I was thinking quite about this http://www.writewords.org.uk/forum/47_299673.asp

Thinking about it quite a lot, as it happens. As a result, I am curious where the idea that death is the worst thing that can happen to a person has arisen from?

Speaking as an atheist, it is hard to see death as much more than a total cessation of everything. In the absence of a belief in the soul, it seems that there are innumerable things that are infinitely worse.

Equally, speaking as a horse owner with a beautiful horse that has a wonderful temperament but also a recurrent tendon injury, I am not only familiar with but sympathetic to the statement that "if you keep livestock, you get deadstock". Any number of friends who are passionate about horses and would go through considerable discomfort themselves for the sake of their horse's happiness would willingly put their steed down to avoid it undergoing any long-term suffering.

Even from the POV of religion when considering another human, I struggle with the idea of it being necessarily more cruel to kill a man than to imprison him and dehumanise him for so long that he has no possible way to reintegrate into the society that he has somehow offended badly enough to assign him such a punishment. Those who I have met who believe in hell-fire and damnation seem pretty certain that a lot of it is pre-ordained so a couple of years either way won't make much of a difference.

So, although I am not in favour of the death penalty (and to be clear, I am not in favour of it), I'm not entirely sure whether this is a purely emotional stand-point or one that stands up to any kind of intellectual scrutiny.

What do you think?

G

You are far from alone in thinking this way, Gaius. It is interesting that although torture is against international law - and no exceptions or derogations are permitted to that rule, even in times of war and national emergency - the death penalty is not itself (as things stand, although this is controversial, obviously) currently against international law.

Similarly in European human rights law. The death penalty is a specific derogation from the right to life in Article 2, and in 1989 the European Court of HR decided (in Soering v UK) that the death penalty per se is not automatically a violation of Article 3 (torture/inhuman and degrading treatment/punishment), though the circumstances in which it was carried out can make it so in some cases.

But I think in this matter the law is probably an ass. The notion that corporal punishment may sometimes be a violation of human rights, when capital punishment often isn't, seems to me very difficult to defend.

Rosy

It is interesting that although torture is against international law - and no exceptions or derogations are permitted to that rule, even in times of war and national emergency - the death penalty is not itself (as things stand, although this is controversial, obviously) currently against international law.

Ah... wow! Hadn't even occurred to me.

The notion that corporal punishment may sometimes be a violation of human rights, when capital punishment often isn't, seems to me very difficult to defend.

I think the problem is in the idea of "punishment". EG: If an individual persists in going against the needs of the society, the society needs to act to protect itself. Provided the problem is resolved, it doesn't need to be a punishment.

A corporal sentence is, by necessity, unpleasant for the individual concerned as it is and can only be a punishment. It's entire purpose is to deter through being unpleasant and to deter through others seeing such unpleasantness.

A capital sentence does not have to be a punishment. For example, in my WIP, I am considering an enclosed community with very limited resources. In that case, the concept of a capital sentence is not so much "punishment" for the indivdual as a necessity for the greater good of the society; any form of imprisonment would place an untenable burden on them all. In this case, death is simply a pragmatic means to solve an ongoing problem. Once you take vengeance out of the equation, there is no justification for a painful, degrading or otherwise unpleasant death.

As for human rights, there is an unanswerable question about the relative rights of those who are affected by the sentence and those who might be affected by its absence... Which is a decision that can only be made after a case-by-case assessment. It occurs to me that, in any consideration of a significant criminal sentence, moral rights and wrongs are always going to be a compromise.

G

Your argument makes logical sense, Gaius, up to a point. However, the two reasons why I am very much opposed to the death penalty (and I note you say you're not in favour - just exploring) are that:

1. If the death penalty is carried out and then new evidence comes to light which throws doubt on the conviction, there's no way back. If someone has spent 20 years in jail on a false conviction, they won't get those years back either, but there is more chance to make things right.

2. I believe that killing someone against their will is wrong. I'm an atheist so that's not for religious reasons - it just feels very wrong to me. I am in favour of assisted suicide, so the person's wishes are the crux of the matter for me.

It's one thing to take away someone's liberty to punish them, rehabilitate them or keep society safe from them; in my mind it is quite another to take away their life.

I'm not a big fan of war, either, for similar reasons.

Deb

1. If the death penalty is carried out and then new evidence comes to light which throws doubt on the conviction, there's no way back. If someone has spent 20 years in jail on a false conviction, they won't get those years back either, but there is more chance to make things right.

My question here is one of relative cruelty. If, after 20 years on a false conviction, a man is released;

He is "free", yes, but (unless he has a book in him about it...) hew will have no viable way to make a living. His social skills will have been at best "influenced" by the dehumanising experience of being institutionalised for two decades and there is a very strong possibility that the majority of his social network will have been eroded or removed entirely... In addition, he will have spent twenty years suffering the deprivations of whatever penal regime he is the guest of. In any case, there are quite a number of death-row inhabitants who are fully competent to make a decision and who have freely admitted carrying out the crimes that they are charged with.

