save: murderers and innocent
victims in the future
lose: convicted murderer
save: nothing affected
lose: convicted murderer
save: convicted murderer
lose: innocent victims in the
future
save: convicted murderer
lose: nothing affected
Following this table, Conway assumes (after Van den Haag’s suggestion that the life of a convicted murderer is not valued more highly than that of the unknown victims) numerical values about each case (each numerical number stands for not a number of people but a hypothetical value for a person to be saved or killed) :
a murderer saved +5
a murderer executed -5
an innocent saved +10
an innocent murdered -10
Moreover, he assumes that for each execution, only two innocent lives are spared (i.e. he assumes the deterrent effect to be almost the minimum). Then, consequently, executing convicted murderers turns out to be a good bet (Conway 1995, pp. 265-266; Pojman 1998, pp. 40-41).
9. Negative causation and where to give priority
Van den Haag’s ‘Best Bet Argument’ sounds quite interesting. However, Conway has already proposed a fundamental challenge to this argument: it mistakenly regards the actual death of convicted murderers as being on a par with the possible death of innocent victims in the future (Conway 1995, pp. 269-270). This is confusing or possibly a rhetorical sleight of hand. I think that Conway’s reaction to Van den Haag’s argument is a reasonable one.
As I approach my conclusion, I will propose two problems with Van den Haag’s argument. First, I want to acknowledge that any arguments, including Van den Haag’s, supporting the death penalty in terms of its deterrent effect seem to presuppose a causal relationship between the existence of the death penalty and people not killing others. For example, Pojman writes, ‘the repeated announcement and regular exercise of capital punishment may have deep causal influence’ (1998, p. 48). However, epistemologically speaking, that presupposition is extremely hard to confirm, because the effect of this causal relationship is not a positive, but rather a negative event, which is the event of not killing others. This has something to do with the philosophical problem of how to understand negative properties. By negative properties we mean that, for example, my room is not full of seawater; my room does not consist of paper; my room is not melting us, etc. Such descriptions by negative properties can be made almost endlessly. In other words, one identical event described by a positive property (e.g., this room is well lit) can be re-described in infinite ways in terms of negative properties. Take the example that I am now at my computer in Tokyo, writing a paper. This event can also be described as ‘I am not eating’, ‘I am not sleeping’, ‘I am not killing others’ (!), etc. The positive event, ‘I am writing a paper now’, can be understood through a causal relationship. The event was most likely caused by my intention to do so, which was caused by my sense of duty as a professor, etc. How, then, could we understand the negative description of my action, ‘I am not killing others’? Was this caused by the existence of the death penalty in Japan?
Perhaps I was completely unaware of the existence of the death penalty in Japan when I wrote a paper without killing others. Could the death penalty be its cause? Could the negative event ‘I am not killing others’ be an effect of the death penalty? It is hard to say so.
This problem is the same as the problem of ‘causation by absence’ or ‘omission-involving causation’. Generally, causation by absence is usually examined in the form of answering a question about whether nothingness can cause something. For example, David Lewis discusses a question about how a void (understood as being entirely empty or nothing at all, differing from a vacuum) is regarded as a cause of something (Lewis 2004). He says, ‘If you were cast into a void, it would cause you to die in just a few minutes. It would suck the air from your lungs. It would boil your blood. It would drain the warmth from your body. And it would inflate enclosures in your body until they burst’ (ibid., p.277). However, the problem is that the void is nothing. ‘When the void sucks away the air, it does not exert an attractive force on the air’ (ibid.). Furthermore, another, perhaps harder problem would arise. We can say, ‘If I defended you from being cast into a void, you would not die’. Namely, my omission to defend you would cause you to die. However, should only my omission matter? What of your brother’s omission to defend you? Or the Prime Minister of the UK’s omission to defend you? Are not all of those qualified to be the cause of your death, as least as long as we adopt a common-sense counterfactual analysis of causation? As this argument suggests, in the context of the current debate on this problem, the most troublesome phase is that ‘too many’ absences can be supposed to cause a particular effect. I quote Menzies, who says (2004, p.145):
I am writing this essay at my computer. If, however, there were nerve gas in the air, or I were attacked with flamethrowers, or struck by a meteor shower, I would not be writing the essay. But it is counterintuitive to say that the absence of nerve gas, flamethrower attack, and meteor strike are causes of my writing the essay.
