AboutMichael FitzGerald Expertise I am an expert in German history between 1918 and 1945, particularly with regard to the Nazi era. I am also very knowledgeable about most areas of philosophy (I have an honours degree in the subject) and am able to answer questions on that subject too. In addition, I am very knowledgeable about poetry. One of my hobbies is also politics, mainly British and European though I follow the US political scene as well. Another one is the history of crime and punishment and British social history (the two often overlap!) I am willing to answer questions on all the above issues.
Experience Author of two published works, 'Storm Troopers of Satan,' an account of the lunatic fringes of Nazi ideology, and 'Adolf Hitler: A Portrait,' a biography of the German dictator. 'Adolf Hitler' was published in July 2006 by the top history publisher Spellmount and was named historical biography of the month by the Good Book Guide. I correspond with Ian Kershaw, Peter Stachura, Jeremy Noakes, Roger Moorhouse and Stan Lauryssens. I have undertaken research for radio, television, newspapers and magazines
Organizations Society of Authors
Education/Credentials I have an Honours degree in philosophy.
Awards and Honors LT prize for poetry
Historical Biography of the month, Good Book Guide
Question What are the main arguments for and against capital punishment? Do you feel any of them are valid?
Answer Dear Linda,
Thank you for your question. I will try and give an honest and comprehensible answer.
The principal arguments in favour of the death penalty are the notion that it is a deterrent; that it is only just that the taking of a life should lead to the forfeiture of one's own life; and that it satisfies the public demand for 'proportionate' punishment. The principal arguments against capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent; that it makes those who condemn the person to death, and in particular those who execute them, murderers themselves; that it can never be proportionate to take a life for a life; that it is inconsistent with the principles of the Christian religion; and that it is impossible to rectify a mistake.
The deterrence argument is highly dubious. The murder rate in the US is higher in almost every state that has the death penalty than in those that do not, although there are obviously other factors than simply the presence or absence of capital punishment.
The argument that it makes the people who condemn or execute the person murderers themselves is of course a purely moral argument. As such, a lot depends on one's own moral perspective. I would not go so far as to make the judge and jury guilty of murder, but I find it hard to understand a person who would volunteer as public hangman.
The 'life for a life' argument is one that seems to me to appeal to a sense of vengeance rather than justice. On the other hand, the argument from Christianity is rather hard to maintain unless you take a consistent but difficult position of anti-capital punishment, anti-abortion and pacifism.
The argument about innocence is perhaps the second most compelling against the death penalty. Only the most stupid people believe that innocent people have never been executed, and it is of course impossible to make any kind of adequate restitution for a life wrongfully taken.
Perhaps if judges, juries and executioners were themselves made to face manslaughter charges in the event of a wrongful execution they might be more careful.
Ultimately, my own point of view is that capital punishment is a relic of barbarism and should be abolished.
