Summary of case:
Stanley Tookie Williams, early leader of street gang in South Central Los Angeles, was convicted of three murders in 1979. While waiting on death row, he began to advocate anti-gang efforts. In 2005, there began a campaign for clemency for Williams. He was denied by Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and execute via lethal injection December 13, 2005. (Paraphrased from Prof. Albrecht's blog)
**
In favor of clemency:
Because Williams is guilty of three (3) murders; one could easily apply a utilitarian argument here to justify the death penalty. Additionally, one can apply the retributive argument. Justice, to the retributionist, would demand a person who takes a life to suffer the same end. This implies that there is a type of desert in which actor deserves something in consequence of their action.
My argument is to deconstruct and rebuild a clearer understanding of both the utilitarian and retributive arguments. In doing so, I seek to respond to two fundamental questions common to discussions regarding the death penalty: (1) does it deter crimes as much as it claims it does? (2) Is it morally justifiable? This discussion will provide insight to Williams case to determine whether he deserves to die, or more importantly, what does it mean for someone to deserve to die?
I'll first begin with the retribution argument. Kant argues that one who murders must be punished with death, "there is no 'sameness of kind' between death (of a victim) and continued life (for the murderer)". (Adams 469) Kant will continue saying that this is justice, and not merely vengeance. Society must uphold the notion of autonomous persons making choices, by giving persons what they deserve. To do any less is to use that person's fate for our convenience (in this case, to lessen our own discomfort at the thought of execution). I don't have objections to Kant's argument. I do, however, raise questions how far this principle is applied in making legal decisions. Kant's argument seems to justify, for the most part, the Lex Talionis approach (eye for an eye). It seems that this would mean that we should rape the rapist/murder the murderer. Yet, we don't rape the rapist- we incarcerate him/her. The same should be done with Williams- give him the severest punishment short of the death penalty.
The utilitarian argument, i think, has more relevance to William's case. South Central Los Angeles is a region rife with gang-conflict, and Williams is a founder of a well established gang. There are many utilitarian benefits to punishing Williams i.e., executing the early founder sets a significant example (deterrent), and though he is convicted for (3) murderers there may be many more (plus those in which branches of his gang commits/offsets). Governor Schwarzenegger may have considered Williams more significant because his symbolism and status to the gang community, and prior influence to many crimes, murders, and harmful behavior to the public. However, to take a utilitarian justifications, one must consider William's anti-gang efforts. He is no longer a symbol of gang violence, but rather the contrary. Thus, if he had once held greater utility in terms of punishment, then he serves quite the opposite now. It's also important in the utility calculation the cost and time needed to sentence a person to death. Not that Williams was convicted in 1979, and remained on death row until 2005. This is sixteen years of incarcaretation, attorney fees, legal procedures which is likely to cost more than a life-sentence.
You did a great job, Danny, so I will just annotate. The retributive stance is not necessarily in favor of the lex talionis or the death penalty, but in favor of just desert for the action itself – whatever that is, so this part needs further specification. Kant is in favor of the death penalty, but he is careful enough to use the term “sameness of kind,” which does not mean that the exact same act that the offender inflicted on the victim should be reenacted on the offender. The lex talionis is problematic in many ways, not the least because often it is impossible to inflict the same harm on the offender (e.g. in cases when the life of a child is taken or child molestation), or it is unconstitutional (e.g. in cases of torture). Lex talionis aside, one can still make a retributivist argument against clemency. The retributivist would argue that punishment is inflicted for the wrong act and as deserved. So if the death penalty is a just punishment for the most serious crimes (e.g. murder), and if Williams is indeed guilty of this crime, then he is deserving of this kind of punishment. What he did after the crime is completely irrelevant, because his punishment is given for the act of murder.
ReplyDeleteThe utilitarian approach is double edged, as you notice. Given that all numbers are hypothetical, how do we weigh utility here? Lives saved by Williams’ good influence on would-be gang youths versus lives saved by the deterrent effect of Williams’ execution on would-be murdering gang members?
You are correct that the cost of the death penalty is higher than the cost for life sentences (and there are hard numbers supporting that). But this is a problematic argument. Just to be facetious, if we want to save money we should also get rid of due process, which costs a fortune. A legal practice should not be judged by its cost, but by its justice.