As America struggles with a massive opioid addiction crisis, President Trump has proposed executing certain types of drug dealers as a possible solution. While his proposal drew applauses, it seems unlikely that this will become a legal reality. However, it does raise interesting philosophical and practical questions.
From a purely practical standpoint, the key question is whether executing drug dealers would have an impact on the opioid epidemic. It will, of course, be assumed that the people running the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing and distributing opioids will not be executed as part of this plan.
From an intuitive standpoint, it does seem that execution could have an impact on the epidemic. As a great philosopher once said, “if you kill someone for doing something, they won’t do that again.” As such, killing drug dealers would reduce the number of dealers and thus could reduce the extent of the opioid epidemic. This would obviously require killing new dealers as they stepped in to replace the old, but this would presumably be a problem in the logistics of killing.
There is also the deterrence factor. On the face of it, it seems sensible to believe that the threat of execution would deter people from dealing opioids. This assumes that drug dealers are rational actors and their calculation of the risks and benefits will guide them to stop dealing. Or that they would be so scared of being executed that they would stop (or never start). It seems reasonable to think that people fear death and would thus try to avoid it. As such, executing drug dealers could prove to be effective.
However, it is not without cause that some are critical of philosophers for relying on reason and not considering the empirical data. In the case of the death penalty, there is extensive data on its effectiveness. The evidence is fairly solid that it is not an effective deterrence, which runs contrary to what intuitions about death and threats of death would suggest. Naturally, it could be argued that it would deter drug dealers, but international data suggests otherwise. As such, it seems unlikely that this is a problem that we can kill our way out of. I now turn to the moral issue.
On the face of it, the moral issue has already been settled by the practical issue: if the death penalty would not deter drug dealers, then the deterrence argument could not be used to morally justify executing them. However, there is still the classic retribution argument: killing drug dealers would be morally justified as retribution for their crimes.
On the one hand, this does have some appeal. The opioid epidemic has resulted in a significant increase in accidental deaths, so it is reasonable to lay some of the blame for some those deaths on the drug dealers. After all, if a business (in this case a drug business) knowingly provides a dangerous product to customers, then they are morally accountable for at least some of the harms. This is true in the case of legal products, such as tobacco and prescription opioids, and clearly true in the case of products that are illegal because they are harmful, such as illegally trafficked opioids.
While the drug dealers certainly do deserve to be punished for distributing such a harmful product, the punishment must still be subject to the principle of proportionality. That is, the punishment must be warranted by the severity of the harm done in the crime.
A drug dealer that intentionally sold contaminated products that killed users would be rather directly responsible for those deaths. The same would apply to a company that knowingly sold fatally flawed legal products that killed people, such as defective cars. Obviously, the criminal would compound their misdeed legally by engaging in a criminal activity, but from the moral perspective, the legality would not be the primary concern. Rather, it would be causing of death that mattered. It would be these sorts of cases that would most plausibly merit execution, on the principle that the punishment (death) should match the crime (causing death). However, selling someone a fatally defective product is still distinct from killing them—there is not as direct a causal link in the death. As such, executing those who knowingly sell defective products that will cause death would still seem morally problematic.
In most cases drug dealers do not intentionally sell defective products they know will kill their customers. They do, after all, want repeat business. But, drugs are almost always harmful to some degree and, as such, this puts them into the moral category of harmful things. The harms are quite numerous, ranging from health issues to death by overdose. This category is, of course, also occupied by many legal products, such as alcohol and tobacco. As such, the question is whether it is morally acceptable to execute someone for providing a harmful product that can potentially kill the user. Once again, the legal issue is distinct from the moral—after all, all opioids could be made completely legal tomorrow, but this would not change the basic moral issue. The easy and obvious answer is that while knowingly peddling harmful products is morally wrong, the level of wrongness does not merit execution. As such, killing drug dealers simply for dealing drugs would be no righter than killing the owners of Heineken or R.J. Reynolds for distributing legal products that cause significant health issues and contribute to the ruin of many lives.
Sort of a selective outrage, isn’t it? Prohibition is a failed idea.
On the surface, I guess I’d question your take on this, and the way you choose to represent it. Maybe “question” isn’t the right word – it’s not surprising to me at all.
“Trump proposes executing certain kinds of drug dealers”.
