Capital Punishment Throughout the World - thorough analysis of legal policies

Perhaps the most famous instance of capital punishment in western antiquity was of the philosopher Socrates in 399 BCE. Accused of “corrupting the youth” after a lifetime of teaching, Socrates was condemned to death by drinking hemlock by one of the most democratic states that ever existed (Linder, 2002). While the execution was within the laws of that state in that time, this case highlights well the ethical issues surrounding capital punishment that are still hotly debated today (Nails, 2009).

The death penalty, also called capital punishment, refers to a sentence of death pronounced by a legal body under which the individual is subject. In legal theory, capital punishment can be considered legal or ethical for capital offenses. Capital offenses are simply crimes which are punishable by death (ALM Media, 2011).

The first recorded capital punishment laws are dated to the Code of King Hamamurabi in the 1700s BCE. Early death sentences employed brutal means, including crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, impalement, boiling, burning at the stake, hanging, beheading, and drawing and quartering (Michigan, 2004). Drawing and quartering was a particularly elaborate and gruesome method, intended to produce fear in traitors, for whom it was reserved. Convicts would be dragged through the street by a horse, hanged until almost dead, then castrated and disemboweled, then beheaded, then pulled apart into four pieces by horses. This practice was not legally eradicated until 1867 (New World Encyclopedia, 2011)

Half of the countries in the world currently have laws abolishing the death penalty. 25% of the countries in the world maintain the death penalty, but have not executed anyone for over 10 years. 21% have an active death penalty, and 4% allow the death penalty only under rare extenuating circumstances (Contributers, 2011). Some of the most controversial death sentences are given to persons under the age of 18 (Contributers, 2011). Since 1990, only Iran has executed more children than the United States (Amnesty International, 2011).

In 2007, the UN general assembly accepted a moratorium on the death penalty, pending abolishment. However many nations did not follow this moratorium, including the United States (UN News Service, 2007).

History of the Death Penalty in the United States

        George Kendall was the first known person to be executed in the United States. Accused of mutiny, spreading discord, and spying for the Spanish at the British colony of Jamestown, he was shot by a firing squad in either December of 1607 or early 1608 (Green, 2005).

In England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, rape, treason, murder, robbery, burglary, arson, theft, and counterfeiting were considered capital crimes and were punishable by death. These capital crimes were adopted by the American colonies and accepted as worthy of capital punishment until the late eighteenth century. The common view of the time was that the death penalty should be applied when only the most severe crimes were committed. It was not taken lightly by colonial Americans. The severity of crimes was organized into a hierarchy which is still in place today. The main difference between the death penalty prior to the eighteenth century and the modern death penalty is that religious beliefs allowed Colonial Americans to identify the death penalty as an acceptable punishment for a wider range of crimes (Banner, 2002)..

In 1642 Massachusetts deemed robbery, on the third offense, a capital crime. By 1711 Massachusetts lowered the crime threshold to two counts of robbery and in 1761 one count of robbery was considered a capital crime. New Hampshire was also part of this trend. In Pennsylvania, prior to 1781, only murder was considered a capital crime. The imperial government became involved and put pressure on Pennsylvania to expand the scope of capital crime to include rape, highway robbery, manslaughter, witchcraft, arson, sodomy, and maiming. In the late eighteenth century the list of capital crimes grew to include things like unlawfully living on Indian land, counterfeiting, and breaking out of prison (Banner, 2002).

Though crimes were constantly being added to the list of capital crimes, many colonies did not implement the death penalty for these crimes for many years. For example, Pennsylvania waited 18 years after burglary was considered a capital crime to actually hang someone for it. However, by the end of the colonial period, the number of people put to death for capital crimes had skyrocketed. Racism became formally incorporated into American capital statutes when New York adopted a law in 1712 that only applied to black individuals. This law stated that black slaves who tried to commit murder or rape could be punished by death. Colonies, particularly Southern colonies, continued to add more and more capital crimes that only applied to black individuals in hopes that they could better manage the slave workforce (Banner, 2002).

Death Penalty Reform in the United States

Numerous court decisions have had a reformative role upon capital punishment and the definition of capital offenses. Over time there have been several trends. Capital punishment crimes have been refined to only the most severe. Life imprisonment has replaced the death penalty in many parts of the country and for many crimes which were previously reserved for the death penalty (Michigan, 2004). Execution methods have become somewhat more “humane” over time, with an increasing number of lethal injections (Springston, 2009).

