Utilitarian vs. Deontological Ethics: Where Do You Stand?

[jross]

The death penalty debate always gets me thinking about ethics. Utilitarianism says we should focus on the best outcomes, like saving more lives, even if it means tough trade-offs (e.g., risking one innocent execution to save many). Deontology, though, argues some things, like never killing an innocent, are non-negotiable no matter the result. How do you weigh these two approaches when thinking about issues like the death penalty? Is one more practical or moral than the other, or is there a middle ground?

[jross]

Being against the death penalty because the wrongful execution of a single innocent person is deeply understandable...

 

However, can the death penalty be justified through utilitarian concerns about outcomes? Some questions:

1. Would you reconsider its use if limited to cases with overwhelming evidence, like DNA and video?
2. What if it deters even a few more murders than wrongful deaths?
3. What if executing the worst offenders restores trust in justice for the victim's family and society?
4. How do you balance the harm of homicides within prison itself?
5. How concerning is the risk that released murderers commit new violent crimes and homicides?
6. Why is there a higher standard for the wrongful executions than there is for deaths by medical errors?
7. It is morally acceptable to prioritize prevention over the rare risk of wrongful executions? 

Prison reform is very expensive and when balancing quality of life freedoms, there will continue to be violent crime.  There are more annual homicides within prison itself than wrongful executions stacked over multiple decades. This is not an argument against concerns, rather thoughts for consideration

[wrestlingguy]

5 minutes ago, jross said:

The death penalty debate always gets me thinking about ethics. Utilitarianism says we should focus on the best outcomes, like saving more lives, even if it means tough trade-offs (e.g., risking one innocent execution to save many). Deontology, though, argues some things, like never killing an innocent, are non-negotiable no matter the result. How do you weigh these two approaches when thinking about issues like the death penalty? Is one more practical or moral than the other, or is there a middle ground?

I don't support the death penalty. I was always confused growing up how we could say we were against killing others yet send troops over to kill people in kuwait, iraq, etc. I guess there are some times where it is a necessary evil like Saddam, Bin Laden, etc.

[Scouts Honor]

the death penalty as is will never be a deterent

b/c it takes too long to put them to death

and the people who commit heinous crimes are already prepared to die, nothing to lose really... or past the point where they can mentally see the problems with consequences

i now get 20 years of being taken care of, IF i get caught

 

public hangings didn't really deter the criminals.

It's kind of like legalizing pot.  If illegal, most people won't do it. The ones who don't care about the law will anyway.

but after legal, now we have a few more willing to try. b/c no consequences with law. 

Murder is against the law. death penalty or not... criminals dont' care about law.  the death penalty may be enough to calm a rational person down, but people willing to put themselves in this position are usually not rational .

[ionel]

... and maybe read or watch  The Innocent Man  before answering. 

[jross]

Quote

 

A 2014 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Gross & O’Brien) estimated that 4.1% of death row convictions are wrongful, suggesting around 120 of the 3,000 inmates on death row at the time might be innocent.  https://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

 

This implies that, with approximately 1,619 executions since 1973, around 66 executions (4.1%) could involve innocent people, or roughly 1–2 per year on average.

1. If the death penalty deters 3 or more killings of innocent people annually, would you prefer to save those 3 over the 1-2 wrongful executions?

2. 100+ inmates are killed each year, predominately by those convicted previously of violent and/or homicides.  Is that worth saving 1-2 wrongful executions?   

• https://www.statista.com/statistics/220920/number-of-state-prisoner-homicides-in-the-us/

3. An estimated 25 murderers are released from prison annually and kill again.  Is that worth saving 1-2 wrongful executions?   

• 2K released annually, 1.2% rearrested for another homicide

 

Which is more humane?  

Edited April 18 by jross

[jross]

Singapore data indicates it is a successful deterrent, but note they are more timely in execution than the US.  

• Minister for Home Affairs (MHA) found that there was a 66% reduction in the average net weight trafficked for opium, in the four-year window after the mandatory death penalty was introduced in 1990 for trafficking more than 1,200g of opium. Similarly, in the four-year period after the introduction of the mandatory death penalty for trafficking involving more than 500g of cannabis in 1990, there was a 15 to 19 percentage point reduction in the probability that traffickers would choose to traffic above the capital sentence threshold.
• Prior to 1973, firearms robbery was on the rise, reaching a peak of 174 cases in 1973. A dramatic drop was witnessed over the decades following the introduction of the death penalty for such offences. Firearms offences immediately fell by 39% to 106 cases the next year, and fell further within the next three to four years to an even lower level, and remains at a very low level today. At Annex 1 is a chart showing this. Today, firearms robbery is rare in Singapore, with no cases reported in the last 13 years. 
• The introduction of the death penalty for kidnapping under the Punishment of Kidnapping Ordinance in 1961 likewise resulted in a dramatic drop in such cases. In the three years before 1961, there were on average, 29 kidnapping cases a year in Singapore. But this fell to only one case in 1961. Except for six cases in 1964 and three cases in 2003, kidnapping cases have not exceeded two cases per year since the death penalty was introduced. 

https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/written-reply-to-parliamentary-question-on-studies-on-the-deterrent-effect-of-a-life-sentence-relative-to-the-death-penalty-by-mr-k-shanmugam-minister-for-home-affairs-and-minister-for-law/