This example takes the issue of absence as a cause, but simultaneously his example refers to the case of effect as absence (not writing the essay). As this shows, the current debate on the problem of causation by absence could extend to the case of effect as absence. In any case, what matters is a possibility that ‘too many’ absences can cause something, and something can cause ‘too many’ absences (Menzies calls this problem ‘the problem of profligate causation’ (ibid., pp.142-145). Then the deterrent effect of the death penalty is definitely classified as a case of absence as effect rather than cause. In other words, the absence of homicide (as effect) matters, whereas in this case execution (as cause) is presupposed to exist. It seems that the current debate on causation by absence is highly likely to contribute to discussing the problem of the deterrent effect.
Of course, someone may counter my argument by saying that what matters in this context is a statistical correlation between the number of executions and the number of homicides, which could be confirmed in an empirical way. I admit that the statistical correlation plays a crucial role here, even though we must simultaneously acknowledge that what is called ‘randomized controlled trial’, the most reliable, statistical methodology to confirm causal relations, is unfeasible due to the nature of the problem. Actually, this kind of correlation is too rough to predict the causal relationship between those, although the causation really matters. Causes of a reduction or increase in the number of homicides can be interpreted or estimated in various ways, considering confounding factors, such as education, economic situation, urban planning, and so on. Therefore, in principle, there always remains the possibility that the apparent correlation between the death penalty and the reduction of homicides is merely accidental. For example, there may be another, common cause, that brings about both people’s tendency to support the death penalty and the reduction of homicides 9 . We should recognise that there is intrinsic uncertainty here. These difficulties concerning causal relations give rise to a fourth problem related to the death penalty debates – the Uncertainty of Causal Consequences.
Incidentally, let me now return to my distinction of the three stages regarding the death penalty. Obviously, the issue of the deterrent effect belongs primarily to the Danger Stage. Yet it is vital to consider the Harm Stage. How can the deterrent effect affect the Harm Stage? I must say that the retentionist’s argument, in terms of the deterrent effect of the death penalty, completely dismisses this essential point. We need only recall the analogy of the 2011 quake in Japan. ‘Retentionism’ based upon the deterrent effect corresponds to aspect (3), where the improvement of the preventive system matters. This is important, of course, but cannot be a priority. Priority lies in the issues of how to deal with the actual harm that the victims have already suffered (specifically referring to the bereaved family or others in the case of homicide and the death penalty). Without consideration of how to cope with the harm, even if the theory seriously considers the innocent victims in the future, the retentionists’ theory can hardly be persuasive.
It is true that the retentionists’ theory based on the deterrent effect appropriately considers the person harmed in the process of punishment. For example, Walker considers such a phase in the process of punishment as one of the possible objections against retentionism based on the deterrent effect by saying: ‘if the benefit excludes the person harmed this too is nowadays regarded by many people as morally unacceptable’ (Walker 1980, p. 65). However, as the context clearly shows, by ‘the person harmed’ he means the person punished. He does not mention the initial harm suffered by victims. This problem is concerned with my previous claim; that is, we have to consider the ‘whom-question’ when we discuss the justification of punishment. Whom are we discussing? Whose benefit do we consider? In the face of victims before our eyes, can we emphasise only the improvement of preventive systems for the future? Evidently, actual victims are the first to be helped, although obviously it is not at all bad to simultaneously consider the preventive system in the future. It is necessary for us to respect basic human rights and the human dignity of perpetrators and innocent people in the future; however, that respect must be in conjunction with our first taking care of actual victims. We ought not to get our priorities wrong.
