Justifications for Capital Punishment Part I

1
Justifications for Capital Punishment (Part I)

• Retribution

CJ 4530, The Death Penalty Appalachian State
University Dr. Matthew Robinson
2
Retribution

• The first is private but the second is public
• The first is not justified by law but the second
  is justified
• The first entails the offender being paid back by
  the victim but the second entails the offender
  paying back society
• The first is only a natural emotion rooted in our
  biology but the second is also about socialization

• There are at least two meanings
• 1) emotional response aimed at getting even
  (vengeance or just desserts)
• 2) rational response aimed at righting a wrong
  (retribution or justice)

3
Retribution and Public Support

• Historically, retribution is the highest reason
  cited in public opinion polls as to why people
  favor capital punishment
• (to get even with offenders, they deserve it, a
  life for a life, etc.)

4
Key facts to remember up front

• Only 1 of street killers actually get the death
  penalty
• LITERALLY NO white-collar / corporate offenders
  get the death penalty
• Thus, we FAIL to provide retribution by using the
  death penalty ...
• or is some justice better than none?

5
How does the class feel about DEATH for the sake
of vengeance?

• Many say that the intentional taking of life by
  the government should be based more on reason
  than on emotion
• Plus, murder is a crime against the government
  and the government has no emotion
• Does the state have the responsibility to make
  victims feel better?

6
Is there really vengeance?

• Murderers are now executed using lethal injection
  (much easier than their heinous crimes)
• And, we do not give other types of offenders
  punishment that equals their crimes (e.g., burn
  homes of arsonists, rape rapists, take cars of
  car thieves, rob robbers, etc.)
• So do we ever really get even with them?

7
How does the class feel about DEATH for the sake
of retribution?

• Many suggest we could balance the scales of
  justice with another form of punishment (e.g.,
  life imprisonment without possibility of parole)
  and still get even
• (This is what we mostly do now for 99 of
  murderers)
• This also prevents harms suffered by families of
  murderers (which is startlingly like that of
  murder victims families)

8
Death penalty supporters say ...

• There is no doubt that murderers deserve to die.
• Murder is the ultimate crime which calls for the
  ultimate punishment.
• Currently the death penalty is the ultimate
  punishment in 38 American jurisdictions.
• Key question assuming murderers merit death,
  does the government have the responsibility to
  carry it out? or is it just their right?

9
What do the experts say???
10

• Does capital punishment, as actually practiced in
  the United States, achieve retribution (i.e.,
  provide justice for murder victims, their
  families, and society at large)?
• Yes 31
• No 36
• Unsure 33
• N 42

11

• The death penalty is imposed far too
  infrequently and illogically to serve as
  retribution.
• At the present time, capital punishment is
  utilized far too infrequently to provide justice
  for more than a few murder victims and their
  families.

12

• Capital punishment might provide retribution for
  families of murder victims, but it cant for
  broader society. No social science evidence to
  suggest that it has any 'therapeutic' value for
  anyone.
• There is no retribution possible after a murder
  because the scales of justice can never be
  balanced. No amount of punishment will redeem
  the value of the dead victim.

13

• Research indicates many families still feel
  sorrow and have no sense of closure. What is
  needed is counseling for the families and friends
  of murder victims. Additionally, retribution is
  not a good goal for society. The offender can be
  punished and society protected by using LWOP.

14

• This is a difficult question to answer because
  it is to some degree a matter of opinion. I
  expect that there are families of murder victims
  who do feel that the execution of the perpetrator
  provided justice for them. Others feel the
  precise opposite. In a broader sense, the
  failings of the criminal justice system and the
  inequities of society at large make it unlikely
  that any punishment could be imposed in a way
  that provided retribution. In an ideal society
  in which burdens and benefits were distributed
  solely on the basis of merit, the situation might
  be different. Given the system we have and the
  propensity of humans to error, it is impossible
  that we can impose death sentences in a just way,
  making it impossible that we can achieve justice
  through this punishment.

15

• I dont think retribution is an appropriate
  motivation for punishment. How can you make
  things right for someone who is dead? You
  cannot. That is nonsense. It is also highly
  variable as to how well the families are served.
  Many think that it will bring closure, but it
  usually does not. Others are more victimized by
  the death penalty than served. Many families of
  victims oppose capital punishment. None benefit
  from going through the repeated cycles of the
  appeals process and concurrent media attention.
  As for society, I think it feeds into a very
  negative part of our psyche, feeds our
  aggression. Furthermore, it creates a new class
  of victims friends and families of the accused
  as well as those working within the system.

16

• Of course, I can't speak for any particular
  murder victims or their families, so this is a
  tough question to answer. In the broader sense,
  I don't think the death penalty serves these
  populations well at all. It may indeed achieve
  some sense of revenge or retribution for some
  co-victims or some members of society at large,
  but it certainly does not for others. The bigger
  question is Is serving this form of revenge
  constructive or destructive for these individuals
  (or society at large)? My answer to this would
  be that it is destructive.

17

• The wording of your question implies that
  retribution (i.e., a paying of tribute,
  something given or exacted in recompense, as my
  Websters has it) is justice a life for a life.
  Im sure youre aware that this model of justice
  is only one of several proposed by criminologists
  and sociologists. I dont think the retributive
  model is the most constructive one. It throws
  away a human life and makes killers of every
  citizen of the polity -- man, woman, and child.
  At the same time, the way execution is handled
  distances us from what our political and
  enforcement representatives are doing in our
  name. Last, retribution encourages us to believe
  that meting out punishment is a transparent
  process, potentially a simple one. Our
  retributive system hides the realities, including
  but not limited to the prevalence of plea
  bargaining, the inequalities of legal
  representation, and the numerical tokenism of the
  death penalty.