2. I believe that killing someone against their will is wrong.

Doing anything to anybody against their will is wrong. The thing is, if you start from the stand point that a nation has a legitimate right to protect its citizens, then you are instantly launched into the relativity of a thing being wronger or righter than another.

Is killing somebody necessarily wronger than any other form of corrective action that resolves a situation in a beneficial way for the society as a whole if the action reduces the net suffering?

G

It is, of course, a moral question, but I don't agree with you that doing anything to someone against their will is necessarily wrong. There are many situations where it is wrong, but many situations where it isn't.

For instance, sending your teenager to school when they don't want to go. Stopping your toddler from eating the chewing gum they found on the ground outside. Stopping someone from stabbing someone else.

However, I do believe that killing someone unless they ask to be helped to die is fundamentally wrong.

There is no right answer, because people have their own stance on morality or they adopt an accepted one, such as religious values.

I mean, I find it hard to understand how war can ever be right, or something to be feted. It appalls me. But many people don't feel the same.

Each society has its own values. Hence in some cultures they don't consider rape to be such a terrible crime as we consider it here, and in some cultures they think homosexuality is appalling. There are core values every society seems to have, but many variations on them.

Deb

However, I do believe that killing someone unless they ask to be helped to die is fundamentally wrong

OK, the above statement is the one that I want to explore.

Why is it any wronger than any other form of unpleasantness?

Why is it any wronger than any other form of unpleasantness?

You could argue than any unpleasantness is wrong. But if this is more wrong, I'd say it's because it's final. It's not something one can have life after, make the best of things, rebuild a life. That's it. They're gone.

Deb

You can also argue that severe torture is worse than death because with death you have release whereas torture is designed to cause maximum pain and distress. I'm not too keen on the concept of torture either. However, unless you're tortured to death you do have a chance for life after it.

Deb

It's not something one can have life after

Um. No, obviously. I do sort of know what you are getting at, but it is intellectually unsatisfying, sorry.

You can also argue that severe torture is worse than death because with death you have release whereas torture is designed to cause maximum pain and distress.

Which is where I came in...

However, unless you're tortured to death you do have a chance for life after it.

Amongst the things I am questioning is the assumption that a solution that preserves life is always superior to a solution that doesn't.

Going back to the idea of a long sentence...

Consider a hypothetical forty year-old man who is imprisoned for twenty years. His wife and family disown him. His friends disappear. He is dehumanised by two decades living in a 6ft x 10ft cell. And then he is released, aged sixty, into a society where he has no possibility of finding work, no support networks and no savings or pension to fall back on. Though nominally free, he remains dependent on the state for every aspect of his life and suffers both extreme loneliness and low self-esteem. How is that beneficial to him or to the society he lives in?

G

In the hypothetical case you cite, you're making the assumption that he won't enjoy his freedom. Maybe he will. Maybe he'll take up darts and drinking and visiting cheap prostitutes, and make up for all the time he couldn't drink or have sex.

And if he really doesn't feel his life is worth living once he's released, he has the option of committing suicide. If we kill him, he has no options.

Also, you're assuming that all incarcerations are 100% negative experiences. That may well be the case in some parts of the world, but in the UK, for instance, prisoners usually have the option to take classes... improve literacy, for instance, or take a distance learning degree. Some prisoners manage to achieve a lot while incarcerated.

You appear to wish to make the decision for them that their lives are not worth living while incarcerated or after (whether released after full term or released due to fresh evidence and appeal clears them). I don't think we should make that decision for anyone.

So yes, for me it is always true that a solution that preserves life is preferable to a solution which doesn't, with the exception of a person who wishes to commit suicide for understandable reasons, such as a serious incurable illness or condition which causes pain or distress (if they are simply depressed then usually the right help can cause them to change their minds about wanting to die, and they go on to enjoy life later). Hence I am strongly against capital punishment but in favour of assisted suicide in suitable cases.

Deb

you're assuming that all incarcerations are 100% negative experiences

Only in as much as you're assuming that all deaths are 100% negative experiences...

I guess my current exploration is triggered by and coloured by thoughts about my WIP - which is a small, endangered society with very restricted resources.

Consider the amount of resources that go into keeping somebody in prison for a single day, and also consider that for the entire duration of their stay they cannot meaningfully contribute to society except through forced labour... which I'm sure you would also have an opinion on... and that this loss is exacerbated by the cost of those who must supervise them and so are also prevented from contributing to society... and that when they leave prison, no matter how well-adjusted and happy they may be, their ability to contribute is greatly reduced...

From that perspective; keeping anybody in prison becomes an expensive luxury that can only be supported by an affluent society such as ours. Certainly, it would place an unworkable burden on the island in my WIP.

To make the point a bit more heavily than it perhaps requires; I doubt you would be keen to maintain a prison if it meant your family might go hungry. As a result, I have been thinking about the different ways to maintain an effective rule of law (which benefits the majority).