10. Prospects
I have indicated that the debates on the death penalty are inevitably surrounded by four problems over specific kinds of uncertainties: uncertainty concerning the victim of homicide, uncertainty in justifying the death penalty from the feeling of being victimised, uncertainty in justifying the death penalty on the basis of human rights, and uncertainty over negative causation. In the course of examining these problems, I have proposed the option of developing an ‘impossibilist’ position about the death penalty, which I am convinced, deserves further investigation. However, being surrounded by theoretical problems and uncertainties might be more or less true of any social institution. My aim is only to suggest how the death penalty should be understood as involving uncertainties from a philosophical perspective. Most likely, if there is something practical that I can suggest based on my argument, then what we might call a ‘Harm-Centred System’ may be introduced as a relatively promising option instead of, or in tandem with, the death penalty. What I mean by this is a system in which we establish as a priority redressing actual harm with regard to legal justice, where ‘actual harm’ only implies what the bereaved family suffer from, as the direct victims have already disappeared in the case of homicide. In other words, I think that something akin to the maximalist approach to restorative justice 10 or some hybrid of the traditional justice system and the restorative justice system should be seriously considered, although we cannot expect perfect solutions exempt from all of the above four problems. It is certainly worth considering whether some element of restorative justice can play a significant role in the best theory of punishment.
In any case, my argument is at most a philosophical attempt to address problems. How to apply it to the practice of the legal system is a question to be tackled in a future project.
Bazemore, G. and Walgrave, L. 1999 (1). ‘Introduction: Restorative Justice and the International Juvenile Justice Crisis’. In Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime , eds. G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave, Criminal Justice Press, 1-13.
———. 1999 (2). ‘Restorative Juvenile Justice: In Search of Fundamentals and an Outline for System Reform’. In Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime , eds. G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave, Criminal Justice Press, 45-74.
Beyleveld, D. 1979. ‘Identifying, Explaining and Predicting Deterrence’. British Journal of Criminology 19:3, 205–224.
Calvert, B. 1993. ‘Locke on Punishment and the Death Penalty’. Philosophy 68:264,, 211–229.
Collins, J., N. Hall, and L. A. Paul. 2004. Causation and Counterfactuals. MIT Press.
Conway, D. A. 1995 (originally 1974). ‘Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Considerations in Dialogue Form’. In Punishment: A Philosophy and Public Affairs Reader , eds. J. Simmons, M. Cohen, J. Cohen, and C. R. Beitz. Princeton University Press, 261–273.
Diogenes Laertius. 1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2. Trans. R. D. Hicks. Loeb Classical Library. William Heinemann Ltd.
Ehrlich, I. 1975. ‘The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death’. American Economic Review 65:3, 397–417.
Fagan, A. 2016. ‘Human Rights’. In Chase B. Wrenn, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002. Available from http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/#H2 [Accessed 12 June 2017]
Fischer, J. M., ed. 1993. The Metaphysics of Death . Stanford University Press.
Goldman, A. H. 1995 (originally 1979). ‘The Paradox of Punishment’. In Punishment: A Philosophy and Public Affairs Reader , eds. J. Simmons, M. Cohen, J. Cohen, and C. R. Beitz. Princeton University Press, 30–46.
Hart, H. L. A. 1982. Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Theory . Oxford University Press.
Ichinose, M. 2013. ‘Hybrid Nature of Causation’. In T. Uehiro, Ethics for the Future of Life: Proceedings of the 2012 Uehiro-Carnegie-Oxford Ethics Conference , the Oxford Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, 60-80.
———. 2016. ‘A Philosophical Inquiry into the Confusion over the Radiation Exposure Problem’. Journal of Disaster Research 11: No.sp, 770-779.
Lewis, D. 2004. ‘Void and Object’. In J. Collins, N. Hall, and L. A. Paul, Causation and Counterfactuals . MIT Press, 277–290.
Locke, J. 1960. Two Treatises of Government , ed. P. Laslett, Cambridge University Press.
———. 1975. An Essay concerning Human Understanding , ed. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford University Press.
Menzies, P. 2004. ‘Difference-Making in Context’. In J. Collins, N. Hall, and L. A. Paul, Causation and Counterfactuals . MIT Press, 139–180.
Pojman, L. P., and J. Reiman. 1998. The Death Penalty: For and Against. Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Scanlon, T. M. 1982. ‘Contractualism and utilitarianism’. In A. Sen and B. Williams, Utilitarianism and Beyond . Cambridge University Press, 103-128.,
Simmons, A. J. 1994. ‘Locke on the Death Penalty’. Philosophy 69:270, 471–477.
