I would like to offer a philosophical suggestion to activists. In short, if you want to prove your point, then attack your opponent's strongest position. If you can show this position to be flawed, then any weaker position will be seen as flawed as well. On the other hand, if you attack a weaker position of your opponent, then a stronger position held by your opponent may escape unscathed (so to speak) and you will still have work to do.
Take as an example the executions of Troy Davis and Lawrence Russell Brewer, both of which occurred on the same day Sept. 21, 2011.
My critique here is aimed at those activists who are against the death penalty, but it can be helpful to all activists who want to show the flaws in the position of their opponents. First, let me clarify that probably not everyone who protested the execution of Troy Davis is against capital punishment, per se. It is likely that some individuals who protested the execution of Troy Davis were not protesting the death penalty, per se, but were simply protesting the execution of an individual they believed to be innocent. Nonetheless, it is certain that those who are actively against the death penalty use Troy Davis' execution as a prime example of why the death penalty as a form of punishment should be ended.
My statement to those who employ Davis' execution as a prime example against capital punishment is this: you may be using the wrong execution to make your point.
On the same day that Davis was executed another individual was executed, Lawrence Russell Brewer. We did not hear much about the injustice of this execution. Who was Lawrence Brewer anyway? Lawrence Brewer was the self-proclaimed white supremacist that participated in the dragging death of James Byrd an African-American (Jasper,Texas 06-07-1998).
Of course there was no question as to the guilt of Brewer. He did this horrendous evil and did not regret it.
(http://www.kfdm.com/articles/lawrence-44888-russell-brewer.html) If there ever was a strong position to be put forth in favor of the death penalty it is the death of Lawrence Russell Brewer. Here is an individual who not only admitted his crime, but had no remorse. Here is potentially the best argument in favor of the death penalty and it drew virtually no coverage in the media in support of abolishing the death penalty. This is not to say that no one protested the death of Brewer, but the protest was minimal.
On the other hand, the execution of Troy Davis is not a strong example of why the death penalty should remain in force. This is especially the case if Davis was in fact innocent. If Davis was innocent then it would be strange to hear an argument that he should die anyway. Even supporters of the death penalty would presumably not make such an argument. The problem with using the Davis execution as support for abolishing the death penalty is that the argument can slip from a discussion of why the death penalty, per se, should be abolished to a discussion about how to avoid executing innocent people. Even those who support the death penalty would be on board with not executing innocent people. In other words, using the Davis execution as an example of why the death penalty should be abolished is not going to gain much ground for activists who are against the death penalty. However, if activists against the death penalty could show why executing Russell Brewer was an act of injustice, then great gains could be achieved.
Philosophically, we are discussing the informal fallacy of the "straw man." There are a number of versions of this fallacy. Here, we are talking about attacking the weaker position of an opponent while ignoring a stronger one. The execution of Davis being the weaker position of the supporters of the death penalty, while the execution of Brewer being the stronger position. So I will state my philosophical suggestion to activists again: if you want to show the flaws in your opponents' position, then attack their strongest point.
Counterpoint:
It may be the case that some people are against the death penalty not because they believe it is unjust, but because of the potential for executing innocent people. In this case, Troy Davis' execution may be the best example for arguing against the death penalty. However, those who favor the death penalty may argue that the solution is not to abolish the death penalty, but finding ways to ensure that only guilty individuals are executed. The problem with that assertion is...the advocate of the death penalty eventually will be forced to show that the benefits of the death penalty are such that the possibility of executing some innocent people (even if very few) is preferable to no death penalty at all. I am not sure how one would make such an argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment