Among the various arguments put forward for not abolishing capital punishment, the most powerful philosophical position is the theory of deterrence — the notion that, by applying the death penalty in one case, the state can deter future murders.
In recent years, a number of US economists have applied advanced statistical tools to process crime data in attempts to prove the existence of a deterrent effect. The most startling results were presented by Hashem Dezhbakhsh and others who, in 2003, presented data purporting to show that each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders.
It must be said, however, that these figures are highly controversial. Economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and John Donohue of the Yale School of Law made a thorough analysis of the data quoted in this and similar theses, identifying numerous falsehoods in the authors’ use of statistics.
If, on the other hand, we were to give these theses the benefit of the doubt, accepting their statistical analysis as correct, then would one not have to accept, from both deontologist and utilitarian perspectives, the position of those who advocate the deterrence theory — that capital punishment is morally justified, or even morally required?
This is a question that the movement in favor of abolishing capital punishment cannot avoid facing.
Many pro-abolition arguments, including US Supreme Court rulings such as the case of Furman vs Georgia, are based on the notion that the death penalty is an excessively cruel punishment that is injurious to human dignity. The actions of a murderer, however, are also “excessively cruel,” and the victim is also deprived of his or her life.
If capital punishment can save more people from cruel and inhumane treatment, the life-for-life tradeoff involved ought to be tenable from an ethical point of view.
The pro-abolition movement could start by responding as follows. This consequentialist approach — using the result to justify the means — opens up a Pandora’s box.
For example, caning might deter theft, so we should bring back the cane. In fact, if the experience of certain countries shows that cutting off someone’s hands can deter five times as many thieves as caning, then corporal punishment in the form of amputation should be available.
Another line of thought could be that the death penalty’s deterrent effect would be enhanced if criminals were shot in public, as they are in certain countries, or paraded through the streets before being executed. By making executions public, or even killing convicts by crueler means such as dismemberment, people would be made to feel fear and awe, and this would deter even more murders.
The biggest problem with the consequentialist approach is that it tends toward ever crueler and more extreme forms of punishment.
What if punishment were made more and more severe and cruel? Would that make the world we live in 100 percent safe? Would everyone be so scared that nobody would dare commit a crime?
If so, the state should execute more and more people with each passing year, because if one execution can really deter five murders, then if the state only executes 99 people, instead of 100 or 500, it will have done a disservice to potential victims.
Taken to the extreme, deterrence theory means that the more executions are carried out, the more members of the public will be protected from crime. In the end, law and order would rely entirely on capital punishment and law enforcement would be made a lot easier.
We also need to ask: Can killing person A really deter person B from committing a crime? Especially when executions are done out of public view, so people can only imagine what happens.
How much of a deterrent is that? One might even say that, when things are worked out according to a life-for-a-life formula, some multiple killers might think they are getting a good deal, because only one person can be executed, not a whole family.
The murderer might think, “I’m the only one who’s going to be executed, after all, so if I kill three, five, or even a dozen or more people, I’ll have paid one life for taking 10 or more, which is a pretty good bargain.”
In that case, shouldn’t we bring back the old practice of imposing penalties on nine generations of an offender’s family? When these arguments are taken into consideration, deterrence theory barely stands up from a consequentialist point of view.
Besides, when the benefits derived from committing a crime far outweigh the value of a life, then capital punishment will probably have no deterrent effect at all. For example, the political changes brought about by a revolution, or a jihad or other holy war, or where the potential killer is someone desperate, for whom life no longer seems worth living.
Also, if criminals’ chances of getting caught are too low, then potential criminals may not be deterred even by the threat of the death penalty. Its deterrent effect will certainly be diminished if offenders have a good chance of not being caught.
Furthermore, there is a danger that relying on capital punishment’s deterrent effect could be a disincentive for police to work on improving their criminal investigation techniques. Torture has the same effect.
And if capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent, then it only serves to eradicate the offender, removing the convict permanently from the face of the planet.
Those who advocate the theory of deterrence do not want to talk about this matter of permanent eradication, because from an ethical point of view it boils down to preventing killing by killing, the killing by the state being equivalent to that done by the offender.
If killing one person does not have the effect of saving five, as claimed, then killing by the state cannot be positively justified on those grounds.
There is actually much common ground between those who call for abolition of capital punishment and those who want to retain it. What both sides care about is how to make society safer, so that we can all live free of fear.
Whether capital punishment is morally tenable, however, is a highly controversial question.
Maybe we should set aside ethical, religious and political arguments and take a more pragmatic approach. Then we could move on to asking what alternatives could replace capital punishment and make society safer, and how the criminal justice system can be improved to better uphold victims’ rights.
That would involve considering crime-prevention policies and the judicial system on many more levels. Instead of being argued on an abstract plane based on differing standpoints, the debate over capital punishment could involve detailed policy comparisons and choices.
Let us penetrate the foggy gloom by shedding light on the concrete and practical issues. Whether capital punishment should be abolished should not just be a yes-or-no question — it is a multiple-choice question that involves many complex considerations.
Huang Cheng-yi is an assistant research professor in the Institutum Iurisprudentiae of Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US