Strawson, G. 2008. ‘The Impossibility of Ultimate Moral Responsibility’. In Real Materialism. Oxford University Press, 319–331.
Tonry, M. 1994. ‘Proportionality, Parsimony, and Interchangeability of Punishments’. In A Reader on Punishment , eds. A. Duff and D. Garland. Oxford University Press, 133–160.
Van den Faag, E. 1995 (originally 1969). ‘On Deterrence and the Death Penalty’. In Punishment and the Death Penalty: The Current Debate , eds. R. M. Baird and S. E. Rosenbaum. Prometheus Books.
Von Hirsch, A. 1993. Censure and Sanctions. Oxford University Press.
Walen, A, 2015. ‘Retributive Justice’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/justice-retributive/ [Accessed 12 June 2017]
Walker, N. 1980. Punishment, Danger and Stigma: The Morality of Criminal Justice . Barnes & Noble Books.
1. Strangely, few Locke scholars have seriously tried to understand the Lockean meaning of punishment, which is developed in his Second Treatise ,(Locke 1960), in the light of his theory of personal identity based upon ‘consciousness’, which is discussed in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding . Taking into account the fact that ‘person’ appears as the key word in both works of Locke, we must bridge the gap between his two works by rethinking the universal significance of ‘person’ in his arguments. There were, however, some controversies concerning how Locke evaluates the death penalty. See Calvert (1993) and Simmons (1994).
2. There is an additional question about whether justification is needed after the execution when the convict is no longer around, in addition to ‘before’ and ‘during’. According to my understanding of justification, the process of justification must begin with making each person concerned understand what there is no reason to reject, but that is just a starting, necessary point. Justification must go beyond the initial phase to acquiring general consent from society. In this sense, justification seems to be needed even ‘after’ the execution. Actually, if there is no need for justification after the execution, that sounds less like punishment based on a system of justice than merely physical disposal.
3. Is it true that the death penalty is the ultimate punishment? Can we not suppose that the death penalty is less harmful than a life sentence or very lengthy incarceration? However, this view regarding the death penalty as less harmful than a lifelong sentence could lead to a paradox. If this order of severity as punishment is valid, it may be possible to reduce the lifelong sentence (due to an amnesty, some consideration on the prisoner’s rehabilitation, or something like that) to the death penalty. If this is the case, prisoners given the lifelong sentence will not make an effort at all to rehabilitate themselves, due to fear of the sentence being reduced to the death penalty. In addition, if a person is likely to be sentenced to death, the person might try to commit a more heinous crime, perhaps even in the court in order to be given a more severe sentence, i.e. a life sentence in prison. That is a paradox drawn from human nature.
4. On the current debates on ‘HTD’ of Epicurus, see Fischer (1993). Of course, there are lots of objections against the Epicurean view. The most typical objection is that death deprives people of their chance to enjoy life, and therefore death is harmful. However, it seems to me that “whom-question” must be raised again here. To whom is the deprivation of this chance harmful? In any case, the metaphysics of death is a popular topic in contemporary philosophy, which should involve not only metaphysical issues but also ethical and epistemological problems.
5. In fact, the hardships suffered by those forced to flee to shelters constituted the main problem resulting from the nuclear power plants accident. In general, radiation exposure is the most well-known problemarising from nuclear power plant accidents, but it is not always the case. In particular in the case of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident in Japan, the overestimation of the danger of radiation exposure, and evacuation activities resulting from that overestimation, caused the biggest and the most serious problems including many of the deaths. We always have to take the risk-tradeoff into account. Radiation exposure is just one risk, and is not the only risk to be considered. See Ichinose (2016).
6. The notion of parsimony was newly offered to avoid a fundamental drawback of the standard retributive system, whether based on cardinal or ordinal proportionality: the standard system tends to inflict excessive, cruel punishment, as its criterion of measuring wrongness is not exempt from being arbitrary. In contrast, the newly offered system could hold inflicted punishment ‘as minimally as possible, consistent with the vague limits of cardinal desert’ (Walen 2015) in terms of introducing an idea of parsimony. The notion of parsimony could make the retributive system of punishment more reasonable and humane while retaining the idea of retribution.
7. Roger Crisp kindly pointed out that it is worth considering an institutional justification according to which punishment wouldn’t have to be tailored to a particular case. In this view, it is sufficient that death is generally bad for both victims and perpetrators. I do not deny the practical persuasiveness of this view. However, from a more philosophical point of view, we should propose a question ‘how can we know that death is generally bad for victims of homicide?’ Following HTD, which is certainly one possible philosophical view, death is not bad at all, regardless of whether we talk about general issues or particular cases, as an agent to whom something is bad or not disappears by dying by definition. Of course, as long as we exclusively focus upon harm which the bereaved family or the society in general suffer, the institutional justification could make good sense, although in that case the issue of direct victims killed would remain untouched.
8. Additionally, my analogy with natural disasters, particularly the case of the 2011 quake, could be re-confirmed to be appropriate in the sense of presenting a similar kind of uncertainty to the case of the death penalty. The danger of constant exposure to low doses of radiation for long periods involves some uncertainty, as far as we now know. Fortunately, however, the dose of radiation to which the people of Fukushima were exposed as a result of the 2011 quake, internally and externally, was low enough for us to be certain, based upon past epidemiological research, that no health problems will arise in the future. Regarding radiation exposure, everything depends upon the level of dose. The smaller the dose, the less dangerous it is.
9. On negative causation and the possibility of common cause, see Ichinose (2013). In particular, my argument on negative causation concerning the death penalty rests on my argument of Ichinose (2013).
10. According to Bazemore and Walgrave, ‘restorative justice is every action that is primarily oriented towards doing justice by repairing the harm that has been caused by a crime (Bazemore and Walgrave 1999 (2), p.48). Restorative justice, that is to say, is a justice system that mainly aims at restoring or repairing the harm of offences rather than punishing offenders as the retributive justice system does. Initially, restorative justice has been carried out by holding ‘a face-to-face meeting between the parties with a stake in the particular offense’ (ibid.) like victim, offenders, or victimised communities. However, this type of justice system works only in a complementary way to the traditional system of retributive justice. Then, the maximalist approach to restorative justice was proposed, which seeks to develop ‘restorative justice as a fully-fledged alternative’(Bazemore and Walgrave 1999 (1). Introduction. P.8) to retributive justice. This approach ‘will need to include the use of coercion and a formalization of both procedures and the relationship between communities and society’ (ibid., p.9.)
Access your Commentary account.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.
The monthly magazine of opinion.
The Death Penalty: A Debate. by Ernest Van Den Haag and John P. Conrad. Plenum Press. 305 pp. $16.95.
If we must have another book on the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, we are unlikely to get one much better than this debate between Ernest van den Haag and John P. Conrad. Van den Haag has long been one of the ablest defenders of capital punishment, and Conrad, previously unknown to me, is at least a more reasonable abolitionist than some of his fellows, such as Ramsey Clark.
It may be, however, that the debate is largely academic. Despite the opinion of a great majority of ordinary citizens and their elected representatives that capital punishment is the best cure for many murderers; despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held it constitutional for the more atrocious murders; and despite the fact that more than a thousand condemned murderers now inhabit the nation’s death rows, the indefatigable and incessant litigation of abolitionist zealots has limited the number of actual executions to an average of about two a year in the twelve years since the Supreme Court held in Furman v. Georgia that the ultimate punishment of murderers is not per se “cruel and unusual” and thus is not in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Most of these few have been men—no women have been sentenced to death in recent years—who have decided they prefer death to long incarceration and have refused to authorize any more appeals or petitions for habeas corpus. (Even in these cases lawyers have sometimes argued that the views of their “clients” should be disregarded, since they do not know their own best interests.) Of five murderers executed in 1981, only one sought to avoid his fate.
The Supreme Court has lately attempted to limit the number of lengthy reviews of death sentences, but so far without much success. As Justice Powell wearily put it a few months ago in Kemp v. Smith:
This is the fourth time that this capital case has required action by this Court: once on direct appeal, once on state habeas corpus, once on federal habeas corpus, and now in Smith’s second federal habeas proceeding. Apart from rehearings, this case has been reviewed sixteen times by state and federal courts since Smith’s conviction in 1975.
