The Morality of the Death Penalty
Episode: 22 January 2012, Question 2
Is the death penalty moral? I understand why people are opposed to the death penalty when there might be genuine doubt as to whether the accused person really committed the crime. Certainly, we've seen cases where DNA evidence has exonerated someone who was convicted several years ago for a crime they didn't actually commit. But if someone confesses to first degree murder and if there's incontrovertible physical evidence to confirm their guilt, is the death penalty then appropriate?
My Answer, In Brief: To impose the death penalty for murder (and perhaps other heinous crimes) is morally proper, if the possibility of error in the criminal conviction can be eliminated. To eliminate not just "reasonable doubt" but also any "residual doubt" can be used to distinguish cases in which such errors have been excluded.
Listen Now
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Duration: 29:55
Relevant Links
- "What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment?" by Nathaniel Branden, The Objectivist Newsletter, January 1963
- Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society by Craig Biddle, Footnote 46
- NoodleFood: Principled Punishment and the Death Penalty by Greg Perkins
- Philosophy in Action: Policy Lying to Suspects
- Innocence Project
- A (Genuinely) Modest Proposal Concerning the Death Penalty by Craig M. Bradley, Indiana Law Journal
Topics
Share This Question
Comment Via Facebook
Support the Webcast
The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!
Connect with Us
Comments? Questions? Want more? Be sure to connect with us via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, RSS, e-mail, and more!
