* For my ethics class discussion board. I chose to respond to an article that was arguing against the death penalty.
Contra Bedau
Hugo Adam Bedau’s “The Case Against the Death Penalty” does not so much argue for an intellectual position but, rather, loudly asserts it. And many of these assertions are logical fallacies masquerading as reasoned discourse.
Bedau’s introduction mentions that the arguments to oppose to capital punishment are moral, practical, and constitutional in nature. The bulk of the essay (as least in this edited rendition) is taken up with practical matters in the current application of the death penalty. The major headings are “deterrence,” “unfairness,” and “inevitability of error.” Thus, it is in the introduction that the moral arguments against capital punishment are contained. My focus will be here.
Bedau’s introduction is a target rich environment for logical fallacies and rhetorical recklessness. Here a few problems:
The first bullet point simply begs the question by calling capital punishment “cruel and unusual” and calling it a barbaric practice.
The second bullet point engages in equivocation. It starts out by talking about how “murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life” as a general truth but then uses this framework to speak against “state-authorized killing,” thus seeming to equate murder with state-sponsored capital punishment.
The third bullet point begins by stating, “Capital punishment denies due process of law.” This is factually incorrect. There is due process involved but it is not infinitely extendable. But the failure to extend out the process does not mean there was not “due process” in the legal sense. Unless, of course, simply begs the question by assuming the death penalty cannot have due process at all.
The sixth bullet point reads, “Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.” There are a number of problems with this one sentence.
· The message is not “unmistakable” since many who endorse capital punishment do not even begin to think this. They think it is a matter of justice.
· The category of “useful to take it” is erroneously assumed as the motive.
· The use of the word “homicide” is rhetorically prejudicial. “Homicide” has connotations of the illegitimate taking of innocent human life. Its use here with its connotations leans into the fallacy of begging the question.
· The defenders of capital punishment do not rely solely on “pragmatic concerns.” This is a strawman fallacy.
The seventh bullet point talks of “reliance on the death penalty” but this is, again, straw manning of the position. Why not a “reluctant use” of the capital punishment in specialized and extreme circumstances? This bullet point also states, “Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work.” Besides straw manning the argument (again) there is also a false dichotomy here. One can consistently affirm the death penalty and support various anti-crime measures under consideration by Bedau.
The last bullet point is full of errors.
· “A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings.”
o If Bedau really believes this he will be pro-life on the abortion issue from the moment of conception. (Just an aside…)
o The statement is so lacking in specificity that is incorrect. Here’s a counter-claim: “A decent and humane society does deliberately kill human beings… who are killing children in a shoot spree.” We have snipers who we train and pay to be ready for such instances.
o If the claim is made more specific to take into account my counter-example it would have to be something like, “A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill innocent human beings.” But the defender of capital punishment could easily agree with this modified statement—in fact, she would urge such a statement be adopted.
· There is, again, the prejudicial language of “homicide.”
· There is a one-sentence historical statement: “In this century, governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury by the benefits such killing would bring to the rest of society.” Perhaps true, but irrelevant to the case under consideration. An example of a Red Herring.
An essay which begins with such irrational devices and rhetorical excess is suspect. Even granting most of his remaining points revolving around deterrence, unfairness, and error, this does not advance the fundamental moral question about the justness of the act of capital punishment. His subsidiary arguments may challenge the defender of capital punishment to raise the bar epistemologically so that the problems in application are resolved.