In the landmark US Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia (1972), the majority of death penalty laws in the United States were invalidated. The eighth amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment was found to be at odds with the capital punishment. All but two supreme court opinions concluded the there were no situations in which capital punishment would be constitutional. As a result, nearly all of the death row inmates in the US were given lifetime sentences instead. It was five years before another person was executed in the US. Since then, many hundreds of people have been executed (Green, 2005). Three of those people were hung, 155 electrocuted, 11 were gassed, and two were shot by firing squad (Springston, 2009).

Death penalty cases in the United States are notorious for being incorrect or overturned. Since 1976 in the United States, more than one hundred people have been executed who were later found to be not guilty (Pew Trusts, 2010). Currently there are over 3200 inmates on death row (Contributers, 2011). If history is any predictor of the future, as many as 2000 of those inmates may have their sentences overturned (Pew Trusts, 2010).

---

Policy Analysis        

In analyzing the death penalty policy, this section examines four main factors that occur as part of its implementation: recent trends and demographic factors, how equitable it is, the economic costs, and the pros and cons of the policy.

Although the death penalty has typically been reserved for convicted murderers, public opinion supporting capital punishment has waxed and waned over the past 70 years, hitting a low of 42 percent in 1966 and a high of 80 percent in 1994 (Mancini & Mears, 2010). In the past decade, the level of support has hovered at approximately 65 percent (Saad, 2008).  In the 1990’s, support for the death penalty  reached an all time high, largely because of the intense media coverage of violent crimes and a false sense that the crime rate was rapidly increasing (Ladd, 1997).  Other factors that may have contributed to this change in public attitude towards the death penalty are the public’s fear of crime, the public’s belief that the death penalty is a means of deterring crime, the victim’s desire for retribution and the public’s concern with crime control (Wallace, 1989).

The two main groups of people who support the death penalty are those who believe that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime and those who think that there is a need for a public vengeance for victims.  Research has indicated that of those who favor the death penalty, only a majority of people do so primarily because they anticipate that capital punishment will deter criminals (Wallace, 1989).  Furthermore, research has also shown that law enforcement officials do not consider the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime, and ranked the death penalty as the least cost effective way of reducing violent crimes (Worsnop, 1995).

A large amount of attention has also been focused on social and demographic divides in support of the death penalty.  Most studies find a race effect, and Whites, relative to other racial and ethnic groups, reporting greater levels of support for capital punishment of homicide offenders (Messner, Baumer, & Rosenfeld, 2006). Males, too , typically report greater levels of support for such punishment as compared to females (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher).  Lower educational attainment also has been found to be associated with grater support for the death penalty (Fox, Radelet, & Bonsteel, 1991). Finally, because retribution and deterrence feature as prominent themes in some religious doctrines, research also indicates that conservative or fundamentalist Protestant membership is associated with this “ultimate” sanction (Britt, 1998).

Following the social divides, geography also plays a role not only in public support, but also with executions.  Eighty two percent of the 1132 executions that occurred in the United States between 1976 and 2008 took place in ten sates, all from the South (Hull, 2010).  Among the counties in the United States, only one-third have ever sentenced someone to death, and among this one-third, only three percent, 92 out of 3,066 counties, account for half the people eventually executed (Hull, 2010).  Almost all are in the South.   In addition, there are differences within states on the percentage of people being condemned to death, following rural and urban lines.  For example, in Georgia, four people are condemned to death per 1000 homicides in Fulton County (Atlanta), compared to 33 in rural Muscogee County, a difference of more than 70 percent. Texas, however, is the leader in executions.  Since 1977 it has administered over 37 percent of all executions in the United States.  Of the 84 that took place in 2008, 37 occurred in the Lobe Star State. When George Bush was governor, Texas also executed roughly 25 people a year, with a grand total of 40 in 2000.

In analyzing this policy, it is also clear that race and gender are factors, and that the policy is not equitable.  The Black population in the United States is over represented in the death machine from indictment to execution. A large body of research supports the fact that Black defendants receive death sentences at far greater rates than White defendants (Baldus & Woodworth, 1998; Bowers, 1984). In addition, African Americans have been put to death more than White Americans for the same crime (Gottesman & Brown, 1999). Bright (1995), states that although African Americans make up only 12 percent of the population, they have been victims in about half of the total homicides in the country in the last 25 years.  In some states in the South, African Americans are the victims of over 60 percent of the murders. Yet, 85 percent of the cases in which the death penalty has been carried out have involved White victims.  In addition, White defendants are rarely executed when their victims are Black (Deiter, 1998).

