Garry: Still failing to defend the death penalty

Over at the curiously named Politics on Toast, James Garry takes exception to one of my posts on the death penalty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is this post that provokes his article; the one that takes him to task. There is a lot in his article, and the vast majority of it I do not care about. However, there are some points that demand rebuttal and clarification. This first is Garry’s attempt to overcome my objection that some criminals commit their crimes without really considering the potential consequences on the grounds that they do not expect to be caught. He writes in response to this assertion:

Nonsense. TNL seems to suggest that criminals can only know the consequences of their actions after they are caught.

Nope. I suggest that criminals are not thinking about the consequences of their actions because they do not expect to be caught – a position that is intuitively plausible given how many people commit crimes that carry hefty sentences.

I think very few criminals are so boundlessly optimistic or boundlessly stupid not to impute the legal consequences of their illegal actions. We are all potential criminals. I am a potential criminal.

Yes, Garry, you are a potential criminal. We all are. But there are degrees of potential criminality, aren’t there? And there are degrees of the potentiality of all of us to actually commit crimes. Just as there are differences in the extent to which any one of us believe we will be caught for any crime that we might commit, and there are varying degrees to which we all understand the consequences of any potential crime. To argue otherwise is to deny the nature of the individual. Which, surely, Garry does not wish to do. Oh, wait:

I know the possible consequences of any given criminal action. I don’t see how actual criminals are any different.

Yeah, Garry. You are representative of all actual criminals. They all think in the same way you do. They all know the consequences of their actions. Except there is no-one quite like James Garry, and different individuals will have different motivations and perceptions.

For TNL’s argument to have a kernel of credibility then every single murderer would have to be completely blank about the consequences of his actions. If that were the case then we could agree that capital punishment is worthless because the criminal is impervious to its threat. Plainly this isn’t so. Some murderers may be so far removed from reality that they are oblivious to the promise of the noose, but most murderers are rational and aware of the law and of the consequences of their actions.

Nope, this is toss, I'm afraid. For my argument to “have a kernel of credibility” there has to be just one killer who does not take into account the potential consequences of their actions. Which, as the example of Ian Brady in my original post, demonstrates is possible. But Garry sort of acknowledges in his article, before going on to write:

There are no doubt others still who would not be deterred by the death penalty from murdering. I am not a Utopian. I do not believe in a perfect world of perfect solutions. If we did not use human systems because they were imperfect, we’d never use any of them. TNL, and people like him, do not understand this point:
We do not use deterrents against people who cannot be deterred. We use deterrents against those who can be deterred. To abandon the use of capital punishment because it does not deter the Ian Bradys of this world is as bit like not fitting your car with airbags because airbags are not 100% effective. I wonder, with the use of this easy-to-understand analogy, TNL might grasp this very simple point.

Oh, how I do love to be condescended and patronised by someone who thinks that they know better than me with no real evidence as to why they might actually do so bar their own stridently expressed opinions. I do understand that we have to use imperfect systems – not being a total fucking idiot makes understanding this point really rather easy. But it is one thing not to use an imperfect system and quite another to endow an imperfect political system with the right to take the lives of innocent citizens after going through the imperfect system of a jury trial. I’ll try to resist the cheap jibe that this sort of simple argument seems to be beyond Garry and his ilk.

Unfortunately, the analogy does not work as there is no real connection between airbags and an innocent person being hanged. It is a classic straw man argument, and deserves to be treated largely with contempt.

I don’t see how it is nonsense. It does make me angry when people say that capital punishment is wrong because it involves the State murdering its own citizens. It makes me angry because TNL – probably without much thought – gives parity to the murderer and the murderer’s victim.

No I don’t. This completely misrepresents my opinion and what I have repeatedly said. I give parity to the innocent killed by a murderer and an innocent killed by the state on the grounds that both are, well, innocent. The central point is the innocence, and until someone can provide a system whereby innocent people won’t face the noose, then this remains an essential point and a highly convincing rebuttal to those who favour the return of the death penalty.
And, for the record, I have given a lot of fucking thought to all aspects of the death penalty while researching and debating it across decades. This sort of cheap gibe from Garry really pisses me off. It is exactly the same as when he says that people have not read what he has written or not understood it. It is the fascinating arrogance of a man who assumes that he is right and that others cannot have an equally valid position. It runs the risk of making debating with him compellingly pointless.

The Nameless Libertarian’s ultimate objection to State execution is a libertarian one – that the State should not be vested with the power to murder.

No, my ultimate objection to state murder is a moral one – as explained here. But as an add-on, yeah, I don’t think we should give the state the right to murder their citizens.

I do not understand libertarians. They automatically think the powers of the State must be limited.

Nope. We argue that the state should be limited based on the fact that it has been historically shown that the state is more often than not inept, bureaucratic and inhuman.

Well, I believe that the State should be limited but I also accept that the State must have some power to do certain things some of the time. As much as I hated nannying New Labour, I think the only good thing they did was to implement the smoking ban. Of course, this is a State intrusion and many, including Claire Porthouse, think it is a horrendous act of State intrusion. Maybe it is. But I wonder if the ban extends into the future, that we might realise the goodness of this act of State intrusion in a hundred year’s time or so.

Of course, it is completely inappropriate to compare the potential state murder of an innocent person with the smoking ban. As for that ban itself, it is possible that in the future people do look back on the smoking ban as a great step forward, especially if biased history books present it as such. That won’t change the reality of the situation – that people are told that they cannot choose, despite being responsible adults, to smoke in certain places. It won’t change the fact that this policy seems to be almost intentionally trying to make the people of this country more bovine than ever. And there is a terrible irony in someone advocating the potential prolonging of the lives of some through the smoking ban at the same time as embracing the concept of the noose for some innocent people is good.