Hmm. How would that work, exactly? It certainly reads as somewhat Hitler-esque – that by virtue of some executive order, our government can somehow round up drug dealers and give them the needle. And what kind of drug dealers? Well, you address that too …
“… while knowingly peddling harmful products is morally wrong, the level of wrongness does not merit execution. As such, killing drug dealers simply for dealing drugs would be no righter than killing the owners of Heineken …”
Clearly you take Trump’s declaration – or you would like us to take Trump’s declaration, as some sort of unilateral decision to take the guy selling eight-balls on the corner and kill him.
From a logical standpoint – or should I clarify and say “from the standpoint of a logician”, your stance is somewhat more troubling. After all, you are a professional in this area, aren’t you? You say,
“The evidence is fairly solid that it is not an effective deterrence”
and you link to an article whose headline reads,
“There’s still no evidence that executions deter criminals”.
You of all people should realize that these are two completely different statements. One implies a body of evidence, the other says that that body does not exist. I understand what you mean, and that kind of word-twisting is a very common, and effective, political ploy – but as a professional philosopher you need to be more careful than that.
(Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t think the statement itself isn’t true – it’s just an invalid argument. I think that the death penalty really is much of a deterrent, but mostly because criminals don’t think they’ll ever get caught)
Anyway – back to the statement. I’d offer a couple of thoughts:
The first is about Trump himself, and his political style. We all know that he will say anything, and some of us believe that this is a contrived tactic rather than mere stupidity. In looking at some of the statements he has made in the past, it appears his pattern is to alarm us with his extremism – letting the opposition know (or imagine) how far he is willing to go – which is a very effective negotiating tactic and one I’d expect from a guy like him.
Look at NAFTA for example – his first statement was “I’m going to scrap it!”, which put him in a much more favorable position. Right now, the treaty is being negotiated – and from the US standpoint it is being negotiated from a position of strength. After all – if a good deal can’t be struck, Trump will just scrap it …
Immigration – “I’m going to deport them all!” which had the result of alarming Congress into action. North Korea – “We’ll wipe you off the face of the earth!” and now what? Talks.
So taken in that context, his words (for now) really just mean, “I’m deadly serious about this, and at this moment, nothing is off the table”. So far he has not directed Congress to address the laws – but if and when he does it will be incumbent upon them to come up with harsh penalties that, if short of the death penalty, will still carry the weight he demands.
Unless, of course, you are anti-Trump and want to just put the negative spin on everything he does. He does leave himself open to that sort of criticism – but I don’t think he really cares about that so much. He’s the guy who actually prefers that Kim Jung Un fear him for being more insane than he (Kim) is.
As a practical matter, I think it’s disingenuous to frame Trump’s comments as “Proposing that we kill drug dealers”. I’d interpret them to mean, “In applying the criminal code to this kind of offense, let’s keep the death penalty on the table as an option”.
The broader impact of this is, of course, more to the point of our legal system in general. The greater the threat, the greater the leverage. When the threat of death is on the table, there is more room for negotiation – and that’s really what our legal system is about. “Mr. Kingpin – the prosecution is willing to take the death penalty off the table if you plead guilty to this list of other offenses”. Pretty common. The prosecution gets its conviction without risk of loss, the criminal gets a lesser sentence without fear of death. Win-win.
Of course, “justice” in it’s purest form is not really served – but it happens all the time. In my own son’s assault case, the judge offered the perpetrator a lowered sentence in exchange for a confession. I was infuratied by this, of course, but the prosecutor explained to me that it was a guarantee that he’d be away for 15 years; had it gone to trial with a sympathetic jury, he might have even been found not guilty.
I oppose the death penalty, personally, but it’s more because it opens the door to years (and sometimes decades) of wrangling and expense. When a criminal is actually executed, I think that act is more about telling criminals who have been caught that “we’re serious about our negotiations” than trying to deter others from committing crimes. “If we convict you and sentence you to death, don’t think we won’t do it!”.
