Although I have been leaning more and more against the death penalty, that does not affect my opinion that the hands-down worst essay in the whole group is Louis P. Pojman's argument that "The Death Penalty is Morally Permissible." Pojman, a professor of philosophy at the United States Military Academy, writes:
- "I would argue that the electric chair, far from being unconscionable, is completely justified. Painless lethal injection, which is the process of choice in many states, seems too good for someone who in callous disregard for his victim shed innocent blood."
One wonders why Pojman doesn't make a case for a more literal interpretation of an "eye for an eye," executing someone in exactly the same manner as they committed murder in the first place. Unfortunately, one wonders in vain for that or any reason why torture isn't justified (though he does say that he is open to the possibility) because, contrary to what he says, Pojman doesn't actually argue this - he simply asserts it and moves on. Any bravery inherent in admitting that he might be open to torturing prisoners is thus immediately overwhelmed by the cowardice inherent in refusing to explain why a painful death differs from torture — or indeed any effort to engage the issue at all once having brought it up.
We aren't supposed to get the impression that Pojman is looking for vengeance because, according to him, he is only seeking retribution:
- [T]he moral justification of punishment is not vengeance by desert. Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime."
That's just fine as far as it goes, but it really would have been nice to have actually gotten such a "rationally supported theory" for why torture or painful deaths are a "punishment fitting the gravity" of whatever crimes Pojman would apply capital punishment to.
Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment?
There are plenty of collections of essays on the death penalty and I don't think that this one exactly breaks any new ground. It does, however, offer some nice perspectives and insights into the death penalty not usually available. The aforementioned Kozinksi, for example, is a sitting federal judge on the Ninth Circuit Court and his essay deals with his own feelings and experiences actually signing death warrants. That essay alone may be worth the price of admission, but you'll get a lot more in addition.
« Back...