One reason for the extreme difficulty of actually executing anyone is that the rule of res judicata —that once a case has been finally decided, it cannot be relitigated—does not apply to petitions for habeas corpus alleging some violation of a convict’s constitutional rights. He may file an infinite number of petitions alleging different violations (or, for that matter, the same ones); every petition, no matter how frivolous, will delay the execution for weeks or months, and its denial will be appealed, which takes even longer.
Another reason has to do with the complex procedures which the Supreme Court has in recent years required for consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; these have so far proved surefire breeders of litigation, as has the inevitable contention that the particular convict has been more severely treated than others of equal viciousness. Another reason, according to van den Haag, is that judges, many of whom have been taught by liberal professors in college and law school, are more likely than ordinary people to be merciful to criminals.
The “liberal” attitude toward murderers is well exemplified by two famous cases, those of Warren Kimbro and Jack Henry Abbott. Kimbro, a Black Panther convicted of kidnapping, torturing, and murdering a suspected informer, was greeted as he left prison by Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, which welcomed him as an M.A. candidate, despite his lack of a college degree. (The Reverend William Sloane Coffin, Jr. said Kimbro’s trial was “legally right but morally wrong,” presumably meaning also that the kidnapping, torture, and murder were legally wrong but morally right.) Abbott, a convict who endeared himself to Norman Mailer and other literati by writing a book denouncing the prison system and bourgeois democracy in general, was paroled and led a life of literary celebrity until he killed another man and returned to the pen. His victim would be alive today if Abbott had been hanged in the first place.
These nonstop legal proceedings have produced one of the most curious of the abolitionist arguments: death is not a practical sanction, for the inevitable litigation makes prohibitive its cost in time and money. In effect: I have poured glue in the works of your watch; it is therefore worthless, and you ought to throw it away. By the same token, the abolitionists are quite capable of arguing that, since their efforts have made executions so infrequent, they have become an “unusual,” if not cruel, punishment. So long as the supply of eager lawyers holds out, then—and it shows no signs of drying up—it will remain a labor of Sisyphus to execute anyone, no matter how just and constitutional his sentence may be.
An academic debate on the subject might nonetheless be worthwhile if only to clarify the issues. Unfortunately, The Death Penalty presents few arguments, pro or con, which have not been heard before, and the book is thus unlikely to change anyone’s views. Few members of the large majority who favor the death penalty (known to their opponents as “retentionists”) will be converted by Conrad, and van den Haag’s reasoning, no matter how cogent and logical, will not change the minds of any abolitionists, for ultimately their opposition is not based on reason or logic but on emotion and what they call morality. If the debate is addressed to anyone, it is to the small number of people who have no opinion on the subject.
_____________
Both Conrad and van den Haag consider the death penalty in the light of the purposes of any type of punishment. The first is “retribution,” espoused particularly by Conrad. Apparently it means that the penalty should deprive the wrongdoer of the benefit of his crime and express society’s disapproval of his conduct. The death penalty accomplishes this, but so can lesser punishments. A second purpose is incapacitation. Execution achieves this goal more surely than imprisonment, for permanent incarceration exists mainly in theory, as shown by the case of Jack Abbott. Conrad, however, argues that the incapacitation of one murderer is useless, since another stands ready to take his place. (This implies that there must be a vacancy before a criminal can take up the trade of murder, although in fact it seems obvious that every execution means one fewer practicing murderer.)
A third purpose is rehabilitation. Though death does not exactly rehabilitate a killer, Conrad concedes that imprisonment rarely does either. There are murderers, such as the people who kill an unfaithful spouse or lover, who are very unlikely to do it again, but not because they have been rehabilitated. Jean Harris, who shot a lover who had grown tired of her, is an example. But people who commit crimes passionels have rarely been executed, even in the past, and could not today be constitutionally sentenced to death.
To these reasons for punishment one might add simple revenge, the normal human desire to see bad men get what is coming to them. But most people believe that the principal purpose of punishment lies elsewhere, in convincing other potential criminals that the benefits of the crime are outweighed by the risk of punishment. The two debaters in this book agree that the best way to achieve that goal is to make punishment swifter and more certain. At present the American criminal justice system is unsuccessful in both respects; most crimes go unpunished. In part the failure is a price we pay for due process of law, but much could be done to increase the likelihood of punishment without violating the Fifth Amendment. An increase in the severity of punishment also increases its deterrent effect: Conrad concedes that criminals fear a long prison term more than a short one.
