UNIT 5 CH 37 Stephen Nathanson: The Death Penalty as a Symbolic Issue

The Symbolism of Abolishing the Death Penalty (p 333)

FIRST SYMBOLIC MESSAGE What is the symbolic message that we would convey by deciding to renounce the death penalty and to abolish its use? 1. sanctity of human life or respect for human dignity - we may punish people for their crimes, but we ought not to deprive them of everything, which is what the death penalty does. - Death penalty conveys the criminal is worthless and totally without human value. Nathanson believes we are not in the position to affirm that of anyone. - when people murder or commit other crimes, they do forfeit some of the rights that are possessed by the law-abiding. - It becomes permissible to bring them to trial and, if they are convicted, to impose an appropriate—even a dreadful— punishment on them. - One way of seeing why those who murder still deserve some consideration and respect with the idea of deserving something (featured that are qualities of individuals) - Human desert (dessert) = belongs to people by virtue of their humanity itself and does not depend on their individual efforts or achievements. everyone deserves a certain level of treatment no matter what their individual qualities are. (refers to the Declaration of Independence - rights: life, liberty and happiness) Its possess naturally not gained.

Nathanson says anger shows the depth of the person's caring for other human beings, but

but it does not provide a justification for killing the driver. Example: family member killed in auto accident by reckless driver

One could favor executing Hitler because of his extraordinary acts and still think that executions

executions should play no regular role in the achievement of domestic order within a society.

Only defensive violence is

justifiable.

That we may feel angry enough to kill someone does not imply that doing so would be m

morally legitmate.

Nathanson states I know of

no one who denies that anger and outrage are the appropriate responses to the murder of innocent human beings. Nor do I know of anyone who argues that murderers should not be punished at all.

righteous anger is

not morally right.

Nathanson and Berns agree that a. capital punishment is wrong. b. capital punishment symbolizes our values as a society. c. capital punishment is right. d. capital punishment is right in the case of "moral monsters."

b. capital punishment symbolizes our values as a society..

Berns and Nathanson agree that the death penalty is a symbolic issue but disagree about its deterrence effects. a. True b. False

b. False.

Berns thinks that the death penalty is a symbolic issue, but Nathanson disagrees. a. True b. False

b. False.

Nathanson believes that the law always deserves complete reverence and respect. a. True b. False

b. False.

Nathanson thinks that moral monsters like Hitler and Stalin deserve the death penalty. a. True b. False

b. False.

Berns is correct in his view that the nature and content of the law is a serious matter, but

( Nathanson disagrees ) it is doubtful that we need to kill people in order to convey that message.

The Morality of Anger (p 330)

- Berns stresses the moral significance of *anger* as the defense of the death penalty. - anger expression of concern for others, we are a community of people who share common concerns and recognize common values.

Nathanson believes

A critical and sober view of the law may do more to affirm the moral order than an attitude of awe or exaggerated respect.

Nathanson agrees with Berns that:

Berns is certainly correct that anger may reveal important virtues in people, especially if a failure to be angry arises either from callousness or indifference. HOWEVER, NATHANSON says actions that flow from anger must be controlled. The expression of anger needs to be limited by moral constraints.

Affirming the Moral Order ( p 322)

For Berns, permitting the state to punish by death is a means of affirming the moral order and its embodiment in the law. Nathanson agrees with Berns that The law must support the moral order in the sense that it must provide appropriate punishments for particular crimes. Morality is subverted when terrible crimes go unpunished or are punished very leniently, since these responses would suggest that the crimes are not really serious.

Symbolic meaning

For people on both sides (of death penalty), whether we impose or refrain from imposing the death penalty seems to say some- thing about our values, about the kind of people we are, about the nature of our society.

The Problem of Moral Monsters (p 335)

Nathanson says even with Hiter and Stalin, , so long as these people no longer pose an active threat to others, it would be best not to execute them.

Nathanson refers to Kant's Categorical Imperative

Kant expressed this ideal of respect in the famous second version of the Categorical Imperative; "So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only."