18

• In some cases it clearly does.
• Sporadically so, for some.
• It does in some cases but fails to do so in many
  cases.
• Of the various historical, economical,
  political, ideological, and practical arguments
  made by those who favor capital punishment,
  retribution is the ONLY issue supported by
  empirical evidence that is, when analyzed by the
  totally of events, circumstances, and experiences
  of the offender, victim, legal system, and
  society.
• It is an emotional response to the horrific
  crime of murder.

19

• By retribution, I mean taking from the
  criminal the advantage he has unfairly taken by
  committing the crime in question. Any penalty
  assigned according the principles of reasonably
  just legal system ... will do that (the death
  penalty as much as any human penalty). Justice
  for the victims or families is a civil matter for
  which a tort claim is the appropriate remedy it
  is a matter of compensation rather than
  retribution. Criminal justice is retribution
  (with or without clemency).

20

• I would think the death penalty does provide
  for retribution, but the delay in actually
  carrying out the execution may serve to lessen
  any retributive effect.
• To a limited extent. Because of its
  uncertainties and delays, it is often uncertain
  as to if and when families of victims will
  receive the sense of completion that an execution
  sometimes brings.

21

• It can reasonably be argued that death for
  murder is a morally just punishment. It is not
  the only morally just punishment, but it is one.
• Yes it may achieve retribution for murder
  victims some families but life imprisonment
  without parole (LWOP) would also severe
  retribution (I feel).

22

• It depends on whether you consider retribution
  to be a subjective experience or an objectively
  identifiable phenomenon. We know that many
  victims' families are not satisfied with capital
  punishment while others are satisfied by a life
  sentence. I am not sure what people (i.e.,
  politicians) mean when they say a punishment must
  be consistent with the wishes of the community.
  Who is this 'community'? How does a prosecutor
  or judge or politician know what the will of the
  people is other than a survey/poll that shows a
  majority opinion? I am not sure that making
  justice decisions upon the majority opinion is
  always the best policy.).

23

• You can argue this point both ways in some
  cases it has brought 'closure.' Many people
  maintain that retribution requires the death
  penalty. I would argue that a life sentence
  achieves retribution without risking the
  execution of an innocent person. Besides, and to
  my point about victims' families, that most
  people 'feel' a sense of retribution does not
  justify the use of the death penalty.
• I suppose it achieves retribution for some
  victims' families, but other victims' families
  don't necessarily want retribution it won't
  bring their loved ones back and, once the
  offender is dead, closure may not necessarily
  follow. It is a desire to see someone pay for
  their actions, and all of us feel this way at one
  time or another. However, I am not sure the
  death penalty is the way to do it.

24

• Probably some murder victims' families and some
  members of society think so, but non-death
  penalty jurisdictions (both inside outside the
  U.S.) are apparently able to achieve justice
  without capital punishment.

25
Retribution and Religion
26
Retribution and Religion

• Anyone feel like this?

27
Retribution and Religion

• According to studies of the Bible, there is NO
  CLEAR answer about whether capital punishment is
  a good idea according to GOD
• Who is the closest person to GOD? ... What does
  he say?
• How many religious organizations favor and oppose
  capital punishment?
• http//www.deathpenaltyreligious.org/education.htm
  l

28
What about the Bible?

• The Bible was changed just to suit King James,
  many empty lies he say, she say, me say, we
  say, John public blind people wont know the
  truth today

29
Assuming the Bible is Gods word what does it
say?

• http//www.justiceblind.com/death/johnson.htm
• Johnson examines 5 versions of Bible looking for
• 1) pro-capital punishment statements
• 2) anti-capital punishment statements
• 3) what happened to murderers in the Bible

• Conclusions include
• There is no clear Biblical mandate for death
  penalty
• All sides can find support for their arguments
• More support for death penalty in Old Testament
• New Testament does not refute it explicitly but
  is less supportive of it
• Only 4 of 22 murderers in Bible are executed

30
Does this story of Jesus stand out?

• Now early in the morning he came again into the
  temple, and all the people came to him and he
  sat down and taught them. Then the Scribes and
  Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in
  adultery. And when they sat her in the midst,
  they said to him, Teacher, this woman was caught
  in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the
  law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But
  what do you say? This they said, testing him,
  that they might have something of which to accuse
  him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the
  ground with his finger, as though he did not
  hear. So when they continued asking him, he
  raised himself up and said to them, He who is
  without sin among you, let him throw a stone at
  her first. And again he stooped down and wrote
  on the ground. Then those who heard it, being
  convicted by their conscience, went out one by
  one, beginning with the oldest even unto the
  last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman
  standing alone in the midst. When Jesus has
  raised himself up and saw no one but the woman,
  he said to her, Woman, where are those accusers
  of yours? Has no one condemned you? She said,
  No one Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do
  I condemn you go and sin no more. (John 81-11)

31
Ironies

• If religion is so important to people, why do
  most people support capital punishment?
• If the New Testament (and Jesus, son of God)
  preaches love your enemy and forgive those who
  trespass against you and turn the other cheek,
  is Old Testament even relevant?
• Most religious organizations TODAY are against
  capital punishment