THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I don’t know if I buy the claim that acidizing the guys eyes is a detterent, just like I don’t believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to comitting murder.  However, I can certainly empathize with the pain the victim felt, and the loss of livelihood she has suffered as a result of these crimes. I fully understand her desire for vengeance.

I can only assume that the next person sent to death row in the U.S. will receive the same amount of coverage.

Or Not.

Not sure where the commenters on that blog are from, but their English is very good.  From skimming the comments, it seems they are unanimous (or near to it) in support of the punishment.

I’d like to pose the opposite question.  What about cases where “an eye for an eye” is not strict enough?

Think about shoplifting - I’m only going to try to steal if I think my chances of not getting caught are very good.  Say 90%.  So if my punishment is equal to the amount I stole, then my expected gain is huge.  I would steal everything, get caught once in awhile, and give a little back.  I make out huge.

What if it was accident?  To use the classic example, what if I don’t shovel my sidewalk, and someone slips and falls and breaks their leg.  Do I get my leg broken?

I guess I can support this in cases of intentional bodily harm inflicted by one person upon another.  In most other cases it just doesn’t make sense.

Right, in terms of “balance”, if the chance of being caught is 10%, then the punishment should be 9x the loot (if not more).  It’s the basic 1:9 gambling odds. The problem of course is that we don’t know what the odds are for any given situation. 

One could think that the “eye for an eye” has evolved into an imprisonment system, that, ideally, the courts mete out the punishment in jail time that eye-for-an-eye would otherwise exact.

In other words, if the attacker was told: jail for n years, or lose your eyes, what should he take?  Well, you set “n” such that half such attackers would choose jail, and the other half would lose their eyes.

There are no state-sponsored ‘murders’ in the US. Enforcement of the death penalty is a killing, not a murder. The distinction is not merely semantic. Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person.

In war, murder is not tolerated. Enemy soldiers and those providing support and resources to them are not innocent. They have made a conscious decision to take arms against you, even if it is coerced. When they no longer have the means to fight--when they surrender or are taken prisoner--killing them would become murder.

Also, the lesson of ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ is not ‘really about’ vengeance as much as it is about limiting it. It’s actually about justice--proportional punishment administered by the public/state rather than disproportionate vigilante revenge. Note that the story is not ‘eye for a tooth.’

This concept is important to any civilized society, perhaps even more important than the deterrence value. The alternative is a perpetual cycle of increasing violence and vengeance, like we saw in the Balkans or post-Saddam Iraq.

As repulsive as the state-sanctioned mutilation seems, it serves an important function in Iranian society. Sure, there are more humane ways to accomplish the same thing, but it does (however barbarically) serve the interest of the community.

That said, I do not favor the mutilation of the perpetrator in this case, nor am I for the death penalty.

Brian, good post. 

However, this is not true:

“Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person. “

Innocent is not the right word.  Otherwise, I’d have to ask “innocent of what”.  Perhaps defenseless would be better.  And murder is also against the law, so if the nation makes it a law to allow murder under certain circumstances (death penalty), that becomes a tautology that a court-ordered death can’t imply murder.

You are right that murder must include intent to kill.

So, as far as I would define murder:
- person killed someone
- killer had intent to kill someone
- killer, or someone killer was protecting, was not in danger of being killed
- killer, or someone killer was protecting, was not in “grave” danger (this last one has leeway for things like a perpetrator beating, torturing someone and you can’t use proportionate force to stop him, so you have to up the ante)

State-sponsored killings in a death penalty are murders (notwithstanding that the courts themselves give themselves immunity), as opposed to state-sanctioned killings in a war.

To me, calling capital punishment ‘state-sponsored murder’ is like calling jail sentences ‘state-sponsored kidnapping’ or calling traffic fines ‘state-sponsored theft’.

If you believe that the death penalty is murder, that’s fine with me.  Personally, I think the ban on organ sales between consenting adults is a better equivalent of state-sponsored murder.  But it’s not that helpful for me to drop “state-sponsored murder” into a sentence as a *substitute* for “banning organ sales”.

Otherwise, the meaning of “The government is rethinking its position on state-sponsored murder” means something different depending on whether Tango is saying it, or I am.

If you are an innocent person, your ability to defend yourself should not make killing you any more acceptable. Innocence is therefore the crux of the question, not ability to defend.

A murderer forfeits his earthly rights (life, liberty, etc.) permanently. Simply because he is captured or becomes defenseless in some way does not re-bestow innocence upon him.

I agree with you that killing a convicted murderer is not good. There are better and more humane alternatives that serve the interests of justice. But that doesn’t define the killing as murder.

We probably also agree that the dictionary definition of murder is terrible--"an unlawful killing.” That would mean any killing the state says is ok...is ok. We’d probably both accept a better definition is “an immoral killing,” and we just disagree on what is moral.

I neglected to answer a good point you made. I would say ‘innocent of a capital crime.’ Here, I’d go back to the principle of proportionality. Nothing short of murder itself would qualify. I may even accept attempted murder. (Don’t want to fall into the outcome bias trap.)

Innocence in war or in other areas is harder to define. I’ll leave that for another debate.

The guy in Iran will be blinded by acid while he is under general anesthetic, if what I have read is correct.

So, this is not really “an eye for an eye”, IMO.

Just trying to report the facts, not giving an opinion.

Right, in terms of “balance”, if the chance of being caught is 10%, then the punishment should be 9x the loot (if not more).  It’s the basic 1:9 gambling odds. The problem of course is that we don’t know what the odds are for any given situation.