The crucial question then becomes whether the death sentence deters murder more than the threat of twenty years or life in the penitentiary. Common sense suggests that it does, for the herculean legal efforts of almost all convicted murderers to avoid execution show that they fear it more than imprisonment. But the statistical evidence is inconclusive. Until comparatively modern times, statistics on crime practically did not exist. Abolitionists are fond of telling a venerable tale: in the 18th century, pickpockets, who if caught could be hanged, regularly worked the crowds watching public hangings. Neither van den Haag nor Conrad, however, knows the source of the story, which seems to be no more than a popular anecdote, wrongly attributed to Dr. Johnson. Even if the myth were true, it would prove nothing, for we do not know how many pickpockets there were in London in those days, or how many of them were hanged, or whether there would have been more without the hangings.
Modern statistics are better, but furnish no conclusive proof of the superior deterrent effect of the death penalty. Comparisons of the murder rates in jurisdictions which have capital punishment and in those which do not are not of much help, for there are too many other variables, such as the number of young males and the racial and socioeconomic mix in the respective populations. But Conrad is clearly wrong in maintaining that “there is not a jot of evidence” the death penalty deters murder more than incarceration. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich applied the techniques of mathematical economics to the problem and concluded that every execution prevented seven or eight murders. Ever since, there has been a hot controversy between statisticians who agree with him and those who do not. So far as the argument is conducted in English rather than in mathematical formulas, Ehrlich seems to me to have somewhat the better of it. But his opponents may be right in saying that because of the complexity of the social phenomenon involved, we will never know with certainty.
Evidence of the deterrent effect of capital punishment is, of course, irrelevant to those who oppose it. Abolitionists say simply that killing people is wrong. The state should not, “in cold blood,” kill the most flagitious murderer, not even, some of them say, if his execution would save not merely seven, but 500 innocent lives.
What seems to me a much stronger argument against capital punishment, however, is the chance that an innocent man will be executed. Yet that chance is very small; I know of no modern case in which there seemed to me to be any real doubt of a condemned murderer’s guilt. Still, it cannot be said that such a thing is impossible. The only answer is that an unjust execution, if it should ever occur, should be treated as a variety of wrongful death, caused by the state, like being run over by a negligently driven Post Office truck, for which the victim’s survivors are entitled to compensation.
There are other arguments for abolition, some of which I suspect are not taken very seriously even by abolitionists. One is that execution is distressing to those who must carry it out. As Conrad writes, “The sense that killing people is wrong will rise in the mind of a decent man, no matter what the condemned man has done to merit his execution, [although] it is always possible to find tough and callous men to do the work. It is wrong to delegate these functions to such men.” But why? Sometimes toughness and callousness are necessary and desirable qualities, as with soldiers and surgeons, or, for that matter, judges. Nor are such qualities always needed. I dislike trapping mice, but I don’t think I would have flinched at springing the trap on Ernst Kaltenbrunner or Adolf Eichmann. (The Nazi war criminals are not mentioned by Conrad.) Another argument: execution prevents “reconciliation between society and the offender.” Baloney. Another: the criminal is deprived of his right to remorse and atonement. More baloney. Yet another: “The real agony is in the long wait for execution.” The wait could and should be made much shorter.
Finally, it is also asserted that a disproportionate number of blacks are sentenced to death. Indeed, racial discrimination was among the reasons advanced by a majority of the Supreme Court for invalidating the particular death sentences involved in Furman v. Georgia. But Conrad concedes that it is not true today. Blacks are overrepresented on death row because, for a variety of reasons, they are overrepresented among murderers. Yet all of the five men executed in 1981 were white.
There is no absolute proof that capital punishment saves the lives of innocent victims of potential murderers. But there is also no conclusive evidence that it does not do what common sense suggests that it does.
Scroll Down For the Next Article
Type and press enter
Last updated 20/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .
For capital punishment.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2016
The moral argument contends that crimes deserve retribution, that to impose the deserved punishment is to do justice, and that justice is a moral requirement, an end in itself, independent of any useful effects. The moral desirability of justice can be explained, but not demonstrated in non-deontological fashion. In penal matters, justice and deserved retribution are synonymous. It is for the sake of justice that we try to punish the guilty and not the innocent. Innocents do not deserve punishment. Because of justice, we would not impose punishment on them, even if it were useful to do so.
1 Ehrlich , , “ The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death ” ( 1975 ) 65 Am. Econ. R. 397 Google Scholar .
2 Layson , S. K. , “ Homicide and Deterrence: A Reexamination of the United States Time-Series Evidence ” ( 1985 ) 52 S. Econ. J. 68 Google Scholar .
3 Unless their argument for abolition rests mainly on the possibility of miscarriages of justice.
4 On the contrary: see, e.g., Stack , Steven , “ Publicized Executions and Homicide, 1950-80 ” ( 1987 ) 52 Am. Soc. R. 532 CrossRef Google Scholar .
View all Google Scholar citations for this article.
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .
To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .
- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted
Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.
Conflicting interests.
Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.
Advertisement
Supported by
By Eric Pace
Ernest van den Haag, a conservative commentator on social issues, especially crime, and a leading advocate of the death penalty, died on Thursday in Mendham, N.J. He was 87 and a longtime resident of the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
He died at a nursing home, succumbing ''to the myriad attenuations of old age,'' William F. Buckley Jr. said in an obituary of Dr. van den Haag that is to appear in National Review, to which Dr. van den Haag was a consultant and occasional contributor for more than four decades.
Dr. van den Haag, who was also an educator and psychoanalyst, was John M. Olin professor of jurisprudence and public policy at Fordham from 1982 to 1988 and held many other teaching posts.
Dr. van den Haag wrote in 1983 in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times: ''Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder, if anything can. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death. Death is final. But where there is life there is hope.
''Wherefore, life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death. (Only an infinitesimal percentage of murderers are suicidal.) Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder.''
Dr. van den Haag was comfortable taking strong and often controversial stands on a wide range of other issues. He was a critic of the 1954 Supreme Court desegregation decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
In short, van den Haag's strategy saves the death penalty in principle, but fails to save it in practice. Second, it may well be that discrimination is (as a matter of social and psychological fact in America) inherent in the penalty of death itself.
In the next two decades he acquired a reputation as one of the most formidable scholarly advocates of the death penalty for the crime of murder. The emigré social scientist also published more than 200 articles.
Van den Haag proposes an interesting argument based upon uncertainty specific to the deterrent effect of the death penalty. He assumes two cases, namely, case (1), in which the death penalty exists, and case (2), in which the death penalty does not exist.
Both Conrad and van den Haag consider the death penalty in the light of the purposes of any type of punishment. The first is “retribution,” espoused particularly by Conrad. Apparently it means that the penalty should deprive the wrongdoer of the benefit of his crime and express society’s disapproval of his conduct.
As Ernest van den Haag argues, that some who merit the death penalty escape that punishment does not make morally unjustified selectively executing some who do merit that punishment (Nathanson, 49).
van den Haag's main argument in favor of the death penalty for the most abominable crimes, especially murder. He asks whether capital punishment deters murder more effectively than does life imprison ment, and he admits that we can hardly be sure. To answer the ques tion in a publicly convincing way, experiments would have to be
Ernest van den Haag* In an average year about 20,000 homicides occur in the United States. Fewer than 300 convicted murderers are sentenced to death. But because no more than thirty murderers have been executed in any recent year, most convicts sentenced to death are likely to die of old age.'
Ernest van den Haag* The punishment of death comes to us from biblical and prebiblical days. It probably was the most widely used punishment in the past, commended in the Bible even for what we would now regard as trivial offences.
If justice is not a purpose of penalties, injustice cannot be an ob- jection to the death penalty (or to any other); if it is, justice cannot be ruled out as an argument for any penalty. Consider the claim of injustice on its merits now.
Ernest van den Haag, a conservative commentator on social issues, especially crime, and a leading advocate of the death penalty, died on Thursday in Mendham, N.J. He was 87 and a longtime...