Is capital punishment rational from the standpoint of
a civil society?
Do we have a civil society?
A civil society is one where disputes are settled by reasonable means. From this, it can be inferred that violence is excluded from civil society except under emergency/self-defense conditions.
As for self-defense: Once you've rendered you opponent helpless and you have the means to maintain him in that condition, then the emergency prerequisite to the use of violence no longer exists. At this point, to kill your opponent would be irrational from the standpoint of civil society.
The death penalty is a violent act and it is not administered under emergency/self-defense conditions.
Ipso facto:
Those who would engage in the action of
capital punishment are either uncivilized or
irrational.
Let me exemplify:
If I felt as if someone were a threat to me, or my property, it could be
considered rational on my part to just preempt them. Why negotiate or take
any risk? But since we do have a civil agreement, a social contract, we
agree unanimously to interact with reason rather than violence.
Everyone within society, from the individual to the top levels of the state, as well as the state itself, is bound by this agreement. This is the primary unanimous agreement that binds all of society. This is the primary unanimous agreement referred to by Rousseau. He couldn't name it, because it was just too obvious to see.
In the above example, I would be bound by the social contract to seek a reasonable solution to any perceived threat up to an emergency threshold. At the emergency threshold point, biological necessity in the case of the individual, and sociological necessity in the case of society, would take precedent over reason. This is the only condition in which violence is acceptable.
Thus, from the context of this unanimous agreement, violence is irrational. Violence aborts reason. In human interaction, violence is the antithesis of reason.
Further, the use of violence on the part of authorities will tend to demonstrate that there is utility to be gained from engaging in like action. Thus, it perpetuates violence.
In a rational civil society, violence on anyone's part, cannot be tolerated. All those who insist on using violence as a behavioral tool should be exiled for life. Being removed physically from society forever should be the consequent of violent behavior. The cost of this consequent, since we as a society are bounded to rational behavior, is a necessary burden we must bear to assure safety and reason.
Regarding...
death versus permanent incarceration and the additional
threat a living being may pose to society: (Some feel, erroneously,
that this creates a self defense excuse for execution.)
I'm going to make a generalization that I feel confident is true...
Given the state of modern technology, the probability of escaping from a
maximum security facility is less than the probability of convicting and
executing an innocent person.
So, any threat posed to society that a murderer may escape is more than offset by the potential atrocity of executing an innocent person.
Further, systemic problems in the judicial system make it unlikely that technical innovation could reduce the probability of executing an innocent person without a great increase in cost.
While, on the other hand, utilizing technology in the prison system is cost effective and significantly reduces the probability of escape.
This all leads to the inferrence that if the death penalty does not meet the self-defense/emergency criteria excusing the use of violence, then the death penalty is an unnecessary use of force. If it is an unnecessary use of force, then it is excessive force.
Given this:
I cannot voluntarily belong to any society that
endorses, or even just condescends to, the use of excessive force on the part
of its authorities.
I believe all rational beings should feel the
same. This is not even a negotiable point.
This leads me to the efficiency argument:
Economists agree that wealth is created by exchange. Maximum wealth
is created by efficient exchanges. According to the Coase Theorem,
if transaction costs are zero, the parties involved in an exchange
will bargain to the most efficient outcome. The degree to which an association
is voluntary represents a transaction cost to bargaining.
No wealth can be created in an involuntary exchange. All it amounts to is
wealth transfer. Actions which inhibit voluntary
associations are harmful to society.
The use of excessive force on the part
of authorities inhibits voluntary associations within the society
and represents an unnecessary transaction cost on exchanges.
(An example of a transaction cost is the time and resources used trying
to end the idiocy of the death penalty. Also, the credibility of the
authoritative structure is undermined.)
Therefore: If the death penalty constitutes excessive force and
excessive force is a unnecessary transaction cost on voluntary exchanges,
then the death penalty is harmful to society. For an entity to deliberately
harm itself is for the entity to be irrational.
Further... Those who endorse the use of excessive force are depriving the
rest of us of the benefits that could be derived from an efficient society.
They are causing us harm. This is tortuous action on their part.
One last thing:
Reason is a requisite of the law. If a law promotes irrational
action, then it makes a mockery of justice.
Also, because it is certainly implied that the law be rational, and because
the constitution provides for the enactment of law, then any law which
is irrational must also be unconstitutional.
For a related argument see...
The Economics of Capital Punishment.