NCJ Number
58070
Date Published
1979
Length
214 pages
Annotation
A POLITICAL SCIENTIST ARGUES IN FAVOR OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, NOT BECAUSE THE DEATH PENALTY IS A DETERRENT TO CRIME, BUT BECAUSE JUSTICE DEMANDS IT.
Abstract
DESPITE THE PREDOMINANCE OF ABOLITIONISTS IN THE INTELLECTUAL COMMUNITY, PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY PERSISTS. PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY FEEL THAT MURDERERS SHOULD BE PAID BACK, NOT TREATED, EVEN IF TREATMENT WOULD MEAN REHABILITATION. PUNISHMENT ARISES FROM THIS FEELING--FROM THE DEMANDS OF ANGRY PEOPLE FOR JUSTICE. THEIR ANGER IS NOT IN PRINCIPLE SELFISH OR OTHERWISE REPREHENSIBLE. THE FUNCTION OF LAW IS TO TAME THE PUBLIC'S ANGER BOTH BY SATISFYING (AND THEREBY JUSTIFYING) IT, AND BY MODERATING IT. PUNISHMENT SATISFIES THE PUBLIC'S ANGER AND PROMOTES THE LAW-ABIDINGNESS WHICH, IT IS PRESUMED, ACCOMPANIES IT. PUNISHMENT IS THE MEANS BY WHICH THE CRIMINAL LAW IS EMBUED WITH SUFFICIENT AWESOMENESS TO REMIND PEOPLE OF THE MORAL ORDER THAT ASSURES THEIR SURVIVAL. IN MODERN TIMES, THE ONLY PENALTY ABLE TO LEND THIS NECESSARY AWESOMENESS TO THE LAW IS THE ULTIMATE PENALTY. THE SECOND FUNCTION OF THE LAW--MODERATING THE PUBLIC'S ANGER--WOULD BE BETTER SERVED WERE EXECUTIONS CARRIED OUT IN PUBLIC (I.E., ATTENDED BY LEGISLATORS AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE). IN DEVELOPING THESE LINES OF THOUGHT, THE DISCUSSION REVIEWS CRITICALLY THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; ASSESSES THE IMPACT OF THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL ON CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE; EXAMINES AT LENGTH QUESTIONS CONCERNING DETERRENCE AND THE MORALITY OF PUNISHMENT; CONSIDERS PROBLEMS IN ADMINISTERING THE DEATH PENALTY; AND DRAWS ON NUMEROUS PHILOSOPHICAL, CRIMINOLOGICAL, AND LITERARY WORKS. AN INDEX IS PROVIDED. (LKM)