Bad arguments against the death penalty

Last week's issue of Newsweek has a column by Anna Quindlen that regrettably opens with one of the bad arguments against the death penalty:

You brush up against a lot of weird stuff in the course of child rearing, but one phenomenon that always had me scratching my head was the parents who hit their kids to teach them that hitting was a bad thing.  In their defense, they had a civic model for that kind of bizarre circular reasoning. Americans still live in one of the few countries that kill people to make clear what a terrible thing killing people is.

Let's see, under Quindlen's argument, we should not imprison criminals as punishment for kidnapping and false imprisonment, because, after all, it would be a "bizarre circular reasoning" to lock people up in order to make clear what a terrible thing it is to kidnap people.  Nor should we fine criminals convicted of theft, for it would be terrible to take their money (not restitution, but fines) against their will in order to make clear how wrong it is to take other people's money without their consent.

The obvious flaw in this reasoning is that the state may be entitled to do things to convicted criminals that individuals would not be permitted to do to other individuals.  The state is entitled to punish convicted criminals.

That's not to say that the death penalty is a good idea.  There are reasonably good economic arguments against it (it costs more to try to execute someone than to lock him or her up for life), accuracy-based arguments (locking up an innocent person is bad enough; executing one is horrible), and morality-based ones (it's just wrong to execute people).  It's too bad that Quindlen didn't open her column with a more persuasive anti-death penalty argument, instead relying on a clever-sounding but ultimately specious one.

Comments

[A. Rickey]

After starting with that bad argument, she just keeps going. "Hardly any other civilized place does this anymore." I'm sure you'll enjoy knowing that South Korea, Japan, Thailand, and India (among many others) have yet to be "civilized."

[Chad]

To Quindlin it is much more civilized to mollycoddle your criminals, outlaw armed self-defense, and suffer disgustingly high rates of violent crime and home incursions with quiet nobility like the French, English, and Aussies do. Viva la death penalty.

[Brian]

First I will say that normally I do like the articles that Anna Quindlin writes. But in this case I am indifferent on the death penalty and agree that the argument she makes is a weak one. But I did want to point out, as someone who worked in the London Criminal Courts briefly, there is not a disgustingly high rate of violent crime. Murder is rare for the size of the city, and the most common crime I saw was theft. It's not Disney World, but London is incredibly safe considering its size. Maybe in France or Australia, I cant speak on those. Although the lack of serious violent crime has little to do with no death penalty and more to do with the strict gun/knife control.

[frrrr]

bums