That’s the whole point behind prosecutorial discretion. We don’t know exactly what the balance is, and there are more variables (for instance, how much do you value getting 10 more shoplifters in terms of lightening the penalty on the first?). So we give the prosecutors the right to decide what they think is fair to push for, and judges (to an extent, save mandatory minimum nonsense) discretion in sentencing.

Brian, You say, “it serves an important function in Iranian society.” I doubt that this sort of thing is common at all.  I think that it is much more likely that this is the Iranian equivalent of laws in the US that are found to be still on the books although never practically enforced.  Sharia is probably seen culturally as something that must be taken as a whole, not taken piecemeal.

She has, of course, suffered horribly, physically, emotionally and also economically.  The state should be concerned about all of these, but also should take care that its actions do not cause further harm to society.  I do not think that after the economic loss of having one person blinded the state action should be to blind another.  I would sentence to pay a large sum each year for say her life plus 20 years, and in this case, (but not most others,) I might make his family liable if he could not or did not pay.

As a predominantly white male readership from industrialized countries, we’re viewing things from a position of power-only if we can’t be bothered with viewing things from any other position.

I reject the notion that empathy and true understanding can only occur through some sort of shape shifting.

It takes alot of effort to drop your biases.  I’m not saying we don’t, but it’s likely that most of the time we don’t bother to even consider our biases.

Uh, hate to break the news, but the death penalty is a deterrent, as it certainly stops the murderer from ever murdering again. Given the rate of recidivism, it doesn’t otherwise seem beyond reason. 

Lastly, in response to this statement:

State-sponsored killings in a death penalty are murders (notwithstanding that the courts themselves give themselves immunity), as opposed to state-sanctioned killings in a war.

...all that need be said is: How many Filipinos did my state kill in liberating Manila?  And how many were children?  The only difference between war and the acid bath is that you won’t be asked to pay with respect to the acid bath, as she has and he will, but you might be at war one day, and so you’ll you use a tad bit too much artillery and main battle tank fire in order to save your own ass and so a tad too many Filipino children will die as a result of your attempt at their liberation, and then when the war is over and you’re at home bearing no risk of loss, you’ll pity the man who made her face look like that and call it moral.

Oh, and Tango, you miss entirely the moral point here.  The point isn’t us and our view, and her and her view, but simply and only, in terms of what is just, well, what right does he have to complain?  Here, recall those sure and certain words: as you measured so it will be measured back to you. No danger here for me, as I don’t expect to ever flush someone’s face with acid, but I might one day be at war and so maybe I ought to care a little more about the fate of those little ones in Manila… So the direct opposite of your morality. And never mind that Iran could simply declare a state of war against him, which is more or less what it already is, as you yourself suggested. 

Truly lastly, why don’t you ask yourself, in the interest of removing your bias, what happens if the state doesn’t do the acid bath in return, but she does herself, what happens to her? Feeling a little less certain? And funny how we have the money compensation matter noted above.  That’s the power that you were speaking of, since power has money and can gladly inflict pain so long as the only cost is money, as there’s always more money to be made. Eyes on the other hand, come 2 per customer, and there is no shop yet in existence where you can purchase some new ones. So be careful, you of power and money, lest we exact eye for eye, and you can keep your money.

Paul, I have no idea how your post is somehow a “debate” of anything I have said.  Indeed, it seems to me that you simply dropped “Tango” here and there as your mood suited you. Perhaps you can quote what I said before taking the “opposite” position.

As for “deterrent”, it’s supposed to be a deterrent to future crimes by OTHER people.  That should go without saying.

As usual, Phil Birnbaum gets it right.

“Murder” is generally defined in the law as the intentional, extrajudicial killing of an innocent human being with malice aforethought.

So it’s remarkably easy to play some word games here if we’re willing to bend the long-understood definition.  Redefine “intentional” to mean something like (in lawyer talk) “with reckless disregard to the likely consequences.” Then you can agree with Phil’s example that a ban on organ selling is a state-sponsored “murder.”

Define away “innocent” and the killing of the Somali pirates was “murder.”

Redefine “human being” and all abortions are “murder.”

In other words, not really a productive way to advance the debate. 

As for deterrence:  it is also well understood in all developed approaches to criminal justice that there is a distinction between “specific deterrence” and “general deterrence.” Specific = the individual criminal will be deterred (or prevented)from reoffending; General = other members of the community will be deterred by the example of what’s happened to prior offenders.

None of this is to express agreement with, or even understanding of, the Iranian example.  Nor is it to offer a defense of capital punishment, which must stand on its own justifications (be it deterrence in either aspect, or society’s right to vengeance, or as an expression of moral outrage, etc.).  It is just to point out that labeling something “murder,” when we really mean “tantamount to what we’ve always considered murder, although different in key respects” is not a useful argument in moral philosophy.

Such wordplay always reminds me of my favorite quip from Wittgenstein.  The great philosopher was walking around Oxford when he came across a sign advertising some kind of theater presentation.  The sign read:

“Dead” man speaks; Wednesday evening at 7:00.

The scare quotes intrigued Wittgenstein.  Obviously, by using them the show’s producers meant “not really dead, but somehow meeting a narrow definitional requirement of what it means to be dead, or to have died.”

In the same way, the killing of someone sentenced to death can be called a “murder.” Or a woman who has an abortion can be called a “murderer.” Scare quotes very much intended and very much necessary in both cases.