Execution Dilemma

Here is an interesting capital punishment question. Should the State of Ohio have let an inmate, scheduled for execution two days later, but who had already taken a fatal does of drugs, die by his own hand? We know they didn't - they revived him. But was that really necessary? Or even appropriate?

For what its worth, the position you take on this question will almost certainly follow from your theory of punishment.

For most people, although not all, the point of executing someone is retribution. We're not merely acting to get them dead. We're acting to vindicate the moral principle that people should get what they deserve. That moral principle, known to philosophers as lex talionis, is best understood as the "law enforcement" application of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule says that I should treat others in a manner that I would consent to be treated. Lex Talionis says that, however I treat others, I am, by my own actions, implicitly authorizing others to treat me in the same manner. As a self legislating being, my actions are an expression of what I think is appropriate - and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Kant believed so strongly in the retributive principle that, in his opinion, executing a convicted murderer was a moral imperative. To Kant, the refusal to execute a convicted killer failed to show respect for the convicted person's dignity as a self legislating being.

On this argument, if the convict dies before we execute him, we are robbed of the opportunity to act retributively. If retribution is our purpose, the inmate needs to be revived and subsequently executed. If merely getting him dead is our goal, there is little reason to revive him.

Retribution is similar to vengeance, in that both seemingly involve a “pay
back.” But they are not identical concepts. I treat you retributively, but not vengefully, if I refuse to lend you money after you refused to lend me money. Vengeance, which is intentional and maliciously motivated harmful pay back, is a varient of retribution. But vengeance doesn’t exhaust the concept.

As a general matter, lex talionis, tempered generously by expressions of grace, is a sound moral principle. I favor treating people retributively - or as they deserve to be treated - in many circumstances. I also agree that some people deserve to be executed. In fact, some people deserve fates far worse than death.

However, the fact that someone deserves a particular penalty does not entail that it is morally permissible for us to impose it. The fact that one person acts barbarically towards another person entails that the barbarian has authorized a response in kind, but does not entail that it is permissible for us to act barbarically. Acting barbarically is wrong, even towards someone who deserves it.

For me, the question comes down to: Is capital punishment barbaric? Is it beyond the pale?

The answer I've arrived at is “yes.” Killing any human being, deserving or not, who is not a threat to anyone, is barbaric. Imposing a degree of psychological terror so great that hardened killers lose control of their bowels (a common occurrence prior to executions) is barbaric, even if the victim deserves as much or more.

I am against capital punishment for other reasons - error, bias, lack of deterrent, and so forth. But remove error, bias, and demonstrate deterrence. I will still oppose capital punishment - even for those who deserve it.

Joe H.