I don't think the horror about the death penalty comes so much from the belief that death is the worst thing that can happen to a person, as the belief that killing is the worst thing a person can do.

You're looking at it from the point of view of the prisoner - would they rather be executed or imprisoned? But what about the society? Maybe they don't want to be killers. Look at the case of Gary Gilmore - he wanted to be executed, but had to fight a society that didn't want killing carried out in their name and tried to keep him alive against his will.

I suppose it depends on what kind of ethical system your fictional community have, but if killing is a crime or transgresses their moral/ethical code, it immediately becomes problematic I think.

I don't think the horror about the death penalty comes so much from the belief that death is the worst thing that can happen to a person, as the belief that killing is the worst thing a person can do.

Great point, Sidewinder.

Both, great points;
Nezelette, yes, I think you are right that I became aware of a utilitarian reality for two MCs - who I know to be a good, if misunderstood, people. I can see they have no sensible alternatives. In fact, for them, a whipping is a better corrective action than any non-corporal punishment as it is quick, effective and allows people to get back to work and let's not mention your transgression again, kinda thing. So far, so good, only then I began worrying about the boundary for that logic. If it applies in a remote society of 300 people, at what number between there and the UK's 60million+ does it cease to apply?

Sidewinder: you've answered one question and opened a can of worms!

Why is killing another person the worst thing a person can do? Even in the bible it is listed with the same weight as adultery, theft and being rude to mummy&daddy...

Equally, although I am aware of the problem in Islam with execution of a virgin and the barbaric sidestep of the law in certain countries, many legal systems have death as a formal penalty, but I know of none that formally list sexual violence which would suggest that sexual violence is the taboo and the more serious offence.

G




<Added>

PS:

if killing is a crime or transgresses their moral/ethical code

Killing is a crime both there and here. The difference being that my fictional island (which accepts the death penalty) does not pay a substantial number of its young men to learn how to kill others whereas the UK (which rejects the death penalty) does.

Why is killing another person the worst thing a person can do?

Good point. Whereas you can imagine, for instance, forgiving or even understanding your brother/father/husband for killing someone in an uncharacteristic fit of rage (perhaps triggered by something like violence, the attack of an innocent etc.), it is much harder to imagine you could ever forgive/understand them if they raped someone or tortured a child.

Murder is, sadly, a fairly 'normal' human reaction that we suppress successfully through socialisation. Animals do it too and we are, after all, animals. But they don't tend to torture/gang rape/lock kiddies up in their cellar (ok, they don't have cellars, but you get my point).

I'm not trying to say that killing is generally acceptable, but I think most of us can understand it and might even feel the urge to kill, deep down, on occasion. Very few of us ever feel the urge to torture children and rape strangers.

Arguably, there are cases where murder is justified, whereas all the above isn't. I personally don't believe death penalty is ever acceptable, but, for instance, killing someone who is attacking children does seem justifiable.

Nancy

True, it's arguable that there are instances where killing is justifiable and our society is more equivocal about killing than a lot of other crimes - rape or torture, for example. There are degrees of murder charges - manslaughter, first degree, etc.

However, I don't think the death penalty can be justified on that basis. It's not self-defence or 'heat of the moment'. It's premeditated killing.

Also I don't believe you can talk about the death penalty as separate from torture - not physical torture necessarily (though not all executions are quick and painless), but mental torture. It's killing plus torture.

I think you're on to something that one of the problems with the death penalty is not so much the effect on the person who dies, but the effect on the people connected to that person.

However, I have quite a big problem with the idea that a premeditated killing is somehow worse than a random act of uncontrolled rage... To me, that is exactly backwards as I have spent a considerable part of my life learning skills to ensure that I am not prone to random acts of uncontrolled rage! To me, a premeditated, well justified, and completely thought-through killing undertaken by the state to achieve a specific aim that benefits the society as a whole is inifinitely preferable to somebody seeing red after coming home to find their wife in bed with a lover...

G

I have never, nor will ever, understand a society that condemns murder with one hand and commits it with the other.

JB

Having done quite a lot of work on my current WIP to imagine the rights and wrongs of leadership and government as a whole, I think that there is a very strong and legitimate justification for a society's government to say "do as I say, not as I do".

An obvious example would be the setting of law in the first place.

It is right and proper to introduce speed limits to protect the populace as a whole, for example, but entirely justifiable to allow employees of the state to ignore them under special circumstances in order to get to an emergency sooner.

It's pretty much the same with medicine; I have no particular objection to a surgeon with the proper training, support mechanisms and equipment to attempt a risky medical procedure, but I would be fairly reluctant to allow Alan, my next door neighbour with a shakey grasp of DIY, to do the same...

It is, of course, necessary for law to be set to maintain a functional society. However, the law should be set by the state and not any Joe Bloggs walking down the street... (Or, for that matter, leaders of a religion to which many of us do not subscribe...) Although, I would be wary of a government that didn't consult its people before implementing laws...

To be honest, I think the biggest problem with all the various systems of government is choosing who to assign various powers to and how much consultation to insist on... but to remain as a member of any society implies a sacrifice of at least some of your freedoms.

G

<Added>

A better example than medicine would be guns. I am no fan of war, but I am pleased to know there is an army to defend me if needed. That said, I am equally pleased that guns are restricted so that they are only available for use by state employees primarily for protection of the state. I would have some fairly significant doubts about moving to the USA purely because of the gun laws...

However, I have quite a big problem with the idea that a premeditated killing is somehow worse than a random act of uncontrolled rage...

Bernard Shaw, typically, caused a furore when he turned the Victorian maxim never to hit a child in anger on its head, to say that you should never hit a child except in anger.

