I will readily agree with Eugene Volokh and the commenters that my previous post was emotional. The only effective way to respond to an emotional argument is with countervailing emotion.
Without going into a justification of my entire ethical philosophy, I’ll take a quick stab at identifying the biggest logical flaw in Volokh’s post: it is predicated on a notion of justice whereby a person who causes suffering deserves to suffer. Unless Volokh proposes returning our legal system to ‘eye for an eye’ jurisprudence, his position in this case is inconsistent with his position towards our legal system as a whole.
In the comments, Bob Greene compares the Iranian killer’s execution to self-defense; but self-defense serves an actual preventative effect, whereas Volokh acknowledges that the purpose of the flogging and throttling is the deliberate infliction of pain.
Joe Snuffy, similarily, argues for the preventative effects of the death penalty. But I would have had no objection if Iran had simply executed the man humanely. Again, that’s not what Volokh’s post was about.
Realistically, the impulse to inflict pain in response to pain is part of human nature. But I don’t see how any coherent ethical philosophy can elevate it to the level of justice.
UPDATE: To pre-empt the nitpicks: by ‘coherent ethical philosophy’ I mean not just one that is internally consistent, but one that is at least reasonably consonant with contemporary Western life.
POST-UPDATE: My own view on the matter is rooted in consequentialist, minimization-of-suffering ethics, but Jan Haugland and Matt Yglesias give good responses on pragmatic, slippery-slope grounds.
You know, you’re right: Volokh does believe a person who causes suffering deserves to suffer. The weirdo.
An “eye for an eye” might be construed as an (gasp) “eye for an eye”. So if we are to actually carry out an “eye for eye”, the Iranian murderer would have to be tortured and killed more than times. That would be a difficult task. The bottom line is that executing a murderer is never “an eye for an eye”. At best it is an “eye for a head”. In the US capital punishment is generally an eye for 40 eyes.”
Justice doesn’t require suffering if the victim is alive and the criminal is fabulously talented and wealthy
Maybe ‘eye for an eye’ actually is possible here. As some of the other responses to Volokh pointed out, his logic would pretty much lead to the conclusion that it’s reasonable to keep the criminal alive for perpetual torture.
Of course, Volokh wouldn’t actually support that; I am sure it would be too cruel even for him. But I don’t see how he could provide a logical rationale for the distinction. Volokh has stated several times in his last few posts that he doesn’t think that a slippery slope would happen, but he has been unable to give any reason why not.
Although “an eye for an eye” is theoritically possible, it is practically iimpossible. Certainly a pleasant execution for murder is not “an eye for an eye”. Neither is it a complete pursuit of justice nor vengence. It is a minimum morally aceptable pursuit of justice and it is a long way from even approaching vengence.
I assume you meant ‘unpleasant execution’? I don’t think execution is ever pleasant (“Good day, sir, how are you? I will be your server of death today”), but as I already mentioned, I would not have objected to a humane execution of the Iranian murderer.
As to what actually took place in Iran, I don’t see how Volokh’s sentiments–the explicit desire to inflict pain for pain’s sake–can be called anything other than vengeance. Vengeance can arguably be just, but that does not stop it from being vengeful.
A humane execution is a pleasant execution. That is because “pleasant” is a relative term. In the US, executions for murder are always more pleasant than the murder.
When vengence is just, vengence is good.