Eliminate the death penalty: it's a cop-out
Over at Klamtroob, Klam articulates an anti-death penalty argument I've been interested for a long time:
...people who endorse the death penalty, most of them, anyway, seem most drawn to its retributive power, i.e., vengeance. They want the gruesome child-murdering rapist to get killed. They want Biblical justice.
If vengeance is what you want, why would you think that a controlled, sterile lethal injection is going to satisfy that desire? Why would an all-too-brief electrocution scratch that itch?
[...]
Instead of punishing capital offenders, we coddle them by euthenizing them with near-painless, evanescent executions. We spare them their guilty consciences and torturous minds. We let them off the hook.
If we really wanted to punish Moussaoui, we'd force him to rot in maximum-security prison until he's a shriveled-up, disease-ridden, arthritis-wracked old man. No hero's death for him.
posted by $!# at 4/04/2006 03:00:00 PM
10 Comments:
I dunno. I've never been happy with the argument that the death penalty "isn't punishment enough".
I guess if you're looking for an argument to supplicate the vengeful masses, then it is something that might resonate. I tend to gravitate to some sort of moral imperative that murder that is not in self-defense is wrong, period. Of course, like the Klamtroob Klam argument, it doesn't even touch upon the race and potential execution of innocents problems related to the application of the death penalty.
While the argument might connect with people, I don't think it's a particularly strong one in the debate about the death penalty.
Well, you've got people who think the death penalty is moral, and people who think it's immoral. You're not going to change many opinions there.
But I think we need to find middle ground on all of these agruments which appear to have none. The isn't-punishment-enough argument (as you put it) may a good place to start on the death penalty.
Vengance isn't rational. Morals are tough to argue. This isn't-punishment-enough argument, I think, appeals both to emotion and reason, so maybe offers some way forward -- something for everyone.
Hearts and minds, baby. Hearts and minds.
Of course the isn't-punishment-enough argument is the weakest of the available anti-capital-punishment arguments. But as $!# articulates (that's a fun name to write, by the way), or at least implies, none of the strong moral or practical arguments have persuaded people who support the death penalty out of a visceral sense of anger. And I'd bet that's the vast majority of its supporters.
OK, the execution-of-innocents argument has had some ameliorative effect --- like on that Illinois governor who declared the moratorium (whoever he was) --- but if you want to persuade someone motivated not by reason, but by emotion, your argument ought to be equally emotive.
Is the isn't-punishment-enough argument logical? Not very. It's totally subjective. But it paints a vivid picture, and in the realm of gut-based arguments, vividness counts more than logic.
Excellent blog, by the way.
Thanks.
in the realm of gut-based arguments, vividness counts more than logic
Amen. The right excels at these vivid arguments, but there's no reason progressives can't as well.
Sure, the reactionaries have a great system put together for distilling and distributing their vivid memes. Broadcast outlets, pundits, farm teams, you name it.
The left has made big strides in both the arguments themselves and the distribution (thank you, Daily Show), but we're starting from nothing, and it's nowhere near enough so far. Ten Air Americas and an Eschaton wouldn't get you an O'Reilly factor.
thanks, dave. so when you say 'sent up the river' -- we're talking about the hoosegow?
Ok, you must be referring to this... surprising: another republican going to jail? I haven't noticed much coverage in the blogosphere, but with all the indictments, it's hard to keep track...
Well, Dave's comment settles it: no moral or logical or practical argument has had much of any success in persuading capital-punishment supporters to change their minds.
All the more reason to start arguing from the gut.
We'll see, Klam and $1#. I think this "gut" argument has been around for a long long time as well, and I don't know that it's gained much traction over the years....
I guess we flesh computers are just hardwired to kill.
Dave, I started responding, but it turned into a post.
Post a Comment
<< Home