Psychopaths and the Death Penalty
July 28th, 2007, by Hilko
Should the death penalty be abolished? And if so, why? The main argument in favor of the death penalty is that it’s a powerful deterrent to keep people from committing horrible crimes. The problem with this argument is that it’s invalid; research has shown that most crimes that warrant the death penalty are crimes committed in the heat of the moment, with no consideration of the possible consequences.
During my travel through the Balkans, I got a ride from an Austrian professor from the university of Leoben. He had been teaching and researching on the subject of ‘material properties’ for a long time, and had two months left until retirement. When I asked him what he would do next, he told me about his work on the board of Amnesty International in Austria. One of the important issues in the coming months is the death penalty in the USA. Amnesty thinks it should be abolished.
We talked about the issue, and he presented some great arguments against the death penalty. However, one thing still bothered me, one possible argument in favor of the death penalty: psychopaths.
In research conducted by Bob Hare, it was discovered that one in 20 people is a psychopath, and that it is a personality trait (an intrinsic part of who you are). Psychopaths are characterized by a lack of empathy towards others, a lack of fear and conscience, and a dangerous ability to manipulate and abuse others for personal gain. Obviously, not every psychopath commits murder; most can be considered ‘latent psychopaths’. They can, and usually will still cause great harm, though 1.
These findings scare the hell out of me. One of my main arguments against the death penalty was that I believed everyone can change, and that ‘faults’ are usually a result of circumstance. Apparently I’m wrong. Some people are inherently dangerous.
If we know that someone is dangerous, and incapable of change, does that justify the death penalty?
In the end, I still think the answer is no. There’s always the chance, for example, that someone is wrongfully convicted. I think one mistaken death sentence is enough reason to abolish it altogether.
Still, the knowledge that there isn’t always a capacity to change makes the issue more difficult, and the problem extends to issues like abortion and euthanasia. If we know that a baby will not live and will endanger the mother, if we know that someone will die, and die very painfully, if we know these things, is it wrong to act upon them? Or are we playing God in doing so?
-
An article on Hare’s research. ↩
August 10th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Another reason against death penalty would be that nobody really knows what death is; or at least there’s no consensus over what it is, how it feels, and what kind of state one is in (or is not).
While most would agree that a 12 year sentence, is quite objectively 12 years; we do not know exactly - or at least do not agree on - what death is. Is it really a penalty? Is it a blessing?…
Then there’s also the difficulty that even in the best judiciary system, misjudgments are made. It seems to me that it’s hard to undo a death penalty. I agree it is also hard to undo a jail sentence, but at least there’s the possibility to offer compensation.
Also, there’s the problem of hereditary sin, or socially nurtured behaviour. Most people on death row in the States were black. That doesn’t mean that black people are bad people, however there’s been a structural social disadvantage, often framed by the ‘well-to-do’. Structural injustice makes certain social strate more vulnerable to criminal behaviour. Who is to be held responsible for that? Should it all come down to one person on death row. Or should he/she still have the chance to speak out on the brokenness of social life.