I think a lot of people feel at some gut level that cold-blooded decision to kill is more culpable than a very natural human reaction to a bad situation. This is, of course, the one that gets women who kill abusive partners into such trouble, because it leaves out the 'learned helplessness' issue, and makes them seem more wicked and evil for stabbing him when he's asleep (must be cold-bloodedly premeditated), than he would be considered for throttling her when he's in a drunken rage (sudden, deplorable but very human loss of control).

I agree with Waxy that it's inherently contradictory to hurt/kill someone for hurting/killing someone else - even if it's only smacking a toddler for smacking her brother.

I think the death penalty shouldn't be allowed, as people have said, because it's the only thing which is truly, totally irreversible. Anyone who hasn't been hung has the possibility of making amends for what they did, or at least becoming a normal member of society. And I deeply believe that one of the wickedest things a government can do is to imprison or punish people for crimes they didn't commit, but miscarriages of justice do occur for better or worser reasons, and the thought of someone being executed for a crime they didn't commit is too awful to contemplate. As has been said, at least if they're still alive, they can make what they're able to of the rest of their lives. And who are we to say that's not a life worth having? How someone survives an ordeal like that is much to do with their own psyche, and none of us have the right to decide whether that's a life worth living or not.

Whether you should give someone who's been sentenced to life imprisonment the option of committing suicide, I don't know.

On the other hand, if you think that the world would be a better and happier place if someone had bumped off a certain Austrian housepainter, or that big Georgian guy with the silly moustache, a bit sooner, it's hard to sign up to the notion that killing anyone, ever, is wrong.

Emma

I'll steer clear of the learned helplessness example for the moment as I am on thin enough ice for starting this particular thread...

Suffice it to say that I can see very many good reasons to restrict the right of all society members to terminate the life of all other society members.

And who are we to say that's not a life worth having?

I don't think that is what I am saying, however.

Whether or not a life is worth having, from the pov of the individual concerned, runs secondary to the consideration of whether, the rest of a given society would be better served without that life.

An example from a book synopsis I saw in the Economist this week was a soldier who didn't kill an innocent shepherd in Afghanistan. The shepherd ran home and told Taliban leaders who then returned with a Taliban military force and caused the deaths of several soldiers (on both sides), the destruction of a military helicopter (plus the lives of the sixteen crew) and, presumably, a number of innocent bystanders... Given that the invading force were there as a direct result of a terrorist action that cost several thousand innocent lives, which was the worse decision there?

From the pov of any given individual, there is only ever one probable outcome ("let me live"). From the pov of a functioning state, there are more factors to consider and more legitimate outcomes.

G

<Added>

PS: The book was: "Justice: What's the Right Thing To Do" by Michael J Sandel

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Justice-Whats-Right-Thing-Do/dp/184614213X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254322464&sr=8-1

But, but, but...it is contradictory and, I think, makes the executioners as bad as the prisoner. 'He killed people, murder is wrong, therefore we're going to kill him'. It's dumb. I'm not sure one can balance ambulance drivers etc off against someone who cold-bloodedly (or otherwise) took another human life. Although we do that in war all the time, but that's in the name of power so it doesn't count.

JB

Yes, it is contradictory.

Why is that a problem?

And for power thing, one of the reasons a government works is that it can act as the big cheese to stop the disputes between the babybels. So quite a lot of lawmaking is also about preserving power. Which may not be pleasant in the abstract, but it is comfortable in the actuality... If, like the majority of us, you are at one end of the curve rather than the other.

G

<Added>

To rephrase:
"he killed a man unlawfully in a way that is detrimental to society, he shall be killed, lawfully, to protect our society"
Which, provided you accept the definitions of lawful and the meanings of beneficial or detrimental is no longer hypocritical, even if it is still fighting fire with fire.

I understand the argument. Personally, at the heart of all these things - war, executions, whatever - killing other human beings is wrong. Doesn't matter much to me what particular excuse is being employed.

JB

TBH, I'm not a million miles from you on that, I was just hoping somebody had a stronger argument.
G

I know, you're stirring up debate for your own inspirational purposes, so I didn't mean to imply that you personally think it's ok to kill people. I think you make an interesting point when you say 'he killed a man unlawfully in a way that is detrimental to society, therefore he shall be killed, lawfully, to protect our society', because there is a subtle difference between these two stances which I do accept. I don't think someone who murders an innocent victim in cold blood is as bad as the law enforcers who punish them, I just meant that fundamentally, underneath that argument, I cleave to the basic principle that it's still wrong to take the life of another human being.

I see killing people as a human failing, that we should perhaps have evolved beyond this, but then my imagination is a hypocrite, because fictionally, I've killed quite a few people and inadvertently promoted the idea of killing as part of the human condition. Maybe part of me even believes that, but doesn't really want to, and so I explore it in fiction. I'm not squeamish, far from it. I do seperate fantasy and reality, however, and I think the world is in a sorry, sorry state. In my opinion, fiction doesn't encourage violence any more than video games do. It merely reflects, but that's a whole seperate argument.

We are a contradictory species. Also, my view on executions is much less humanitarian than Emma's. I'm not against the death sentence on the basis of the value of this or that killer's existence, but because I think those who have murdered, raped or otherwise caused human beings to physically suffer should be made to serve out a full sentence stripped of rights and privileges, removed permanently from society. Death, to my mind, seems an easy way out.

JB

<Added>

I don't think someone who murders an innocent victim in cold blood is as bad as the law enforcers who punish them

Oops! Of course I meant this the other way round. I don't think the law enforcers are as bad as the murderers!