When I have more time, I hope to respond to Noah Millman's searching meditation on the death penalty, but for now you should just go read it.
« Iraq and False Choices | Main | Dobson vs. Obama » Rape and the Death Penalty26 Jun 2008 11:49 am Comments (29)
Noah Millman's "expiatory" argument for the death penalty makes perfect sense to me, and matches my intuitive sense of what punishment is for. He said it far better than I could. 
Hector writes: "Noah Millman's "expiatory" argument for the death penalty makes perfect sense to me, and matches my intuitive sense of what punishment is for. He said it far better than I could." And since he's not crazy, he came to the opposite conclusion from yours. Funny how that works.
If you come out in support of the death penalty I'm just going to stop reading you altogether. In the past couple of weeks you have done your best to demonstrate that your morality is malleable, depending on the political benefits you or your party may reap. You base your moral posturing on your Catholic faith. The Church's position on Capital Punishment is quite clear. You have no wiggle room on this issue. You are either a devout Catholic who bases their moral compass on the Church's teaching or you are a huckster, schilling for morality when it's convenient politically.
Bye-Bye tells Ross: "You are either a devout Catholic who bases their moral compass on the Church's teaching or you are a huckster, schilling for morality when it's convenient politically." Ross worships at the altar of Saint Reagan every day, of course. How long have you been reading his stuff?
Steve - do you actually know the Catholic stance on capital punishment? You obviously know its general conclusion, but have not actually read it. As John Kerry might say, "Nuance, nuance." And also, "Balloons! Balloons!Where are the balloons? F*ck!"
"The Church's position on Capital Punishment is quite clear. You have no wiggle room on this issue. You are either a devout Catholic who bases their moral compass on the Church's teaching or you are a huckster, schilling for morality when it's convenient politically." Indeed, the Church is very clear, if you read all relevant documents, that in some circumstances, the death penalty is an acceptable action of the state, for purposes of maintaining order and seeking temporal justice. Our last pope, our current pope (I believe) and many wise and good bishops and theologians think we are not currently (at least in the First World) living under such circumstances, which is primarily a prudential and factual evaluation, not a fundamental moral stance. There is a (very) tricksy reading by which one might suggests that John Paul II almost sort of nearly elevated opposition to capital punishment to a moral truth binding on the faithful, but I just don't think it flies. It would be a significant enough change to require much more force and clear intent. I say all this noting that I tend to agree with JP II and others on the prudential point -- the death penalty is probably a Bad Thing in contemporary America and Europe. I'm guessing Steve Balboni is not actually Catholic himself?
I'd guess that steve is Catholic. "Balboni" doesn't sound like an Episcopalian name to me. And I wouldn't assume that all true Catholics agree with, or are aware of, what any given pope has said about any given subject. That said, when killers live on to kill again, in or out of prison, justice has been denied. I think most murderers should get the death penalty, and some rapists too. Also some drug-dealers... etc.
JohnPaul 2d: "I renew the appeal..for a consensus to end the death penalty..." in St Louis Mo during his 1999 visit. The U S Council of Bishops: "...the dignity of human life must never be taken away..." citing JohnPaul 2d's encyclical of 1995. Be very careful Mr Marquis. If your pro-death opinions become well known you might be refused Communion.
Hector: "Noah Millman's "expiatory" argument for the death penalty makes perfect sense to me, and matches my intuitive sense of what punishment is for. He said it far better than I could." you obviously cannot read. Millman argues that only murder (not rape, or stealing) can justify the death penalty under an expiatory + rights-based moral framework. anyways, i think this is a good post by Millman. i lean towards a "satisfaction" pro-death penalty argument myself--the "posited implied consent on the part of the executed" in the expiatory defense isn't something i actually desire. I don't particularly want the rapist to consent to his punishment or to feel guilt--i just want him to suffer as an end in itself. And of course I broadly agree with Millman that we have duties and not rights.
Raft, Um, I read the post when it was first posted. Millman disagrees with the expiatory argument, correct. However, like Aquinas, he believes in presenting his opponents' argument as fairly as possible. John McC, The last two popes opposed the death penalty as a prudential matter, at least in the First World, and not as a categorical matter. It's not like, for example, abortion, about which one is not free to disagree.
Gyrd writes: "That said, when killers live on to kill again, in or out of prison, justice has been denied. I think most murderers should get the death penalty, and some rapists too. Also some drug-dealers... etc." In that "etc." can be seen the depth of the pathology of the typical bloodthirsty wingnut these days. These people are seriously fucked in the head.