And finally, I would offer this:
What Trump Is Proposing Is Already A Matter Of Law
Bill Clinton signed it into law in 1994, when we were at the height of the crack-cocaine epidemic. The law authorizes capital punishment against a defendant who directs a continuing criminal enterprise involving either large quantities of drugs or generating $20 million a year from the enterprise.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/20/death-penalty-drug-dealers-trump-clinton-476374
Of course, back then, the Democrats were all for this. So what does this mean? Well, Republicans will probably say that it points to yet another example of left-wing hypocrisy, while Democrats will likely retort that it is just another example of Trump’s ignorance of the laws of this country.
In two of the stories most in the headlines today – gun control and immigration – most of what Trump is proposing is a matter of properly enforcing the laws that are already on the books. This is just another.
True, the headline of the post I cited does make that statement. You are also right to note that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As such, saying that there is no real evidence that capital punishment deters is not the same thing as saying that there is evidence it does not deter. Just as the fact that saying there is no real evidence that copper bracelets cure arthritis is not the same as saying that there is evidence it does not cure.
So, here is a link that supports the claim that there is solid reason to think that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2200.
And, of course, you are right to note that no one should take Trump’s words literally; one cannot expect the president to be clear or coherent. His words must be properly parsed and interpreted so that they can be re-presented as some sort of policy; rather like how one would interpret the words of a prophet who speaks in riddles and metaphors.
Thanks for the clarification. You’re getting closer, but I don’t think you’re quite there yet. Your link does not really do anything more than quote a medical expert on his interpretation of a study and offer an opinion. The headline “Experts Explain Why The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder” isn’t a reference to a valid study or a reasonable conclusion – it’s an opinion.
It’s one I agree with, though, as I mentioned in my other post. I said that I don’t believe that capital punishment works as a deterrent because criminals don’t believe they will get caught. In your article, Dr. Jonathan Groner (an associate professor of orthopedic surgery, by the way – what that has to do with his qualifications as an expert in the field of capital punishment is beyond me) says,
“The psychological mind-set of the criminal is such that they are not able to consider consequences at the time of the crime. Most crimes are crimes of passion that are done in situations involving intense excitement or concern. People who commit these crimes are not in a normal state of mind — they do not consider the consequences in a logical way,” .
Agreed – but it’s important to note that this is an opinion, not a study or a valid conclusion. In fact, if you follow the links at the bottom of the page, you’ll find this, from the National Research Council of the National Academies, based on a review of more than three decades of research:
“studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide.”
There is much more reading to do – and it’s all there. You need a National Academies Press account to be able to download the PDF, but you can read the 128-page study (all in the name of “critical thinking”, of course) here
Again, I would appeal to the philosopher and logician in you to acknowledge that a study that is fundamentally flawed does not prove or disprove the initial hypothesis or its consequent. It is merely a flawed study.
On the other hand, I think it’s also important to acknowledge that just because something like capital punishment doesn’t work in one way, that it is ineffective or immoral in others.
I would refer to Dr. Goner’s other stated opinion –
“Deterrents may work in instances where the punishment is obvious and immediate … .
I’m not sure that the word “deterrent” is appropriate here, but having the death penalty “on the table” is, as I previously stated, a very strong negotiating point. Going to trial always bears some risk – and a prosecutor is often faced with the moral dilemma of taking that risk, that his own professional inadequacy may lead to a murderer being freed, versus a little extra-Constitutional wrangling that might put him away. Having a strong threat of consequence that has some serious teeth will go a long way in keeping dangerous people off the street.
In this case, the criminal has already been caught. He no longer suffers under his own delusion of invincibility, nor are his actions guided by his initial passion alone. He is given the opportunity and the support to mount a rational defense that considers all possibilities, and consequences that are, as Goner describes them, “obvious and immediate”.
I think it’s probably a good discussion to have – as legal practitioners and lawmakers have done for centuries. Should we approach the law with a kind of moral absolutism, with the written law as the final arbiter of right and wrong? Or is a utilitarian approach better – that the end will justify the means – even if that means a threat of death used to extract a confession or a plea to a lesser charge, which would have the net effect of protecting more people?
True; people do not engage in crime thinking they will get caught; despite evidence to the contrary.
I’d say that one reason that capital punishment is not effective is that people who engage in many crimes are not rational actors-they do not calmly weigh the risks and benefits; they tend to just act.
Presumably those with the rational calculating ability to do the estimations tend to not be the sort of folks who commit capital crimes.