Why should we restraint ourselves from anger and desire of execution, death penalty?

Partly out of a respect for human dignity. But also because we want the state to set an example of proper behavior. We do not want to encourage people to resort to violence to settle conflicts when there are other ways available. We want to avoid the cycle of violence that can come from retaliation and counter-retaliation.

Moral monsters

People who commit extraordinary atrocities, outside the bounds of "normal" crime, such as Hitler or Stalin.

Symbolic Messages for the renunciation of the death penalty are:

Respect for life and restraint of violence are aspects of the same ideal.

The Morality of Restraint (p 336)

SECOND SYMBOLIC MESSAGE: 2. when we restrain ourselves and do not take the lives of those who kill, we communicate the importance of minimizing killing and other acts of violence. We reinforce the idea that violence is morally legitimate only as a defensive measure and should be curbed whenever possible.

Desert

What a person deserves. Spelled like "desert"—the climate where it doesn't rain much—but pronounced like "dessert"—the sweet course you get at the end of a meal. (Philosophers. Go figure.)

Violence is

a contagion that arouses hatred and anger and if unchecked, it simply leads to still more violence.

According to Nathanson, by abolishing the death penalty, we express our respect for human dignity. a. True b. False

a. True.

Nathanson uses the example of the automobile accident to show that feeling angry at someone doesn't prove you are justified in killing them. a. True b. False

a. True.

The second message that Nathanson sees in abolishing the death penalty is a. violence is only acceptable in self-defense. b. if someone's acts have provoked you to be very angry, then violence is acceptable. c. although individuals may kill, the state can be trusted not to do so. d. anger is not an acceptable response.

a. violence is only acceptable in self-defense..

Nathanson views the death penalty

as a violation of such dignity, for by taking the life of a criminal, we convey the idea that the criminal, although human, is no longer of any worth.

Nathanson thinks by renouncing the use of death as a punishment

by renouncing (stop using) the use of death as a punishment, we express and reaffirm our belief in the inalienable, unforfeitable core of human dignity. - By renouncing the death penalty, we show our determination to accord at least minimal respect even to those whom we believe to be personally vile (little worth or value or morally bad)

Which of these is one of the symbolic messages Nathanson believes we would convey, if we abolished the death penalty? a. The moral order is more important than the law. b. Actions that flow from anger are not morally right. c. All human lives deserve respect, regardless of what they have done. d. Forgiveness is better than vengeance.

c. All human lives deserve respect, regardless of what they have done..

Berns argues that the death penalty encourages people to feel reverence toward criminal law. What is Nathanson's objection to this point? a. Killing is not necessary to encourage reverence. b. Killing won't help to encourage reverence. c. Encouraging reverence toward the law might be unwise if the law is unjust. d. both A and C

d. both A and C.

Nathanson argues that actions performed in the name of righteous anger a. are selfish. b. are inappropriate. c. are morally justified. d. may or may not be morally right.

d. may or may not be morally right..

Nathanson states the death penalty

death penalty supports the morality of anger in an unacceptable way. It suggests that if someone's acts have provoked you to be very angry, then you may legitimately act violently against that person.

Nathanson disagrees Berns message

does nothing to support the appropriateness of using death as a punishment. To favor severe but lesser punishments is in no way to express indifference or callousness toward the deaths of murder victims. The anger and grief that we feel about these deaths do not give us a license to kill.

Nathanson defends that

people do not lose all of their rights when they commit terrible crimes. They still deserve some level of decent treatment simply because they remain living, functioning human beings. This level of moral desert need not be earned, and it cannot be forfeited. T

morality of restraint requires

that one control one's anger and allows one to attack another person only defensively. Anger by itself provides no justification for violence. We will nonetheless control ourselves in a way that the murder did not. We will not kill the murder, even though we could do so and even though we are angry and indignant. We will exercise restraint, sanctioning killing only when it serves a protective function.