflicting death as a final
\npunishment which cuts off the future and any possibility
\nof change seems psychologically in conflict with the spirit
\nof the times imbued as it is by doubtfulness. Death is
\ncertain and we cannot abolish it. However, we can
\nabolish the death penalty. The spirit which prevails
\namong the educated elite pushes us to do so.
\nThe finality of the death penalty makes us
\nuncomfortable. Never mind that the death
\n60 penalty does not create death but merely
\nhastens it. People like to ignore death\u2014which
\nthe penalty makes hard to do. Moreover,
\nextreme moral blame attaches to capital
\npunishment\u2014and we like even our courts and
\njudges to be nonjudgmental. It follows that, if
\npresent trends continue, the death penalty is
\nlikely to become more rare. Yet, history does
\nnot allow any trend to continue forever.
\nPrediction is chancy. Still it seems likely
\n70 currently that the death penalty will continue in
\nAmerica, Asia and Africa but is unlikely to be
\nreinstituted in most of Europe where it has been
\nabolished….
\nMany criminologists believe deterrence
\nrequires that prospective criminals calculate the
\nadvantages of crime and compare them with the
\ndisadvantages, including punishment. Criminals
\nusually do not do that. Nor does deterrence
\ntheory require that they calculate. To be sure,
\n80 criminals volunteer for the risk of punishment
\nbecause they expect a net advantage from
\ncrime. But they calculate no more than law
\nabiding persons calculate to remain law abiding.
\nSociety offers disincentives to law breakers and
\nincentives to law abiding persons. These
\nincentives and disincentives powerfully
\ncontribute to the formation of law abiding or
\nlaw breaking habits. But few people calculate.
\nLaw abiding people habitually ignore criminal
\n90 opportunities. Law breakers habitually discount
\nthe risk of punishment. Neither calculates. Both
\nfollow habits largely produced by the incentives
\nand disincentives society offers, which have
\ndifferent effects on different individuals in
\ndifferent circumstances. Once these habits are
\ningrained they are followed almost
\nindependently of new incentives and
\ndisincentives. The major impact of criminal
\njustice is on habit formation, not on habits
\n100 already formed. Most of our behavior arises
\nfrom habits which are seldom explicitly
\ncalculated. One must be careful, then, not to
\nconfuse the rational reconstruction of one’s
\nbehavior with the processes that actually lead to
\nit.
\nSundry arguments for abolition
\nTurn now to sundry arguments for
\n110 abolition, some more popular than valid. The
\nFrench writer Albert Camus insists that “a man
\nis undone by waiting for capital punishment well
\nReading 2.3
\n“Capital Punishment Saves Lives” by Ernest van den Haag
\nPage 6
\nbefore he dies. Two deaths are inflicted on him, the first
\nbeing worse than the second, whereas he killed but
\nonce.” (Would it follow that, had he murdered two
\npersons, capital punishment would have been just?) The
\nmistake Camus makes is in his belief, shared by many
\nabolitionists, that the pain inflicted on the murderer
\nshould not exceed that of his victim. This limit derives
\nfrom the limit the lex talionis set for retaliation or
\ncompensation. But the lex talionis regarded as torts acts
\n10 we consider crimes. Camus’ reasoning might govern tort
\nrules for compensation. But criminal law must not be
\nconfused with tort law. Punishment for a crime is neither
\ncompensation nor retaliation, but retribution, as
\nthreatened by law, for the harm inflicted on the social
\norder. Retribution need not be limited to, or be equal to
\nthe suffering of crime victims.
\nA somewhat frivolous argument alleges that life
\nimprisonment without parole would cost less than
\nexecution. The argument is of doubtful relevance and
\n20 accuracy. If one correctly calculates the cost of life
\nimprisonment for murderers, who must be held in
\nexpensive high security prisons, it seems no less than the
\ncost of execution. (Most murderers are young and likely
\nto spend a long time in prison.) On the other hand, the
\ncost of execution has been greatly inflated by the very
\npersons who complain about it. They insist on lengthy
\nprocedures which add far more to cost than to justice.
