is that capital punishment is murder, but then we need a definition of murder that
renders the killing by an individual of another person without the authorisation of
the state equivalent to state-sanctioned killing. There are plenty of reasons why we
should resist this equivalence: state execution is not arbitrary but based on principles
set out in (public) law and the decision to execute is the result of a deliberative
process in which evidence is produced and tested. Then again, perhaps the objection
is not to killing as such but to the deliberatekilling of a person. But self-defence
can also involve deliberate killing.
There is a risk of killing an innocent person
This is a very common objection to capital punishment, and it is weighty. However,
can we live in a risk-free world? What would such a world be like? At best, we
have to calculate risks and determine an acceptable level of risk. If you are persuaded
either that the guilty deserve to die (retributivism), or that capital punishment deters
(consequentialism), then the risks of killing an innocent person must be weighed in
the calculation. The danger of killing an innocent person may be a strong
consideration against capital punishment but it is only decisive if you place an
absolutevalue on avoiding such an act – the requirement to avoid killing an innocent
person must be upheld regardless of the consequences. If, for example, you are
convinced that capital punishment saves 100 lives per year through its deterrent
effect but at the cost of one innocent person being executed then if you place absolute
value on avoiding executing an innocent person you must be prepared to allow 100
people to die. To be clear, this is a perfectly respectable moral position: for the state
to kill one person (commit an act) is not the same as the state omitting to act in
such a way that 100 lives are lost. Normally, consequentialists are much more
prepared to treat omission and commission as equivalent and so seek to avoid the
100 deaths (or 99 if you subtract the executed person). Retributivists, on the other
hand, would be quite concerned about the danger of killing an innocent person
because they necessarily treat commission as far more serious than omission.
However, even a retributivist would only elevate this argument to an absolutist
objection to capital punishment if the avoidance of committing an act – that is,
executing an innocent person – alwaystook priority over saving lives.
Capital punishment assumes a person is beyond redemption
The physical destruction of a person implies that offenders are incapable of change.
This idea is behind the film Dead Man Walking(1995). The film was based on an
autobiographical novel by Sister Helen Prejean and has a strong message of Christian
redemption behind it. The murderer, played by Sean Penn, finally comes to realise
what he has done and through Prejean achieves redemption. The film is intended
to send out a strong abolitionist message but it is to the credit of the film that it
does not entirely succeed in this aim: we see a person redeemed and ready to meet
his maker (if we choose to follow the Christian message of the film). If you are a
consequentialist then the film might be a challenge – should we execute a reformed
person? Would it not communicate a stronger message to society (potential
murderers) that there is a better way? On the other hand, it might be argued that
only by being faced with the reality of death could the murderer recognise his crimes
Chapter 7 Punishment 157