Previous message: Michael S. Lorrey: "Re: EDUCATION: Evolution: stupid is as stupid teaches"
Well, we seem to have another death penalty discussion at hand.
This appears to generate lots of opinions, but little reasoning
from first principles. When we administer criminal punishment,
what are we trying to accomplish in the first place? Several things
I find it difficult to come to grips with this rationally.
Clearly, we have a strong desire to do unto others as they do
unto us, especially if they harmed us. This looks like an evolved
survival trait, but I'm uncertain how to justify it in a rational
manner. The death penalty fulfills the revenge urge very well.
- Reform.
That's what they told us in religion/ethics class back in school.
Supposedly reforming the criminal to make them a better citizen
is the primary purpose of punishment. In practice, it doesn't
look like this to me. Capital punishment does nothing for this,
- Removal.
This also applies to prison and deportation. The goal is to
remove criminals from society in order to keep them from doing
any further harm. Clearly, the death penalty is a supremely
effective means to get rid of a problem person.
- Restitution.
Have the criminal repay the damage they did. Basically, this is
only applicable to property damage, and in practice usually only
to minor ones. Putting a price tag on a human life is difficult,
but killing yet another person doesn't provide any economic gain
- Deterrence.
I'm under the impression that US experience tells that the death
penalty does little to deter criminals, although I'm uncertain
about the psychology involved. If you build a system based on
deterrence, you have to carefully grade punishment. Once people
are subject to the maximum penalty if caught, they have nothing
to lose, and that's one of the least things you want. ("Hey, I
already killed a cop. Five more won't change anything." Bad.)