Capital Punishment
and the Limits of Ethics
April 26-28, 2001
One of the most hotly debated issues in America today concerns the
legal and ethical status of capital punishment. The question of whether
it is just to execute a human being for crimes committed has long been
considered a dividing-point between political parties. In recent years,
however, the debate over capital punishment has grown even more urgent,
marked by well-publicized appeals processes, claims that innocent people
have been wrongly put to death, and increased political pressure by
constituents, lobbyists, and the national media. It is clear that the
issue of capital punishment can no longer be ignored.
Opinions on whether or not capital punishment is justifiable tend to
be firmly held and strongly expressed. Scratch the surface of this debate,
however, and it quickly becomes clear how many thorny ethical, moral,
and legal issues are involved in the decision of whether it is just
to execute criminals. For many, of course, the idea that the justice
system could be responsible for the taking of life is both barbarous
and thoroughly amoral. Yet, say supporters of capital punishment, in
granting clemency to a violent criminal one sends an ambivalent message
to the most violent offenders. Indeed, some in favor of capital punishment
go further to insist that it is impossible to grant clemency to a criminal
without committing a grave injustice against the victim or his or her
family. Clearly, both sides of the capital punishment debate are fraught
with enormous complications that extend to the very heart of ethics
itself. Indeed, it seems nearly impossible to support either side of
the capital punishment issue without meeting an impasse in questions
of equity, mercy, and justice Ð questions that force one to confront
the limits of ethical thinking.
In the midst of such complicated debate, scholars from diverse fields
have brought new data and philosophical approaches to bear on this timely
and controversial issue. A number of scholars have turned their attention
to the legal, philosophical, and political questions surrounding the
issue of capital punishment. What are the uses and limits of theories
of retributive punishment? What factors should take priority in the
decision whether or not to execute a criminal? To what extent should
mitigating factors such as poverty or a history of abuse be admissible
in courts of law? And how valid are claims of the deterrence-value of
capital punishment? Such questions, while far from resolving these complicated
issues, are shedding new and important light on the debate.
Our seminar will call upon voices from law, philosophy, psychology,
and history to explore the contested terrain of capital punishment and
the implications of this debate for ethical thinking. Topics to be addressed
will include the theoretical and practical procedures for sorting those
deserving of mercy from those who should die; the debates over capital
punishment for minors; the architecture of Death Row and its relation
to the psychology of punishment; and the conflict between equity and
mercy in theories of justice.
Speakers will include Locke Bowman (Law), Bernadine Dohrn (Law, Northwestern),
Dr. Robert Kirschner (Pathology, Pediatrics, and Human Rights Program),
Lawrence Marshall (Law, Northwestern), Martha Nussbaum (Law & Philosophy),
and Bernard Rubin (Psychiatry).
|
University of Chicago