Lecture Notes: The Death Penalty and Its Debates

Overview

• Discussion on the death penalty involves various philosophical and empirical arguments.
• Main philosophers and theorists mentioned: Kant, Nathanson, Vandenhag, Reiman, Liebman and colleagues.
• Focus on deterrence-based vs. retributivist-based arguments.

Key Philosophical Positions

Kant's Support for Capital Punishment

• Kant's principle: "Eye for an eye."
• Not much defense, but rather a statement of support.

Nathanson's Critique

• Critiques Kant's principle of equality in capital punishment.

Vandenhag's Defense

• Argues in favor of capital punishment, tackling common objections.

Current Focus

• Examining papers by Reiman and Liebman et al.

Reiman's Critique

Target

• Critiques deterrence-based arguments for capital punishment.

Main Points

1. Empirical Evidence:

   • Claims that empirical evidence supporting deterrence is inconclusive.
   • Cannot conclusively state that the death penalty deters more than life imprisonment.

2. Philosophical Grounds:

   • Argues that deterrence arguments are unsupported on logical grounds.
   • Questions the connection between fear and deterrence.
   • Challenges the assumption that fear of death deters more than fear of life imprisonment.

Key Observations

• Just because the death penalty is more feared doesn’t mean it deters more effectively than life imprisonment.
• The effectiveness of deterrence does not necessarily align with the level of fear.

The Deterrence Argument Problem

• If the death penalty doesn't deter more than life imprisonment, it’s not a valid argument for capital punishment.
• Reiman questions whether fear translates to effective deterrence.
• Proposes considering whether those deterred by death would not be equally deterred by life imprisonment.

Liebman et al.'s Study

Focus

• Not arguing the morality of capital punishment but examining its implementation.

Findings

• Surveyed over 5,000 death sentences (1973-1995).
• Found a 68% serious error rate in capital punishment cases.
• Errors indicate significant flaws in the judicial review process.

Implications

• High error rates challenge the moral acceptability of capital punishment.
• Calls for careful examination before speeding up execution processes to avoid wrongful executions.
• Questions Vandenhag's dismissal of errors as insignificant.

Conclusion

• The lecture explores the complexities and moral implications of capital punishment.
• Highlights the need to critically evaluate both empirical evidence and philosophical arguments.
• Raises awareness about potential errors and the impact on judicial processes.