Giving the State the power to execute criminals who ruin the lives of innocent people is good.

But that is not the point, as surely Garry knows. The point is that innocent people as well as criminals will be executed. Is that OK? Of course it isn’t. But it is a fundamental point that Garry's sweeping statement ignores.

Why assume that all State power is bad?

State power is, for most libertarians, a necessary evil. Therefore, as an evil, it needs to be restricted as much as possible. And it certainly does not need to be extended to give the state the right to potentially kill innocent people if the right legal loopholes have been jumped through.

If that is so, why bother voting?

Err, to support the party offering the least state intervention in our lives?

Why bother supporting the political parties who become and organise the State.

I don’t support any party, but I’d imagine it is for the reason mentioned immediately above.

Why even bother pretending to be a “libertarian”? Just become an anarchist instead.

Because being a libertarian is different to being an anarchist. In fact, I’ve written about this in detail here. But put simply a libertarian sees minimal state intervention as a necessary evil. An anarchist sees the state as an unnecessary evil. This really is basic political theory. And to conflate a refusal to support the right of the state to execute innocent people with anarchism is a crude and ultimately unconvincing rhetorical position.

But that’s enough on Garry and the death penalty. It should be clear where Garry and I stand with regard to this issue, and I personally have better things to do moving forward than rehashing the arguments in my posts on the death penalty thus far. The death penalty is wrong and any attempts to bring it back should be rigorously fought.

Things can get worse...

“Things can’t get much worse in this country” a friend said to me recently. They were speaking from a socialist perspective, and lamenting the spending cuts and the fact that the coalition is not quite as spendthrift as its predecessor. The validity of these justifications are not my main concern today – I think anyone who reads this blog regularly will know where I stand on such issues – but the notion that things can’t get much worse in this country is not unique to the left. It can be seen in some in the right. It can be seen in statist and in libertarians. And it is, of course, bollocks.

While things ain’t grand at the moment, it could get much, much worse in this country. You can look elsewhere in the world, to countries like North Korea, to see just how bad things can get with ever increasing state intervention. Likewise, you can look to various war-torn African nations to see what happens when the state collapses in on itself and effectively disappears. Yeah, you might be paying more tax than you would like (I know I certainly am) and you might be sick of paternalistic types tutting at you when you enjoy a drink or a cigarette, but you aren’t dodging bullets in a civil war or avoiding the secret police in an authoritarian regime. Things could be worse.

Because one of the things we still have in this country despite the continued erosion of our civil liberties by successive statist government is the right to bellyache about it all. You can protest – in writing, verbally or in person. Sure, you might not like the fact that the state attempts to control your protest (and again I don't) but you can still do it. And you can protest about anything you like – it doesn’t even have to make sense. So you can have a pop at the government about spending cuts, even though they have precious little choice but to decrease the rate at which government spending rises. You can also have a go at nonsense conspiracy theories like the currently fashionable idea of the domination of “cultural Marxism” (a spurious concept that seems to be an attempt to add an ersatz veneer of respectability to the old claim of “it’s political correctness gone mad!”) While we have the right to protest, things can get much worse. And history has shown us just how bad things can get. The worst case scenario isn’t social shunning of the non-comformist or even legislating against them; it is the death camp for that non-conformist.

And the wonderful yet terrifying truth about our current situation is that what happens next remains, to a large extent, in our hands. It’s wonderful because we can potentially shape a version of tomorrow where we are freer. It is terrifying because we might not take that opportunity or fuck that opportunity up. But we should always remember, no matter what our frustrations are in the here and now, that things can get much worse. And that can be a motivator; to make sure that they don’t.

Shop an Anarchist, say Police

And the police continue their slow transition into the thought police with this sort of illiberal bullshit:

This was the surprising injunction from the Metropolitan Police issued to businesses and members of the public in Westminster last week. There was no warning about other political groups, but next to an image of the anarchist emblem, the City of Westminster police's "counter terrorist focus desk" called for anti-anarchist whistleblowers stating: "Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police."

The move angered some anarchists who complained that being an anarchist should not imply criminal behaviour. They said they feel unfairly criminalised for holding a set of political beliefs.

And anarchists should complain because they are being criminalised for their political beliefs if this sort of thing becomes standard practice. But the rest of us should also be very worried. This is a clear point on a very slippery slope to where any non-conformist thoughts is considered a matter for the authorities. Not non-conformist behaviour, mind. No, here we are talking about non-conformist thoughts.

Furthermore, look at the language used to call for whistle-blowers (a term surely being abused here - state snoops would be a better description): anarchists believe that the state is a problem; therefore, they need to be reported to the state. The unspoken, unquestioning devotion to the concept of the state is inherent within these words. The implication is that questioning or resisting the state should be reported to the police; therefore, such behaviour is criminal.

We live in a world where all sorts of groups aspire to commit terrorist atrocities, where MPs rob us blind, where the media our invade privacy with police facilitated impunity and mindless violence is the reality on the streets on most Friday and Saturday nights in some cities. But forget all that - the real problem is people holding anarchist beliefs. Yeah, the police should *definitely* focus on that. And you should definitely help the state by snooping on any anarchists.

And the irony is that through such statements the state shows precisely why it is not a benign entity, and should be resisted, reduced in its size and scope if not dismantled completely.