Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com :: Capital punishment -- another argument for it

Over the years I have offered many arguments for capital punishment for murder:

1. It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life.

2. Killing murderers is society's only way to teach how terrible murder is. The only real way a society can express its revulsion at any criminal behavior is through the punishment it metes out. If murderers all got 10 years in prison and thieves all got 20 years in prison, that would be society's way of saying that thievery is worse than murder. A society that kills murderers is saying that murder is more heinous a crime than a society that keeps all its murderers alive.

3. It can, if widely enacted, deter some murders. Though I regard this as a less important argument than the first two, there is no doubt that it is true. Everyone acknowledges that punishments can deter all other crimes -- why wouldn't capital punishment deter some murders? Is murder the only crime unaffected by punishment?

The great thinker Ernest van den Haag brilliantly made the case for execution as deterrence: Imagine if a state announced that murders committed Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays would be punishable by execution and murders committed the other days of the week would be punishable by imprisonment. Would murder rates remain the same as they are now on all the days of the week? I doubt it.

The most common objection opponents offer against capital punishment is that innocents may be executed.

My answer has always been that this is so rare (I do not know of a proved case of mistaken execution in America in the last 50 years) that society must be prepared to pay that terrible price. Why? Among other reasons, because more innocents will be killed by murderers who are not executed (in prison, or once released or if they escape) than will be killed by the state in erroneous executions.

So, yes, I acknowledge the possibility of an innocent being killed by the state because of a mistaken murder conviction. But we often have the tragedy of innocents dying because of a social policy. I support higher speed limits even when shown that they lead to more traffic fatalities. I support the right of people to drink alcohol even though the amount of violence directly emanating from alcohol consumption -- from drunk drivers to spousal and child abuse -- is so high. Continued...

Full Article & Comments

Next >

Digg

Del.icio.us

Facebook

Newsvine

My Web

MySpace

Forward

Single Page

Vote on It:

Average Vote:

About The Author

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

US envoy says Iraq insurgency has lost its clout

Schoolgirls' math skills now measure up to boys'

AP IMPACT: Fatal MRAP accidents prompt warnings

Why a Black Artist Replaced the National Anthem

Why I Support John McCain

Will Israel Attack Iran?

False Equation: Opposing Same-Sex Marriage and Opposing Interracial Marriage

View in ascending order View in descending order

Tom Location: AL

Reply # 182
Date: Dec 22, 2006 - 4:54 AM EST

Subject: Justifiable

2. Killing to express revulsion at killing is an inherent self-contradiction."

So is imprisoning a kidnapper. Would also be against this?

" 3. Punishment is not an effective deterrent for crime, even if it could be applied immediately and unerringly and universally, which is impossible."

(leaving aside the obvious that by putting a murderer to death you have deterred him from doing it again) Common sense & everyday experience says you're wrong. A given punishent obviously is not going to deter every single person, but to say that it does not deter anyone, or cannot deter significantly is just stupid. Watch how many people would speed if it meant losing all their personal possessions.

" 4. The argument put forth by “great thinker” van den Haag is poorly conceived and unconvincing.

I find it very convincing. He's not known as a great thinker for nothing. Read Wikipedia's account of him before you write off his arguments as "poorly conceived & unconvincing". Besides I think he would know something about punishment based on his experiences alone. Check them out.

" 5. Since 1992...Carozo School of Law in New York has used DNA evidence to exonerate 123 death row inmates who had been wrongfully convicted."

Since you would exonerate someone where DNA proved their innocence (who wouldn't), you'd agree that where DNA proved guilt & if the death penalty was only used in these cases, that would render the wrongful death argument null & void?

"I’m not at all in favor of liberating people who are demonstrably guilty of violent crimes."

Good. So what would you do with them? What's your better solution? And which of the 4 aims of punishment (deterrence, protection of community, retribution, rehabilitation) would that achieve, in your opinion?

"Like most proponents of capital punishment, Prager ignores the facts, relies on appeals to ugly human motives like hatred, revenge, and cruelty, and ironically seems quite proud of himself. A true self parody."

Rubbish.

Finally, Gallup polls** in the US consistently indicate in the region of 70% in favour of CP, 25% against, 5% undecided. So only 1 in 4 against. You're the 1 in 4.

Only about 20% of people believe the death penalty is applied too often in the US. You're now 1 in 5. If you were a politician, your chances of being elected are slipping fast.

They also consistently show about 95% of people want either death penalty or "life with absolutely no chance of parole" for murder. Almost everyone else has "no opinion". So either you are in favour of "life with absolutely no chance of parole" (is this not ugly? vengeful? cruel? when the offender knows they may never see freedom again? what's the point in living?) or are you in that statisticallt insignificant group of the population, the < 1% category?

Easier to be critical of CP than to be supportive of CP (which as you know, comes across as "ugly") But coming up with something better/workable is not so easy, is it?

** stats are very similar to ABC NEWS / WASHINGTON POST & FOX NEWS / OPINION DYNAMICS POLLs.
(http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/opinion.htm)

Flag as Offensive

ajhil Location: CO

Reply # 181
Date: Dec 21, 2006 - 3:47 AM EST

Unjustifiable ...

1. “Cosmic injustice?” This is meaningless nonsense.

2. Killing to express revulsion at killing is an inherent self-contradiction.

3. Punishment is not an effective deterrent for crime, even if it could be applied immediately and unerringly and universally, which is impossible. Furthermore animal studies show conclusively that negative reinforcement (punishment) is the most easily extinguished form of conditioning.

4. The argument put forth by “great thinker” van den Haag is poorly conceived and unconvincing. To cite just one of its many flaws, deciding to commit a murder on one day rather than another is not at all tantamount to deciding not to commit the murder at all.

5. Prager’s cavalier dismissal of the possibility of executing innocent people illustrates his ignorance, as well as his moral depravity. Since its founding in 1992 the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Carozo School of Law in New York has used DNA evidence to exonerate 123 death row inmates who had been wrongfully convicted. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110
Had the group not taken up these cases, many of these people would have been killed. To claim that this kind of travesty hasn’t happened even once in the past fifty years is ludicrous.

6. Prager’s newest reason for capital punishment is as worthless as the rest. Not all opponents of capital punishment support vacating convictions on the basis of evidence obtained improperly. I certainly don’t. I believe that there are other ways to deter unlawful police procedures and I’m not at all in favor of liberating people who are demonstrably guilty of violent crimes.

Like most proponents of capital punishment, Prager ignores the facts, relies on appeals to ugly human motives like hatred, revenge, and cruelty, and ironically seems quite proud of himself. A true self parody.

Flag as Offensive

(Read all 182 comments)

If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!

Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.

Salutation:

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Nickname:

Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.

Address 1:

Address 2:

City:

Join The Debate!