Jon Henke at QandO muses about the international perception of the death penalty and whether or not America could improve its image by abolishing it. He writes that:
After all, the primary international objections to the United States have been with our belligerence, propensity to violence and disrespect for international standards. It seems to me that uliminating the death penalty would soften our harsher edges in the public view...as well as eliminating a talking point for our opponents.
Perhaps so. And, as he writes, there are certainly practical reasons to consider eliminating capital punishment, such as the possibility of making a mistake and the incredible expense of capital prosecutions.
Still, aside from all that, I think we should not forget that our system of punishments isn't designed to make us popular, it's intended to bring about justice. That's why we call it the justice system. Justice will not always be popular, either at home or abroad. As a democracy we must adhere to the wishes of our own people -- even if we think they thwart justice -- but why should we sacrifice justice to "soften" our public image with third-parties? I think it would be morally perilous -- regardless of one's position on the death penalty -- to base questions of justice on popularity. The problem of capital punishment is essentially a moral question, and good is good regardless of how others perceive it.
(HT: Jeff the Baptist.)
Screw the French, hang criminals high in the street!
The problem with changing your behavior to gain the approval of others is that it gives them enormous and unjustified power over you, and rarely gains much respect. It's like paying a terrorist's ransom: Let them control you once, and you just encourage them to do it more.
Of course, that argument could be applied to practically anything. Incl. the war on terror. It didn't make us popular, hence we shouldn't have prosecuted it.
The problem with taking an absolutist moral position and letting "popularity" hang is that it requires one to set oneself up as ultimate moral arbiter; I can't think of anyone qualified to do that.
imo, "justice system" is an historical misnomer. The justice system need have nothing to do with justice, as long as it succeeds in cheaply protecting me from criminals.
The reason we have the death penalty is simply because no judiciary can be trusted to keep dangerous criminals away from the public. And as capricious as is our system, it seems like a rock compared to the systems in Europe.
Certain criminals are so violent and dangerous that they must be permanently removed from society, and placed beyond the reach of judicial whims.
i would disagree with the writer also on the basis for international dislike of the u.s. we are successful! besides a small amount of assistance from france (after we were winning) during the war for independence when has any other country had to step in to help/save us? on the other hand how many countries have we pulled from the flames? this is an independent nation. we live by the laws we make. it is not for any other country to force thier values on us. i am not concerned what another country thinks about me or my country.........
jez: I think that protecting the public should be a side-effect of justice, not it's primary motivation.
jez: "The problem with taking an absolutist moral position and letting "popularity" hang is that it requires one to set oneself up as ultimate moral arbiter; I can't think of anyone qualified to do that."
You must have a pretty high definition of 'qualified,' so high that no one can meet it. But back on Earth, people still need to make moral judgments, including what to do with criminals. People must make these decisions; angels won't come down from heaven to make them for us.
Since people must make moral decisions despite their imperfections, the next question is: Which people? For many, the answer is: Somebody else. The trouble is that everybody else is just as imperfect as we are, and they usually know less about our moral decisions. So it's best for us to just go ahead and make our own moral decisions, even if we're 'unqualified' according to some unattainable standard.