Though I am still largely in agreement with your sentiment, am actively opposed to cruelty, and happily oppose the death penalty for societies like ours that can afford the alternative; the idea that death penalty should be considered taboo simply because it is irrevocable fails to satisfy me.

G

It's very interesting to hear what provoked your interest in this issue - thanks.

I think incarcerating people and forcing them to contribute by working while in prison is perfectly reasonable. In fact I think it's a good idea.

I disagree that people are necessarily more useless when they leave prison than when they enter - that isn't always going to be the case. They may grow older and wiser, or they may fall in with a bad crowd and learn bad habits. The better the rehab programme in the prison the better the outcomes should be.

Okay, so rehab programmes are expensive, incarceration is expensive... but getting them to work will slightly offset that cost.

If, as a society, we had a choice of going hungry or keeping people in prison then I guess we would have to weigh up how serious the crime was. In a small society, a crime such as theft may be manageable - everyone would know and know not to trust that person. Crimes such as rape and murder would be harder for the community to police, but I believe societal (if that's word?) pressure influences people more in smaller communities, so the fear of being an outcast may be enough to curtail some crimes.

Very small communities do tend to have low crime rates, while large, crowded societies have higher rates. So on a small island you may get very little crime. But how to deal with what you do get...?

IIWY I'd do some research into crime rates on small islands, such as some of the remote Scottish ones, and see whether community pressure dissuades people from most crimes. And what happens in tribal communities (if there are any left, in Africa etc) to deal with crime? A tribal settlement may well drive someone away if they offended seriously enough. Maybe kill them, but driving them away may be all that's necessary.

Could you have a system on your fictional island where they deport serious criminals and manage trivial crimes by community pressure and action?

As for death being a totally negative experience... <g>... I completely accept that the method of death can be more negative or positive - for instance, a pain-free peaceful death surrounded by loved ones at a good age is much preferable to being tortured to death alone in young adulthood. But death itself is nothingness. Or so I believe, being an atheist. The main wrong in taking someone's life is depriving them of the life and pleasure they may otherwise have lived.

Deb

Yes, societal pressure is a major factor and a strong disincentive for minor crime. I have also noticed in Ireland, even though the population is not so small, but the links between people are much more understood than they would be in the UK, that there are clearly defined and acceptable ways to "be bold". Anecdotal evidence suggests an enviable clean up rate for murder charges as well, because it is easier to find the culprit.

But for exile, it is likely to be tantamount to a death sentence in many remote societies (my fictional one for certain), and IMHO, a much more unpleasant and drawn out death than might otherwise be achieved. A bit like not facing up to the reality of the decisions made.

Will keep digging, methinks!

Thanks,
G

What a fascinating thread!

Gaius, it seems to me that you are talking about two slightly different things:

I struggle with the idea of it being necessarily more cruel to kill a man than to imprison him and dehumanise him for so long that he has no possible way to reintegrate into the society that he has somehow offended badly enough to assign him such a punishment

For example, in my WIP, I am considering an enclosed community with very limited resources. In that case, the concept of a capital sentence is not so much "punishment" for the indivdual as a necessity for the greater good of the society

-On the one hand, you are asking whether people might better off dead than jailed in nasty conditions.

-On the other hand, you are asking whether it is preferable for a given society (here, your fictional small/poor society) to kill people rather than imprison them.

These are two different issues, for the following reasons:

-In the first case, you are focusing on the welfare of the prisonner. You might have a point when you say that a life sentence in jail could be worse than death itself. The problem is, you might be wrong: it will always depend on the particular case. Some prisonners might prefer to die, hence the fairly high rate of suicide in jail. Other would rather stay alive, in any conditions, hence the death row inmates who spend years trying to have their sentenced changed even though they know they will never get out of prison (i.e. in the US). Even if you could, somehow, prove that most people are better off dead than jailed (and I think that would be very hard to prove indeed), you would still end up with all the guys who are better off alive. What do you do with them? Kill them anyway?

-In the second case, you focus on society and base your arguments on an utilitarian principle: the greatest good for the greatest number (a very poor society is better off killing people than keeping them alive in jail at an outrageous cost). Fair enough, if you're a utilitarian. There are problems with such an ethical position, of course, but it's still a popular/fairly widespread one. The NHS is a good example: resources are allocated according to utilitarian principles. It still shocks people all the time: the NHS might not even try to find a cure for a certain child's disease, for instance, because it's too rare and would cost more that treating another 100 children with a more common life-threatening condition. People hate hearing it. What about that one child? Should we put a prive on her life? Should we be talking about her as if she were a commodity? (the old Kantian criticisms work well here: never use a person as a means to an end etc.)

So, here you do. I think the second position is tenable if you accept the implications of utilitarianism (which is fair enough, I'm not personally against it at all). The first one seems a bit more difficult to sustain...

I'm wondering if you came up with the second idea first and are now trying to justify it with the first one, convincing yourself that death is ok after all in order to make your imaginary society seem less cruel?


Nancy