Sunday, July 15, 2007

Jonah Goldberg on Death Penalty on National Review Online

Just read an odd article by Jonah Goldberg. Some quotes and questions:

But the point is that it shouldn’t matter whether capital punishment is a deterrent. The death penalty cannot be justified by the deterrence argument alone. As the late sociologist Ernest van den Haag wrote, “Deterring the crimes, not yet committed, of others does not morally justify execution of any convict (except to utilitarians, who think usefulness is a moral justification).”
If you have the capacity to prevent a crime from occurring, wouldn't it be a moral obligation (not just morally justified) to do so? Why would preventing crimes not justify punishing crimes?

I support the death penalty because I believe that in some cases the death penalty is just. But, save perhaps in the realm of military justice or some truly grave crisis, executing to set an example for others is an indefensible rationalization of mob rule.
The rule of what mob? The mob of legislators that decide what criminal penalties to write into law? The mob of jurors that decide verdicts? The mob of judges that impose the sentences allowed by law?

No comments: