Is the death penalty justice or revenge?

[muon2]

Suppose a convicted serial killer is sentenced to natural life in prison without parole. While in prison the killer manages to fabricate a knife and kills a prison guard. There is no additional incarceration that the justice system can add to the killer's sentence. If the death penalty is used in this case, I would consider it justice, not revenge.

[muon2]

Suppose a convicted serial killer is sentenced to natural life in prison without parole. While in prison the killer manages to fabricate a knife and kills a prison guard. There is no additional incarceration that the justice system can add to the killer's sentence. If the death penalty is used in this case, I would consider it justice, not revenge.

To be honest, that's more an argument against sentences without parole than a justification for capital punishment.

By all means, keep some people locked up for the rest of their natural lives, but it should be subject to review after a certain amount of time in the vast majority of cases. It's ok if the result is that parole shouldn't be granted for whatever reason, but taking away all hope takes away any incentive to rehabilitate.

I wanted to illustrate that capital punishment need not be used as revenge, but can be part of a justice system. It becomes the punishment when all other punishments are exhausted.

Your observation raises a different issue. I would not confuse justice with rehabilitation, they aren't the same thing. The state can choose to use the time a convict is serving to facilitate rehabilitation, but that is not the same as justice. Most data I've seen suggests that intentional rehabilitation by the state is ineffective, but providing opportunities for rehabilitation means that a few convicts will take advantage of those opportunities and rehabilitate themselves.

[muon2]

It's a false dichotomy -- "justice" and "revenge" are very, very frequently -- perhaps most of the time -- the same thing. Since I support the death penalty and justice has more positive connotations I voted for that, but the distinction is totally meaningless.

There's a difference between consequences meant as punishment/retribution, and consequences meant for prevention.

When you lock someone in jail, you're doing it so they might reform (preventative), so that it will deter others (preventative), and to keep the individual from doing the illegal act again (preventative).

The only other option, besides preventative, for locking someone in jail is for retribution/punishment.

Justice based on preventing evil acts = good. "Justice" based on retribution/punishment = evil.

The only way the death penalty can ever be preventative (and morally justifiable) is if locking a person in jail, even in solitary for life, would not be able to prevent the individual from doing harm... either because of the person's influence from simply being alive, or if a breakout was a real concern.

There's a very real distinction between justice and revenge. One is for the well-being of all individuals in society, the other is for the suffering/death of an individual to satisfy the desires of others.

If a person is convicted of a criminal misdemeanor, the penalty is often a fine. That penalty is not intended to be preventative, it's a form of punishment which matches the level of the fine to the severity of the crime. If the fine were preventative, the level would be set based on the wealth of the perpetrator, but it's not. Your statement implies that criminal fines for misdemeanors as generally imposed are evil.

[muon2]

If a person is convicted of a criminal misdemeanor, the penalty is often a fine. That penalty is not intended to be preventative, it's a form of punishment which matches the level of the fine to the severity of the crime. If the fine were preventative, the level would be set based on the wealth of the perpetrator, but it's not. Your statement implies that criminal fines for misdemeanors as generally imposed are evil.

When dealing with less serious crimes, besides preventative justice and retributive "justice", there is also reparative justice.

A fine would be preventative (and in some cases, reparative).

I disagree that fines as they exist are intended as punishment only. They are intended to prevent it from happening again, and sometimes to repair the damage. If any are intended as punishment, then they are immoral. It can be preventative and not based on the perpetrator's income. Though it would be a neat idea to begin to base some fines on a person's income.

Fines and other penalties are designed to show that inappropriate actions have consequences. For most people the knowledge of those consequences can be a deterrent. There is a population for whom even knowledge of the consequences fails as a deterrent. Whether such a person is a child who misbehaved or an adult who intentionally breaks the law, the consequence becomes a punishment.  There can even be an acceptance of that punishment when the person decides that the action was worth the risk of said punishment.

[muon2]

Suppose a convicted serial killer is sentenced to natural life in prison without parole. While in prison the killer manages to fabricate a knife and kills a prison guard. There is no additional incarceration that the justice system can add to the killer's sentence. If the death penalty is used in this case, I would consider it justice, not revenge.

To be honest, that's more an argument against sentences without parole than a justification for capital punishment.

By all means, keep some people locked up for the rest of their natural lives, but it should be subject to review after a certain amount of time in the vast majority of cases. It's ok if the result is that parole shouldn't be granted for whatever reason, but taking away all hope takes away any incentive to rehabilitate.

And then if the guy given no chance at parole because he killed a prison guard dills again inside? Muon's question is too legitimate to be ducked.

What about people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced to death?

That's one reason to restrict its application to someone who has been convicted of murders that occurred on two separate dates. The wrongful convictions for death sentences that I've looked at all involved single attacks, but sometimes included multiple victims. By restricting it to separate days those cases would be excluded.