Please explain how you “know” that capital punishment is not effective? Crime is lower in many places where punishments are severe and reasonably expected to be handed out.
Right. I think we are in agreement on this point. The argument, as I see it, has drifted into one of citation – we can “know” this in our hearts or believe it to be true, but based on the evidence and the studies, it has yet to be proven. As WTP points out, there is evidence to the contrary, so we are all left to our own beliefs.
And, as you have pointed out in several essays, there is a kind of tribal allegiance to party and politics when it comes to believing or disbelieving aspects of controversial issues.
However, by keeping the argument focused on whether or not consideration of punishment is a deterrent to the commission of a crime, we tend not to look at the other side of this – the argument that I have pointed out about it being a valuable negotiation point after the fact.
Of course, by highlighting this feature, we draw attention to the seamier side of our own legal system – that of back-room deals, the political aspirations of prosecutors, “conviction rates” and various levels of coercion. Best to leave that alone and think about something else.
Intuitively, capital punishment should work. After all, the threat of death should be a great motivating factor. But, there is also the strong intuition that threats work best when they are evident and direct. So, a person faced with a gun can be deterred from attacking but the more abstract threat of execution by the state would seem to have far less impact on those who are not rational calculators of risk assessment.
I actually think the hysterical reactions to Trump are worse than Trump.
Well, for better or for worse, I don’t think there’s much truth in any of it. Posturing, tribal allegiance, contrived positions, yes. It is difficult for me to believe that Trump is as extreme as he wants us to believe – and this is borne out by the ensuing negotiations. It’s just as difficult for me to believe that the hysterical reactions are really hysterical, or even true reactions. More like, “Well, how can we spin this, and fold in a nice smattering of outrage?”
Aside from his belief in self-interest and lack of concern for the truth, I have no idea what Trump’s actual principles might be. I admit this freely.
Yes, this much is obvious. I think that as a citizen of the United States, you are free to have your own opinion, and to arrive at that opinion via whatever means are at your disposal – even if it’s just that you want to agree with your friends at the bar.
I would offer that we don’t really know the actual principles of any of our leaders. How, for example, does Trump’s lack of concern for the truth differ from that of someone like Clinton, who lied to Congress and was censured and disbarred for it? How does the political “bluff” differ from the way in which JFK stood up to Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis? What were JFK’s principles then? Would he have entered a nuclear war at the time?
I also wonder how JFK would have fared under the scrutiny of today’s hungry press and our sense of moral outrage. Was he that much different from Trump?
http://allthatsinteresting.com/jfk-homemade-pornography
(yes, yes – it’s all opinion, not logical proof – but what proof does the press or the angry mob really need, anyway?)
Anyway – to the point –
As a citizen of the US you are certainly entitled to whatever opinions you like – and you are certainly entitled to write about them in whatever forum you wish. However, you are a professional philosopher with some credible credentials, and as such I find it disturbing that your “Never Trump” attitudes so often show up in a blog that is supposed to be devoted to critical thinking, logic, and philosophy.
Even that’s OK to a point, except that your “Never Trumpism” drifts away from critical thought into the area of foregone conclusions and talking points. It’s your blog, and you can put whatever you want in here – but my preference would be that you keep that stuff to Facebook, or start another blog with a different title.
Fortunately, at least for me, it’s pretty transparent, but as a fellow academician I feel compelled to call it when I see it.
Agree (WTF is with this WordPress crap that makes it so damn difficult to “like” a post without havving to comment?). Of course I’ve been saying similar here for years, though much less eloquently. Do you suppose eloquence will have any effect? One quibble….Mike is free to have whatever opinion he wishes regardless of his citizenship or current locale. Our constitution does not grant us these inalienable rights, it simply recognizes that they exist.
To Mike’s Trump rants, perhaps the thoughts of C. S. Lewis will be of comfort…
Prolly not, though.
True; one of the worst villains is the villain who thinks they are the hero.
If you like fantasy stories, Karl Edward Wagner’s “Cold Light” contains one of the best examples of a villain of this sort.
Just for reference…apparently my frustrations with WP only apply to use via iPad/Safari. Got back on MacBook and seems to work as expected.
You are right-many past leaders would not hold up under the media coverage of today. Think of what it would be like for FDR trying to run today. Even Bill Clinton was operating in a pre-social media age.