Death Penalty
So as there was talk about society on another post, I have to ask the question: are there crimes for which execution is a reasonable penalty? One can approach this either from the standpoint of justice, deterrent, or whatever else to make the case.
The one thing I would like to point out is that I believe that the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" is being taken to the absurd in death row cases such as the one presented here.
The one thing I would like to point out is that I believe that the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" is being taken to the absurd in death row cases such as the one presented here.
There are a few, limited examples of retribution killing by an individual that I can agree with or find excuses for, but not by society or government.
What is the purpose of prison?
Is prison merely a place of exile? If so, what benefit does society gain from temporary vs permanent exile?
If a judgement is for permanent exile (i.e. such individuals will never contribute again to society) why waste societal resources maintaining these individuals? In other words, why should society expect zero return on investment?
Prison today seems to me to be essentially exile for those falling into it and without real rehabilitative effort, serves primarily to educate the gang and criminal element for further criminality. I don't see that society gains except for short-term crime reduction and it loses tremendously in the huge upsurge of the national and international gang recruitment. There are a large number of permanently exiled murderers held in any prison, though low in comparison to the non-violent, and in the general population.
The return on investment for permanent exile for the worst killers is primarily moral. If society chooses not to kill, society improves its moral integrity. If you look at the results of The Innocence Project, the error rate has been unacceptable The cost for the permanently exiled, I expect would not be that high if housed in an institution just for that purpose and if those in for punishment and rehabilitation were housed in their own separate facilities designed for the purpose of temporary exile, education, and rehabilitation.
The reason I ask is because rehabilitation is for the purpose of reintroducing the offender into society. The assumed condition is penitence - remorse and change (thence the word "penitentiary"). The surmise is that while people make mistakes - even anti-social ones, they should be able to accept a punishment and learn from such and reintegrate back into society as a productive member.
"Prison today seems to me to be essentially exile for those falling into it and without real rehabilitative effort..."
Agreed. If our only purpose is to segregate them from society, again, we have to look at the ends. If no rehabilitation takes place, the person - and by extension society - is no better off than when they entered prison yet is incurring a cost. Thus those who misbehave are in actuality rewarded for misbehaving by receiving a guaranteed welfare system. It is a perverse incentive indeed as the ones paying aren't the ones receiving the value.
"The return on investment for permanent exile for the worst killers is primarily moral. If society chooses not to kill, society improves its moral integrity."
Here you are venturing onto the shaky ground of comparative religion or values. "Morality" is a broad and vague term, so I will ask you to be specific about how you are using "moral" to be in specific benefits and costs.
The reason I say this is that if one is never going to be allowed back into society, society has already judged them to be of higher cost to society than the value they provide, is that not the case? How does one's "moral integrity" provide the value society has already deemed lacking?
Objectivists value existence of each individual and the right to the gain from that individual's effort without interference or limitation from another or society. Should someone attempt to violate those rights, I have the right of defense, up to and including death of those that would try to deprive me of such. That value is reciprocal to the society of an objectivist. An objectivist society therefor does not take a life in an un-threatening situation. But it has the same right to protect itself that an individual has, A murderer has violated the prime objectivist right, existence, obviously overcoming the murdered's ability of self defense, thence exile for the person that refuses to abide by those rights is appropriate and even necessary.
I hope that you can understand that essential and primary application of Objectivism. It is not a cost-value calculation. It is an Objectivism moral and self protection issue. Refusing to take a life except in self defense is a re-enforcement of the primacy of that simple tenet of recognition of the right of existence. But allowing an individual that has demonstrated his refusal to respect that primary right of another to exist in an Objectivist society would be insane. Exile. And since in today's world no external exile location is available, an internal exile location becomes necessary.
What I find contradictory is the position against mooching and charity yet not just enabling but dictating the worst offenders of societal law to then become permanent moochers!