\nFrivolous appeals could be reduced with considerable
\nsavings. The cost of execution is currently estimated at
\n30 about $2.5 million. If one assumes a cost of $30,000-
\n40,000 for a year in high security prison and adds the
\ncost of legal appeals (lifers keep their attorneys busy) and
\nfurther assumes an average of forty years in prison, the
\ncost is about the same whether we execute or
\nincarcerate for life. But, as mentioned, the cost of
\nexecution is far higher than required by justice.
\nSome technical advantages of the death penalty
\nshould not be overlooked. By threatening it, prosecutors
\nmay persuade accomplices to testify against murderers,
\n40 or persuade the murderers themselves to plead guilty in
\nexchange for a life sentence. Also, in a hostage situation
\npolice can promise the criminal that the prosecution will
\nnot ask for the death penalty if he releases his hostages.
\nWithout the death penalty the criminal can threaten to
\nkill his victims, while police can only threaten
\nincarceration.
\nReligious objections to the death penalty reflect
\nthe Zeitgeist more than theology. In his Summa
\nTheologica philosopher and theologist Thomas Aquinas
\n50 writes: “a man shall be sentenced to death for crimes of
\nirreparable harm.” In his Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas
\npoints out that “[murderers] may be justly executed….
\n[T]hey also have, at the critical point of death, the
\nopportunity to be converted to God through
\nrepentance.” (They did not give this opportunity to their
\nvictims.)
\nTrendy abolitionists often conflate two
\ndifferent virtues, justice and charity. They must
\nbe distinguished. Justice tries to mete out what
\n60 is deserved. Charity impels us to love and help
\nregardless of desert. Religion enjoins
\ncompassion and forgiveness, even of murderers,
\nbut does not suggest that justice should be
\nreplaced by compassion. Scripture presents God
\nas legislator and judge who imparts Justitia
\nMisericordiae Dulcore Temperata: Justice
\ntempered by mercy, but not replaced by it.
\nAbolition of the death penalty would
\npromise prospective murderers that we will
\n70 never do to them what they will do to their
\nvictims. Such a promise seems unwise as well as
\nimmoral.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Reading 2.3 “Capital Punishment Saves Lives” by Ernest van den Haag Page 1 Capital Punishment Saves Innocent Lives Excerpted from “Chapter 5: Justice, Deterrence and\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7316,7318,7317,7315,7319,7321],"tags":[642,618,8825,576,116,631,19,643,473,633,630,628,450,597,594,626,635,574,622,624,620,621,619,623,617,625,627,634,629,632,644,645,42,66],"class_list":["post-113104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-best-dissertation-writers-uk","category-british-dissertation-writers","category-dissertation-help-online","category-dissertation-writing-services-uk","category-help-with-dissertation-writing","category-uk-dissertation-help","tag-apps-that-write-essays-for-you-free","tag-assignment-writing-services-in-usa","tag-bes","tag-best-dissertation-writing-services","tag-best-essay-writing-service","tag-best-paper-writing-services","tag-best-research-paper-writing-services-in-usa","tag-best-website-to-write-my-essay","tag-cheap-essay-writing-service","tag-cheap-research-paper-writing-service","tag-college-paper-writing-service","tag-dissertation-help-online","tag-dissertation-writing-services","tag-dissertation-writing-services-illegal","tag-dissertation-writing-services-near-me","tag-dissertation-writing-services-usa","tag-essay-writing-service","tag-free-dissertation-writing-services","tag-homework-essay-writer","tag-homework-essay-writer-free","tag-homework-help-global","tag-homework-help-services","tag-homework-help-usa","tag-homework-writing-help","tag-homework-writing-service","tag-legit-research-paper-writing-services","tag-legitimate-dissertation-writing-services","tag-research-paper-writer-online-free","tag-research-paper-writing-services-online","tag-research-paper-writing-websites","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-cheap","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-tik-tok","tag-write-my-essay-free","tag-write-my-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113104","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}