As I lay here in my bed on this cold Chongqing night, I can't stop thinking about a conversation I had earlier tonight with my friend Robb, another foreign teacher here in Beiebei. I asked him if he believes in capital punishment. I'm always interested in Robb's opinions, as he can surely hold his own. Further, he and I seem to live on opposite ends of the planet when it comes to religion, and I, being an atheist, am always interested in the moral reasonings of theists. As an attempt not to pigeon hole him into an answer, I tried to allow myself to be open minded, and we ended up having a great discussion on the matter, which I could've probably talked about for another two hours had I had the time.
First of all, let me say that every opinion I firmly announce as my own, is truly something that took me years to mold, and call my own. Still, I hold the right to change my mind, if the logic seems plausible in either direction. The case of capital punishment seems to be much more of a gray area than simply a "for", or, "against" scenario. It comes down to this... does the state hold the right to take some one's life? Is it the responsibility of the state to remove those individuals who seek to harm the society, and kill it's members for their own personal benefit?
Such considerations need to be observed from a deontological position, as well as a consequential one. Capital punishment has existed longer than we care to admit, but only recently has the idea of rehabilitation come about. Rehabilitation centers came about in the western world in the form of prisons, and as the system grew, and the sate decided more and more types of people needed "rehabilitating", the ideal was quickly abandoned, and has now reverted more into a penal code of retribution, and capital death sentences. The rioting of inmates set these rehabilitation practitioners over the edge with the Attica riots in 1972, in NY.
Although I have not declared a personal position on the matter yet, I must say, when I think of the rehabilitation in the hands of a governing body, I slightly cringe. I question their definition of "rehabilitation", and can only think of Anthony Burgess's Clockwork Orange[1962]...taking away someone' s right to punishment as an autonomous being. Think about it, this is not a contradiction-
In my opinion, in America, it seems that the political process has distorted most aims for justice when it comes to both rehabilitation, and sentencing. The culmination of this trend appears in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which spawned the United States Sentencing Commission and its Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The act is not without its critics, but it is still upheld in our courts today. Yet, as the new century begins, no alternative approach shows any signs of supplementing the just deserts sentencing philosophy -- no matter how preposterous in practice the claim that a given punitive sentence is justly deserved may be in most cases.
This is one topic that is still up for debate with me, I certainly haven't formed a proper opinion about it, but I am welcoming to further readings.
When it comes to other countries *cough, cough* A more pragmatic, and zero tolerance approach is taken. This, as I am usually against pragmatism, is surely not the way for me. Every case is different, specific,and I do believe that morality has a lot to do with the circumstances of the situation. -NOT that it is relative, because this is a philosophical fallacy. You really cannot have a truly relativistic morality, but we aren't getting into that now! Certainly not. I am simply mentioning the dangers of a duty driven morality proposed by the likes of certain enlightenment philosophers, like Kant.
A duty driven morality would also implore a zero-tolerance form of punishment, and I do not endorse such a thing. What are your thoughts?
~Kristen