The taking of a life part of the Objectivist argument against the death penalty is a red herring. A life has already been taken by the perpetrator. It is even a viable stance to say that one is protecting one's own life by executing murderers, is it not? What you are essentially saying is that Objectivists willingly violate one of their founding principles in this case for no reason I can deduce unless it be an irrational one.
I hope I have laid out the dilemma as I see it. I am sure that you have some insight I have missed, so I look forward to enlightenment.
The primary tenet of Objectivism is the life (existence) any of us have. There are many 'ands' to that and many derivations as well, but primacy has to fall on existence qua existence. In all of Objectivism, I've only found, personally and generally, one objectively ethical or moral cause of the purposeful death of another - self protection from active aggression, backed by the right of self interest and even the right to property.
While I may contract with the Objectivist society within which I choose to live for mutual protection from larger than an individual attack, i.e. roving bandits, a foreign attacker, etc., I haven't granted to them the excuse to kill on my behalf after my death, in the event that I fail in my own self defense. I have granted the right to punish the offender, after my failure so that a successful aggression can never be successful, as an additional level of self protection from aggression. But I haven't granted an excuse or cause for that objectivist society to bypass a tenet of Objective thought and principle.
So to prevent a successful aggression by my murderer and at the same time maintain Objective principle of the primacy of existence, society is left with exile of the aggressor if I've failed to kill him in my defense. Permanent exile is a prison. i think where we differ is in the description of that exile. I envision imprisonment as that of the super-max in CO. A life of 23 hours per day in a cell, 1 shower a week, no other contact with other humans, no possibility of release, no escape into early death. That to me is not a moocher's life. I even envision that punishment as much, much worse than death.
It might be seen as an extraneous, non-productive cost to an Objectivist society, but it's not that much different than the cost of disposing the body of the failed aggressor. I see your argument from the viewpoint of producer-moocher, but my viewpoint is that of the rights of self defense. For a moocher, my viewpoint is simply that the producer denies the moocher and allows the moocher his existence without the takings he needs with the full knowledge that he will fail in his life, as will the aggressor murderer.
It actually does. What this situation represents is the common problem of any social theory: an intersection where two fundamental beliefs clash and both can not be satisfied. A successful/consistent societal theory must be able to address conflicts in fundamental values when they arise without destroying or violating those principles.
The problem is not in that right to life is being placed in higher precedence than not supporting the moocher, but because it represents the slippery slope that eventually destroys the argument against supporting moochers in the first place! (Which policy I do endorse, BTW).
Quandary: If life is so sacred that it can not be taken from even the most egregious societal offenders, how does one then deny "charity" to someone starving - even if it is by their own choice? Would you not then be responsible for a most horrible death by starvation? What is the difference between the murderer and the welfare recipient receiving societal handouts according to the definitions of Objectivism? As this situation illustrates, there is no real difference in the end! Both have chosen their lot in life, but at significantly different societal costs. This is not actually a prohibition against mooching, it is merely establishing the conditions under which mooching is permitted!
"That to me is not a moocher's life."
Quality of life is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Once you go down the path of trying to decide on a line for what level of taking constitutes "mooching" as a justification for the conflict in values, the argument then becomes entirely subjective. And subjective rules always fail in society because they are by definition open to interpretation to those in the ruling class. That is exactly why in our current society we have the welfare state as it exists - because elected officials arbitrarily set the "poverty" standards, i.e. the mooching limits.
My evaluation of any and every societal theory is based on the quantity and seriousness of incongruities I find in such a theory. While Objectivism has many values which are logically consistent and which I identify with, this is a very serious flaw in my mind. For a theory that prides itself on logical and rational thought (another fundamental tenet), this doesn't sit well with me.
To me, the congruous position would have been the support of capital punishment for egregious crimes - even if the bar for defining an egregious crime is set quite high. One could easily justify this - even by virtue of a subjective judgement call - as to the possibility of the convicted to at some point rejoin society as a conforming and productive member.
Thank you for the discussion and your well thought out comments.