Be very careful Mr Marquis. If your pro-death opinions become well known you might be refused Communion. John -- er, I'm against, myself (whatever it is, you can usually count on me to be against). But the serious point is that a few random quotes produced by google, generated by people who are both arrogantly assertive and essentially ignorant of actual church teaching is not very useful here. Denying Kmiec communion was foolish and wrong; denying me communion for stating the actual facts of church teaching here would be absurd. More generally, this tactic seems to be the almost exclusive province of people who (A) want the state to fund the murder of an 8 month fetus but (B) don't think the state should execute a man who has butchered dozens of children. I suppose in those specific instances that shows a consistent anti-people-under-10 moral stance, but I don't think much of those folks. Their continual assertion of Catholic teaching when they don't know or follow it in any other context is genuinely offensive. But I guess when you're pretty much pro-infanticide, being offensive is the least of your worries.
Um, I read the post when it was first posted. Millman disagrees with the expiatory argument, correct. However, like Aquinas, he believes in presenting his opponents' argument as fairly as possible. I'm not very good at that myself, but as dead ideas that would enhance the conversation of conservatives (anathema on many of them on this very point) and liberals, that one is nearly at the top. Imagine Moe trying to fairly and cogently state a conservative idea, and note the points where it requires refutation because it at least seems compelling! Hilarious stuff... But as MacIntyre has pointed out, this is very hard to do when we're not all acting in a common framework. Nihilists and Christians will have trouble "fairly" stating the abhorrent or absurd arguments (as each sees it) of the other side.
Mr Marquis, you know and condemn me for the opinions that you assume I hold. And it is I who am 'arrogant'. This is par for the course in many blogs' comments section but I think most Atlantic visitors can do better. Try to elevate yourself.
John -- I'm just noting that the cherry-picking of quotations about the death penalty without facing that the moral doctrinal status here really is quite distinct from that of abortion mostly comes from people who have a particular viewpoint. I have no idea if you are an outlier, perhaps an abortion foe and death penalty friend.
The only interesting thing this week is the new interpretation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. Millman right up front throws that issue away for a navel-gaze at the "Deeper questions". This rape case decision is the tipping point in a Coup d'état by the Court. It's a new government from here on out.
Hector: "Millman disagrees with the expiatory argument, correct." No, he argues that it FOLLOWS from the expiatory argument that the death penalty should not be applied to child rapists (starting from the premise of a right to life, a premise that you accept): "If you start from a premise of such a right to life, then you can only barely justify the death penalty in cases of murder (on the grounds of satisfaction and/or expiation – the consequentialist justifications will never fly), and certainly not in any other cases." his post is a pretty straightforward attack on your position, and it's absurd for you to try to cite his attack as some sort of defense.
you cannot abort something that has not begun. keep telling yourselves that. and you cannot condone the willful disregard for that little girls life...but you will.
Mr Marquis, thank you for your clarification and for stimulating me to look deeper into the matter. Any discussion of the the death penalty divides into two. First, a philosophical and theoretical one (does the State have just authority to execute a criminal?) or second, a practical and political one (does the present death penalty improve our society?) Regarding the second, a glance through 'the innocence project's' findings would lead any fair-minded person to question the death penalty as we practice it. No one wants to execute a person whose guilt is questionable. (But OMG don't google it!!! Or use quotes!!!) As for the second, many commenters have given the usual RomanCatholic response. I merely looked up (shamefully, using google instead of the Dewey Decimal system or whatever) the sources for what others here have said. Questioned, I looked farther: Catechism of the Catholic Church Quoted in full Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If however nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm--without taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself--the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare or practically nonexistent. End quote. Several of my family are what one would call 'traditional Catholics', that is, they wish the Mass were in Latin and the Laity were more encouraged to greater obedience. They hold this as an alternative to 'delicatessen Catholics'. It is worth mentioning however that they represent a very small minority of Catholics. Damn that Vatican II!! Then we got the Designated Hitter and the center does not hold.
Following up on JFred's post (and with an intent to discuss some jurisprudence, rather than navel gaze) - I do not understand how anyone can read Kennedy v. Louisiana (both the court's opinion and the dissent) and not come away convinced that the high court is, by its nature, a purely political animal. (This is not a criticism.) Not in the sense that they look to attract votes, but in the sense that they (each of them) personally embrace certain politics and that this is (in addition to hefty intellects and resumes) what got them their jobs. Why does it surprise anyone that they vote the way they do? Of course they vote the way they do. The interesting thing to me is how anyone could have heard the facts of that case and not nodded (sadly for most) in consent to the people of Louisiana's choice (expressed by both the democratically elected legislature and executive, and implemented by a jury of the defendant's peers) to punish the defendant by ending his life and ridding themselves of someone capable of such evil acts. Do you not wish to stoop to the level of such creatures by ending a life? I suggest you do not live in Louisiana. But who is Anthony Kennedy, absent his political appointment, to tell the people of Louisiana that they may not make such a choice. No one believes the rhetoric in either of these opinions. They are merely pretending to a controversy over epistemic authority. The left does not want the death penalty because that is what those on the left believe, and the right wants the ability to impose the death penalty because that is what those on the right believe. The justices really just managed to waste a lot of paper. Personally, I think it is enough that death is a traditional punishment for felonies. Abandoning our traditions will leave us neutered, frail and overcome by those with more reverence for their past (China). Remember - America can not begin again.
