RoR: Forum

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index

FYI

From the ARI website:

What was Ayn Rand's view on capital punishment?
She thought it was morally just, but legally dangerous—because of the possibility of jury errors which could not be rectified after the death of the innocent man. She had no position on whether there should be a death penalty or not.

Post 21

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:00pm

Jordan,

That's not what I remember hearing. The morally just part sounds right, the irreversible part sounds right, the error part sounds right, but I remember her flat out stating (in answer to a question) something to the effect that she either was against the death penalty (as law) or was not for it.

Anybody out there got the Q&A book?

Michael

Post 22

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:17pm

MSK,

I don't have the book with me, but I do remember Rand saying, on another occasion, that if the evidence was in fact enough for objective certainty - this was around the time of the Eichmann trial, and the question may have concerned that specific case - then she would be in favor of the death penalty. Her main problem was with the epistemology - the lack of impartial investigation, and especially the jury vote process and the "vox populi vox dei" doctrine behind it. In the context of the existing American jury system she was solidly against the death penalty, but strictly for epistemological reasons.

Post 23

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:55pm

Michael, we don't exactly agree on the issue of capital punishment, but since you asked for a reference from the Q&A book, I'll give it. Its on page 45. At the Ford Hall Forum in 1971 Rand was asked, "Do you support capital punishment?" Here is her response:

Yes and no, from two different perspectives. In principle, a man who has killed another human (this is, it's first-degree murder) should forfeit his life. Morally, he deserves it. The valid argument against capital punishment comes from the fact that humans, including juries, are fallible; mistakes can be made. It is moral to let ten guilty men go free rather than execute one innocent man. That's a proper American principle—to place innocence above guilt. It's better to condemn murderers to jail for life than risk taking the life of an innocent man through a possible miscarriage of justice. So I'm against capital punishment on epistemological, not moral, grounds. Morally, the act of deliberately taking another life is so monstrous that no one can atone for it. In that sense, even death is too small a punishment.

I generally support capital punishment, but have my reservations, and I think Ayn Rand's views on the subject make a lot of sense. It is not purely a black and white issue.

In the case of the 17 year-old kid in Texas, it is ridiculous that capital punishment was even on the table. Them Texans must have been trigger happy again.

Capital punishment is something that should be reserved for serial killers and the most brutal of murders, not your average punk off the street. If the murder case isn't national news, it doesn't warrant the costs and resources involved in a capital case. When forensic evidence becomes more advanced though, it will become more of a viable option. Also, there is too much politics involved, and the entire system needs to change. That said, I'm glad they fried John Wayne Gacy. Just knowing that he picked up a kid who lived on my block gives me chills to this day.

Kat

Post 24

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 6:02pm

This was written by Nathaniel Branden in the January 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. Though it is not Rand, I think one would be safe to assume that it carried her intellectual imprimatur.

In considering this issue[capital punishment], two seperate aspects must be distinguished: the moral and the legal.

The moral question is: Does the man who commits willful murder, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, deserve to have his own life forfeited? Here, the answer is unequivocally: Yes. Such a man deserves to die-not as "social revenge" or as an example to future potential murderers-but as the logical and just consequence of his own act: as an expression of the moral principle that no man may take the life of another and still retain the right to his own, that no man may profit from an evil of this kind or escape the consequences of having commited it.

However, the legal question: Should a legal system employ capital punishment?-is of a different order. There are grounds for debate-though not out of sypathy or pity for murderes.

If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just.

Post 25

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 6:47pm

Kat, Adam and Jody,

That position is as I remember it (except for the epistemological grounds part). Not only do I remember it that way, I fully agree with it.

The following lines by Ayn Rand from the Q&A quote are deeply held by me - so spiritually, by that standard, I am very much American.

It is moral to let ten guilty men go free rather than execute one innocent man. That's a proper American principle—to place innocence above guilt.

Amen.

I love to see the bad guy get it in the end, but I don't like the government having the power to kill a good guy by mistake.

Michael

Post 26

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:35pm

MSK wrote (post 25)

I love to see the bad guy get it in the end, but I don't like the government having the power to kill a good guy by mistake.

The abuse of government power is always frightening. I doubt I'd get any disagreement on SOLO (or at least not too much...) that less government power would generally be a good thing.

However the court system, particularly the criminal justice system, is one of the few areas of the proper use of government. I'm not an anarchist.

Even a non-Objectivist, but well respected American, once wrote:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.

George Washington

The quote above is a true statement of reality; governments as they have existed throughout history represent the use of force without reason. Of course, it is the failure of government to use reason that is the primary source of the abuse of government power. It is the exercise of force, for appropriate purposes, such as national defense, or the protection of individual rights, guided by objective reason that is a proper government function. A government that applies force without reason is an illegitimate government.

We presently have a faulty legal system. Many of the rules unjustly favor the criminal defendant over the rights of the victim; some are unfair to the criminal defendant.

Whether we ought to apply the death penalty, necessarily should assume that a conviction was obtained that not only complies with all the state and federal laws, but complies with reason, itself. Under an unjust legal system, there should be no punishment at all, much less the death penalty.

