Tag: retributive justice

Posted on

Curing Viciousness by Climbing the Moral Ladder

Fresno Bee, September 20, 2020

At a recent rally in Reno, President Trump said, “Now I can be really vicious.” “I don’t have to be nice anymore.” Trump said, “the Republican party doesn’t play it rough and tough.” “We play it so nice,” he said. “In the end it’s not right.”

Trump’s viciousness can be seen in the way the president applauded the killing of Michael Reinoehl by U.S. Marshals. Reinoehl was suspected of killing a right-wing protester in Portland, Ore. After the marshals killed him, the president said, “that’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution.” Of course, in the U.S., police are not justified in delivering retribution.

We are on a slippery slope lubricated by viciousness. To avoid that slope we need to hold fast to what I call the moral ladder. The rungs of the ladder tell us to be nice and kind, to seek justice, to limit power, and to develop mercy.

Morality begins with niceness. Parents tell kids, “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” We quote Aesop’s fables and teach children that “Kindness is never wasted.” These nuggets of proverbial wisdom create a foundation for morality.

Niceness is about manners. Manners provide a psychological and social root for moral development. In learning to be nice, children develop decorum and self-control. Niceness can be superficial and deceptive. A con-man can be nice while he picks your pocket. But that behavior is an exception. Niceness is the first rung on the moral ladder.

Kindness is also essential. Kindness is empathy and benevolence. Sometimes this can be phony or done for show. But genuine kindness opens the heart. It is the source of charity and compassion. The next rung on the moral ladder involves extending kindness to friends and even to strangers.

Beyond this, ethical maturity requires that we develop a sense of justice and responsibility. The Roman philosopher Cicero said that kindness is optional but justice is necessary. Kindness is a gift. If you withhold charity, no one would blame you or be angry. It is not nice to be unkind, but it is not evil.

Justice, on the other hand, is required. If you fail to be just, you are blameworthy. Failures of justice— from lying and promise-breaking to outright violations of human rights — create outrage and righteous indignation. Injustice is not simply unkind. It is evil. Justice is another step on the moral ladder.

Here is where retribution is found, offering payback that holds criminals responsible for their misdeeds. A traditional scheme requires eye for eye, life for life. But a complex system has developed in order to administer justice. Among the most important features of our system is the presumption of innocence.

Accused criminals in the United States have a right to defend themselves in a court of law. American police are not authorized to deliver retribution. The state’s power to punish is awesome. That’s why we limit it and make certain that those we punish are actually guilty. Recognition of the necessary limitation of the state’s power to punish takes us higher up the ladder. This is the vantage point of democratic political theory, which is committed to basic human rights and the rule of law.

It is possible to climb still higher. Many moral systems teach that forgiveness and mercy are higher than retribution. Mercy asks us to be kind, even to those who deserve punishment. The last rung on the ladder takes us beyond law toward something transcendent.

This moral ladder represents the basic common sense of our civilization. Common sense teaches that when viciousness is praised, virtue gets trampled. When niceness is kicked aside, kindness becomes impossible. When police take retribution into their own hands, democracy is in danger.

It’s time to get off of this slippery slope and climb back up the moral ladder. We do that by adhering to justice and the rule of law. We do that by teaching our children to be nice and kind, fair and forgiving. Our children are watching. They will eventually take control of this vicious country. If we teach them well, they may be kind enough to show a little mercy on us.

Posted on

Death penalty ethics

To kill or not to kill? Death penalty debate weighs heavy on us all

Fresno Bee, September 24, 2016

Two rival death penalty initiatives are on the November ballot. Proposition 62 seeks to abolish the death penalty. Proposition 66 intends to make it more efficient. The moral questions raised are complex.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that killing is always wrong. Defenders of capital punishment believe that some criminals deserve death. Between these two positions there is little common ground.

BEFORE VOTING IN NOVEMBER, TAKE TIME TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE. AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DECENT PEOPLE WILL DISAGREE ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AS WE DO ABOUT OTHER VEXING MORAL QUESTIONS.

ladyjustice-previewDeath penalty defenders often understand punishment as retribution. Retributive justice is intuitively appealing. The scales of justice are balanced by restitution and retaliation. Thieves should pay back what they’ve stolen. And if you take a life, you owe a life.

Critics worry that retributivism is too closely linked to revenge. Revenge seems to provide emotional catharsis. There is pleasure and power in hurting those who harm us.

Donald Trump tapped into this emotional element this week when he called for “just and very harsh punishment” for a recently captured terrorist. Someone in the crowd yelled, “hang him.”

Death penalty opponents reject vengeful calls for harsh punishment. At the 6th World Congress Against the Death Penalty this year, Pope Francis argued that the death penalty “does not render justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance.” He continued, “The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ has absolute value and applies both to the innocent and to the guilty.”

Modern executions don’t satisfy vengeful emotions. Lethal injection kills without spilling blood. The modern trend is toward more humane and less cruel punishments. A possible place for common ground is found in the idea that cruel bloodlust is wrong and that suffering should be minimized.

We certainly don’t behead or crucify people – and we condemn other cultures that do. We don’t hold public executions. Crowds no longer mock the condemned on the gallows.

But a more public and bloody execution system might work as a deterrent for crime. Our sanitized, secretive and infrequent executions don’t scare anyone.

If the death penalty worked as a deterrent, it might be justified as socially beneficial. However, research on the deterrent effect of the death penalty is inconclusive. And the death penalty is applied so infrequently in California that any deterrent effect is lost.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Violent criminals seem to accept violence. Armed bandits understand that they may be shot while committing a crime. The threat of execution will not deter suicidal terrorists.

Further reflection points toward political questions. For example, some fear expansive and corrupt government power. In a debate about capital punishment with Hillary Clinton,Bernie Sanders said, “I just don’t believe that government itself should be part of the killing.”

Libertarians tend to agree with Sanders about limiting the state’s power to kill. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson opposes the death penalty because he worries that innocent people may be executed. He has reportedly said, “I don’t want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty.”

Concern about the chance of executing an innocent person is connected to larger concerns about fairness in the justice system. Racial and class-based issues should be considered here. Abolitionists think that the justice system will not fairly apply the ultimate punishment. Reformers want to make sure that the system is fair and just.

In her debate with Sanders, Clinton asserted her trust in the federal court system. She defended the use of the death penalty for heinous crimes and said that she has “confidence in the federal system.”

It may be surprising that Clinton agrees with Trump about the justification of the death penalty. It is not surprising that Trump goes further than Clinton in supporting aggressive policing – and even torture – as necessary for maintaining social order.

Beyond the politics, we should consider higher moral goods. Death penalty opponents extol peaceful virtues such as mercy, gentleness, and forgiveness. But death penalty advocates see retributive justice as required by the ancient law of eye for eye, life for life.

Serious and good people have disagreed about this for millennia. There are compelling arguments on each side. Before voting in November, take time to discuss the issue. And acknowledge that decent people will disagree about capital punishment, as we do about other vexing moral questions.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article103665217.html#storylink=cpy