I've come to the realization that there's an angle to capital punishment that never comes up. For most of Western history incarceration simply did not exist. Punishment was corporal or capital* (heh, literally "body or head"). I suppose exile was a third option, but it was usually commutation of capital punishment. For minor offences such as fighting or petty theft you were beaten or put in the stocks or faced something something similar. For crimes against the lives (or property, if of sufficient value) of people you were executed. Armed robbery or assault with a weapon, for instance, has been a capital offence in most times and places.
Now a common argument against capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent to anybody. Of course its not! We only use it for the most heinous of crimes; in many places 1st degree murder is far more likely to yield a life sentence unless your particular case was especially vile. But here's the thing, outside crimes of passion, most murderers have a long list of priors, many of which would have had you in a noose prior to the 19th century. If armed robbery was a capitol offence, a whole lot of folks wouldn't live long enough to commit homicide.
What if the proper use of capital punishment actually requires us to apply it more broadly? "What about accidentally convicting innocent people?" you ask. Well, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is 1) a ratio and 2) set at one in ten rather than one in a million.
The argument against capital punishment is because you can never trust the government to do the right thing. If you distrust the government and always expect the government to be manipulated by other people and/or are incompetent (and I've seen your posts here and I know you hold that view), then you cannot trust them to be competent in always convicting the right person for capital punishment.
Blackstone's ratio was an arbitrary number. He probably used 10 because it does a better job hitting home how incompetent and malicious the government is.
For me, I am only for corporal punishment if it's VERY VERY VERY obvious. Like this post, or like a serial killer who has so much evidence stacking up against them that it's obvious, or a pedophile who has a long trail of victims that can attest to their traumas and who haven't been coached to say things a certain way.
I agree that it shouldn't be completely removed, but the standards for it should be extremely high, like a standard higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is used for criminal court cases. I wouldn't know what to call it, but I do think that option should be there.
The argument against capital punishment is because you can never trust the government to do the right thing.
This is a compelling argument. We all know it's true and can't ignore it, despite how much we also know that capital punishment is a valid outcome for murderers.
I've come to the realization that there's an angle to capital punishment that never comes up. For most of Western history incarceration simply did not exist. Punishment was corporal or capital* (heh, literally "body or head"). I suppose exile was a third option, but it was usually commutation of capital punishment. For minor offences such as fighting or petty theft you were beaten or put in the stocks or faced something something similar. For crimes against the lives (or property, if of sufficient value) of people you were executed. Armed robbery or assault with a weapon, for instance, has been a capital offence in most times and places.
Now a common argument against capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent to anybody. Of course its not! We only use it for the most heinous of crimes; in many places 1st degree murder is far more likely to yield a life sentence unless your particular case was especially vile. But here's the thing, outside crimes of passion, most murderers have a long list of priors, many of which would have had you in a noose prior to the 19th century. If armed robbery was a capitol offence, a whole lot of folks wouldn't live long enough to commit homicide.
What if the proper use of capital punishment actually requires us to apply it more broadly? "What about accidentally convicting innocent people?" you ask. Well, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is 1) a ratio and 2) set at one in ten rather than one in a million.
The argument against capital punishment is because you can never trust the government to do the right thing. If you distrust the government and always expect the government to be manipulated by other people and/or are incompetent (and I've seen your posts here and I know you hold that view), then you cannot trust them to be competent in always convicting the right person for capital punishment.
Blackstone's ratio was an arbitrary number. He probably used 10 because it does a better job hitting home how incompetent and malicious the government is.
For me, I am only for corporal punishment if it's VERY VERY VERY obvious. Like this post, or like a serial killer who has so much evidence stacking up against them that it's obvious, or a pedophile who has a long trail of victims that can attest to their traumas and who haven't been coached to say things a certain way.
I agree that it shouldn't be completely removed, but the standards for it should be extremely high, like a standard higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is used for criminal court cases. I wouldn't know what to call it, but I do think that option should be there.
This is a compelling argument. We all know it's true and can't ignore it, despite how much we also know that capital punishment is a valid outcome for murderers.