Phil Matters Of Life And Death

Overview of the Session

  • The session is repeated and optional for students to ask questions, particularly regarding papers and main arguments.

  • Group review sessions are scheduled, with Casey and Colin's session on Tuesday from 4 to 6 in EPB 109.

Deterrence vs. Retribution in the Death Penalty

  • Retribution: Justifies the death penalty based on the belief that murderers forfeit their right to life due to their actions. This perspective is backward-looking, focusing on past actions to justify present punishment.

  • Deterrence: Unlike retribution, deterrence looks forward, aiming to prevent future murders by demonstrating the consequences of committing murder.

  • The argument driving this perspective is the assertion that knowing murderers face severe punishment will deter potential offenders from committing similar acts.

Evidence and Causation in Deterrence

  • Current social science data does not provide clear evidence that links the presence of the death penalty directly to a decrease in murder rates.

  • Factors influencing murder rates include:

    • Poverty

    • Marginalization

    • Other laws and social conditions.

  • This multifactorial nature makes it difficult to ascertain the death penalty's standalone impact on crime rates.

Coleman’s Arguments for Death Penalty as a Deterrent

  • Coleman proposes two arguments to support the assertion that the death penalty can deter crime, despite the lack of strong empirical evidence.

Thought Experiment: Cosmic Retribution

  • A lightning thought experiment suggests that if murderers faced immediate cosmic retribution, such as being struck down upon committing a murder, the murder rate would decline dramatically.

  • This hypothetical situation is used to foster an intuition about deterrence—strong immediate consequences could deter potential murderers.

  • The aim is to evoke common sense reasoning to support the view that the death penalty could function as a deterrent.

Public Executions as a Deterrent

  • Discussion of public executions raised as a method to increase deterrent effects, drawing on historical concepts of socially accepted forms of killing.

  • Advocates argue that making executions public could serve as a more potent psychological deterrent by visibly demonstrating the consequences of crimes.

  • Broader societal discomfort with public executions exists, particularly regarding ethical implications and potential negative impacts on societal values.

Common Sense Argument for Death Penalty Deterrence

  • Given the inconclusive empirical evidence, a common sense argument claims that if the severity of punishment increases, deterrence is also likely to increase.

  • The argument hinges on psychological perceptions: a higher degree of fear regarding consequences leads to lower likelihood of committing crimes.

  • Premises that support clarity of the argument:

    • People fear death more than other punishments, including life imprisonment.

    • Other forms of punishment (e.g., torture) are condemned and deemed inhumane, compared to execution, which some see as more humane if justified.

Examining Arguments Critically

  • A suggestion arises to investigate the premise that death serves as a humane punishment versus torture.

  • Engage critically with the implications of viewing capital punishment as humane.

  • Address societal implications: what type of justice system do we want?

Anecdotal Evidence for Deterrence

  • Anecdotal evidence includes testimonies from criminals about avoiding lethal weapons or committing crimes in states without the death penalty due to fear of the consequences.

  • The inconsistency and rarity of death penalty applications could diminish its deterrent effect.

Best Bet Argument

  • The best bet argument illustrates decision-making in uncertain scenarios:

    • Consider scenarios with and without the application of the death penalty, weighing outcomes of deterring crime against the potential execution of innocent individuals.

    • Four scenarios arise:

    1. Death penalty used; it deters crime (innocent lives saved).

    2. Death penalty used; it does not deter (innocent lives lost).

    3. Death penalty not used; it deters (innocent lives lost).

    4. Death penalty not used; it does not deter (innocent lives saved).

  • Conclusion favors implementing the death penalty as the preferred option, operating under the assumption that it may deter, leading to more saved lives than lost.

Concluding Thoughts

  • Reflection on personal discomfort regarding the capital punishment debate is encouraged, leading to critical discussions about moral, ethical, and societal implications of executing individuals for crimes.

  • The importance of empirical evidence versus common sense in arguments about the death penalty underscores the complexity of this ethical issue.

  • Students prompted to consider their positions on the arguments presented, especially regarding public opinion on the death penalty's application and what societal values they wish to uphold.