Expert: Austin Cline - 11/30/2004

Question
I have heard the following argument from an atheist philosopher: he says that wrongful executions are mere "reinforcement contingencies", equivalent to the innocent victims of road accidents, so they do not count against capital punishment. However, I feel the analogy is a bad one, but can't put my finger on why. How would you, another aheist, respond?
Also, are there any non-theistic arguments against executing "moral idiots" or convicted criminals who say they want to be put to death?
Thanks for your time--I know these are not easy questions.

Answer
"I have heard the following argument from an atheist philosopher: he says that wrongful executions are mere "reinforcement contingencies", equivalent to the innocent victims of road accidents, so they do not count against capital punishment. However, I feel the analogy is a bad one, but can't put my finger on why."

Analogies rely on the essential elements of two situations being similar or the same. The more similar they are, the better the analogy. The less similar, the worse the analogy.

Here, the essential elements are not really the same.

1. You accept risks when you choose to drive - the risk that you will cause an accident and the risk that you will be in an accident caused by someone else. You can choose to minimize the risks or eliminate them (safer cars, safer driving, not driving, getting good insurance). You cannot, however, make a choice to be subject to the justice system or not. You cannot choose to eliminate the risk of wrongful conviction. You cannot reduce the risk of being wronged by incompetent or corrupt prosecutors, public defenders, police, judges, etc.

2. When you take a risk by driving, you are taking a risk with people whose job description does not include "driving well and avoiding accidents." They should drive well and avoid accidents, but that isn't their job. In the justice system, however, you are subject to the competency and honesty of people whose job it is to deliver justice. When they deliver injustice (through wrongful conviction), they are not simply committing an "accident," they are failing in their jobs.

3. If the analogy holds at all, it's only the most general level. Risking accidents goes along with driving because people are imperfect. Risking wrongful convictions goes along with a justice system because people are imperfect. What's missing is: but we can and should work to minimize risks. With driving, we mandate safer cars, safer driving, and safer roads. With the justice system, we can set things up so as to avoid risks once a person is caught up in the process. One means of doing this, in fact, would be to eliminate the death penalty.

"Also, are there any non-theistic arguments against executing "moral idiots" or convicted criminals who say they want to be put to death?"

1. Even if we accept that the death penalty is legitimate, there are people who admit to crimes they did not commit (or did commit, but there are mitigating circumstances that do not justify the punishment they ask for). If the death penalty is to be administered justly, the decision of to whom it is administered must be made by impartial judges and not by the accused.

2. If we do not accept that the death penalty is legitimate, then a person who wants to be executed is attempting to escape their just punishment (whatever it is). An atheist who doesn't believe in heaven/hell or reincarnation will probably believe that rewards and punishments must happen here. Therefore, a person should be kept alive in order to ensure that they are punished. In addition, killing someone effectively says "this person cannot be rehabilitated or improved." What atheist knows enough to be so sure about that?