It is often asked why the death penalty survives in the USA but in no other western industrialized country. Religion? Violence? The best answer is the democratic and populist nature of our politics. Countries that have abolished capital punishment have less popular control over the judiciary and over state bureaucracies. Liberal elites ban the penalty, and as decades go by people learn to live without it. Is there a gaping chasm in the life of these countries, a sense that true justice for the worst criminals is not to be had on earth? I don't think so. Shocking crimes happen everywhere and rage and grief and unbearable loss are the lot of victims everywhere. But by not associating justice with lethal violence, some countries can at least begin to address the needs and rights of victims in new and more promising ways. Can the USA go down this track? Only if the popular mood changes. My hunch is that things are changing, and that the Supreme Court's 5-4 split pretty accurately reflects the popular mood. We don't really want these executions - otherwise why wait for decades before carrying them out? And why carry them out so incompetently, in secret, behind prison walls, with scarcely any press coverage? We must be ashamed on some level.
Did you know that "Bobo" Brooks mentions your book in his column Friday?
Now it happens that the supreme court struck down a ban on handguns... For one time I guess the right will not be talking about "unelected judges" and all that stupid rethoric they love to repeat like robots... http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/supreme-court-strikes-down-handgun/story.aspx?guid={5FE04278-BB58-4161-97D6-971427AF5E24}&dist=TNMostRead
What I find surprising is that nobody in this debate, including Millman, mentions the special fragility of the victim. My ex-girlfriend had been abused as a child and although she was certainly satisfied (in the sense that it made her feel safe) that her abuser went to jail, I think the load of an execution - caused by her testimony - would have been too heavy for her little girl's shoulders to bear. Secondly, and more importantly, child-rape is often committed by someone in the family. What are the chances of a child coming forward and exposing the crime, if the consequence will be that uncle Bill or neighbor Tom will die? Far from protecting children, capital punishment for this particular crime will make it more difficult for children to seek protection.
Hans B., One could solve that problem by allowing judges discretion in seeking the death penalty or not in rape cases. In cases where the victim's testimony was crucial they could settle for life imprisonment and in cases where there was enough physical evidence that the victim's testimony was unnecessarry, they could seek the death penalty.
One could solve that problem by allowing judges discretion in seeking the death penalty or not in rape cases Yeah, Hector, "more discretion" that's brilliant. With the majority of judges in this country being elected and the majority of the ones getting elected running as "law-n-order" types, I'm sure that a grant of discretion would be used wisely and not. {/sarcasm}
Hector, that's not how it works. Already today, abused children are often blackmailed by their tormentors: "If you talk, Uncle Bill will go to jail, the family will suffer, and you'd be guilty of that." Imagine the blackmail that would be possible in the case of capital punishment. An abused child is not after vengeance but after relief (although the vengeance part can come later in life). I think one of the most underestimated aspects of rape (both adult and child) is the need for reassuring agencies where one can spill the beans. Lots of women don't go to the police after a rape because they can't face the kind of intrusive questions policemen often ask. Lots of children keep abuse a secret until adult age for similar reasons: no one to safely talk to (especially but not only if their abusers convince them that they, too, are guilty). The problem with child rape is that no matter how harsh the sentence, it will make no difference as long as the rapist is assured that the child is too scared to testify. And so the removal of victim fear is what law enforcement should focus on.
Hans -- I think you raise an important point, but it cuts both ways. If the death penalty were available, prosecutors would have discretion to use it or not depending on the charges brought and the punishment sought at sentencing. More importantly, the threat of the death penalty would give prosecutors substantial leverage in plea negotiations. In fact, by using this threat to win pleas, prosecutors could avoid trials and the need for continued victim involvement. Of course, this raises the issue of prosecutorial abuse -- such as the use of what is perhaps undue coercion in threats of severe punishment to compel defendants to forego their right to a trial -- but that happens all the time right now and is a issue for another day.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The death penalty, as applied, assumes that the Justice System,despite being designed and run by fallible humans, never makes a mistake. Uh huh.
So I oppose the death penalty in all cases.
Posted by wiredog | June 26, 2008 1:24 PM