When a conviction does meet those standards, then the death penalty may be appropriate and the "bad guys" can be punished.

I think it is wrong to simply establish a rule that the death penalty can never be imposed, based on the premise that the death penalty is sometimes inappropriately applied. The appropriate principle should be to examine the facts in each particular case.

As I posted earlier, the facts in Cantu's case appear so flimsy that it is hard to believe there was a conviction at all, much less the death penalty. (Which is why I distrust the news as reported by CNN (by way of AP))

I agree with MSK that I don't like the government to have the power to "kill a good guy by mistake." Government is force, and if it is not controlled by reason, and by that I really mean "Objectivist principles", then any use of government power is scary indeed.

Edited to correct some misspellings

(Edited by steve carver on 11/22, 12:00am)

Post 27

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:14am

Steve,

This issue, if looked at only from one angle, is a perplexing one of theory and practice. In theory, imposing death is an appropriate punishment for one who has murdered a victim in a criminal manner. In practice, the courts can make mistakes since man is not infallible. Thus it is highly possible for the state to kill an innocent man or woman because of the very nature of man.

That alone for me is sufficient grounds to be dead set on removing the death penalty from the government's array of punishments.

However, there is another reality and reason for doing so - a little more subtle.

All governments constantly try to expand their powers. That is the nature of how power affects individuals - especially those individuals who run governments. This is a whole other discussion, but it is a reality that cannot be ignored.

Acquiring a new power in government is called setting a precedent. Once a precedent is accepted, the issue is no longer "can do/can't do." It becomes one of "how much." That is why a government only (and usually piously) asks for just a little teenie-weenie bit of new power at first. The people involved know that they can expand later. And they always do.

In the case of the death penalty, this is a very serious power. You can't get any more destructive and irreversible for a human being than death.

What starts out as a hard and fast definition for imposing it has become (and always will become) altered by (1) jurisprudence, (2) jury vote, (3) lawmakers, and even (4) public opinion. Such change will hardly ever be in the direction of limiting its use.

Look at history for evidence (or Burke Chester's excellent report from the front lines in Post 11 on this thread). Changes will overwhelmingly be towards discovering new reasons (or new angles on old reasons) to execute prisoners.

Now add that to the higher level of incompetence that is inherent to a government entity (i.e., a nonprofit one), and you have an effective recipe for the state executing many innocent people who have been accused and convicted in error.

Unless man can change his nature, my position is to eliminate the death penalty from the government. Tomorrow that innocent person could be you or me.

"Oops!" would not be very funny if that happened. And it most definitely could happen as things stand now.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/22, 12:18am)

Post 28

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:13am

Robert M,

Like no business I know.

Post 29

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:18am

Everything about it is appealing (NOT!) :-)

Jim

Post 30

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:20am

Great. Now I can't get Ethel Merman's voice out of my head...

*sigh*

SmS

Post 31

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:23am

Msk,

I write:

Let us be clear that Rand did not oppose the penalty of death per sae, her concern was about the process.

You respond:

RD,

Rand did oppose the death penalty.

You are too slippery for me eelman.

Post 32

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:47am

Summer,

I am surprised that anyone as youthful as you can have Merman in her head. The woman's fame is more durable than her lungs. Amazing.;-)

Post 33

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 7:09am

Robert D,

Rand responded to the question of whether or not she opposed capital punishment:

Yes and no, from two different perspectives.

Her words. Neither yours nor mine. Now you can go back to being smarmy.

Michael

Post 34

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:14am

Robert,
I am surprised that anyone as youthful as you can have Merman in her head. The woman's fame is more durable than her lungs.
Her voice kinda stays with ya. I mean, you're able to suppress it sometimes, but not forever. Kinda like malaria.

;o)

Summer

(Actually, I loved Ethel Merman, especially in her comic roles. Ever see It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World?)

Post 35

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:27pm

Steve Carver writes: "Are we to believe a jury convicted a man and sentenced him to death solely on the uncorroborated ID from a single witness?"

Putting aside the fact that the judge does the sentencing, my answer would be. . . why wouldn't we?

What is up with this assumption that the jury can do no wrong? Why on earth do so many people assume that if someone's convicted, he's guilty? In our culture, hundreds of thousands of people who are sentenced to prison are not even criminals, and yet the jurors don't seem to let that get in the way of finding people guilty, in direct conflict with the principle of Jury Nullification.

The criminal "justice system" is rotten through and through. Even the DA in this case said it was a mistake to seek the death penalty, given the flimsy evidence. And yet he did anyway. Could the reason be that, as with all other government programs, some less-than-righteous incentives are built into the system?

Post 36

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:34pm

Michael,

You weren't confused, just looking for a quarrel and showing off for your fleas.

Post 37

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:36pm

Summer,

Yes I did, but I think her funniest role was as Mrs. Ernest Bourgnine.

Post 38

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 5:54pm

Robert D,

You were calling the people who like my writing "fleas"?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Dayaamm!

Gotta hand it to you. You sure know how to hurt a person with a put down...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

//;-)

Michael

Post 39

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 6:30pm