Another factor that should be considered is gender.  According to recent research, women have accounted for only 3 percent of the total confirmed executions in the USA since 1932, and only 10 female offenders have been executed in the past 25 years (Death Penalty Information Center, 2004).  In contrast, 83 male offenders were executed in the USA in the year 2000.  The major reason for this difference in numbers is simple: historically only a small percentage of women have committed violent crimes in the USA (Gottesman & Brown, 1999).

Consequently, the likelihood that the fate of death penalty defendants from minority groups is decided by either juries of their peers or actual representatives is highly suspect in death penalty cases (Shroeder, Chaisson, & Pogue, 2005).  The racial make up of juries is often not representative of the communities in which the defendant resides or with which they identify (Shroeder, Chaisson, & Pogue, 2005).  Research suggests that White jurors are more likely to convict Black defendants (Sweeney & Haney, 1992), often appear to be unable or unwilling to consider the defendant’s background and upbringing, and are more likely to impose the death penalty.

In terms of equity, innocent people have also been executed.  Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated, at least eight, and possibly as many as 23 innocent people have been executed for crimes they did not commit (Hull, 2010).  Many more innocent people have come within a hair’s breath of execution.  Since 1976, at least 176 people have been released from death row after exculpatory evidence surfaced.  This is roughly one exoneration for every nine executions (Death Penalty Information Center, 204).

Economically, the death penalty is escaping the decisive cost benefit analysis to which every other program is being put to in modern times.  Every cost study in the U.S shows that the death penalty is far more expensive than a system where the maximum penalty is life in prison (Deiter, 1999). Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials.   Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity of two trials—one on guilt and one on sentencing, make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeal process begins (Deiter, 1999).  Guilty please are almost unheard of when the punishment is death, and in addition, many of these trials result in life sentencing, rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the costs of an expensive trial and the cost of life imprisonment.

Although there is no national figure for the cost of the death penalty, every state is dependent on that state’s laws, pay scales, and the extent to which it uses the death penalty.  The high costs to the state however reflect the following reality: for a single death penalty trial, the state may pay $1 million more for a non-death penalty trial.  But only one in every three capital trials may result in a death sentence, so the true cost of that death sentence is $3 million.  Further, only one on ten of the death sentences handed down may result in execution. Hence, the cost to that sate to reach that one execution is $30 million (Deiter, 1999).  This figure may also be very conservative. For example, in California, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice released a report in 2008, stating that the state was spending $137 million per year on the death penalty.  The Commission estimated that sentencing the same inmates to life without parole would only cost 1.5 million a year. Since the number of executions in California has averaged less than one every two years since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977, the cost for each execution is over $250 million (CCFAJ, 2008).

At the local level, local governments often bear the brunt of capital punishment costs and are particularly burdened.  While state and national politicians promote the death penalty, the county government is typically responsible for the costs of prosecution and the costs of the criminal trial.  In some cases, the county is also responsible for the costs of defending the indigent (Deiter, 1999).  Since counties are also the primary deliverers of local health and human services in the public sector, hard choices have to be made among the demands of providing essential services, and the vigorous pursuit of a few death penalty cases (Deiter, 1999).

        For taxpayers in states that employ the death penalty, the costs come at a high price.  For example, in Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years (Deiter, 1999).  In Florida, each execution is costing the state 3.2 million.  Finally, in California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing the capital punishment (CCFAJ, 2008).

        In examining the pros and cons of the death penalty, it has already been mentioned that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime.  The main argument for it is the need for a public vengeance for victims.  Public officials use the argument for the death penalty to be tough on crime. Candidates use the death penalty as a facile solution to crime which distinguishes themselves by the toughness of their position rather than the effectiveness (Deiter, 1999).

        On the other hand, there are many reasons why the death penalty policy should be re-examined both at the federal and state levels.  It is costly, not equitable for the individuals sentenced to death, and innocent individuals have been executed as a result.

Conclusion

        The death penalty policy, based on the analysis, needs to be reconsidered for a variety of reasons.  One of the primary reasons is that it is not effective, and from a cost/benefit analysis, fails to prove that it is a better alternative than life imprisonment.  Politicians choose style over substance in their support for the death penalty. Campaign rhetoric becomes legislative policy with no analysis of whether the expense will produce any good for the people (Deiter, 1999).  The death penalty, in short, has not been examined from a cost/benefit analysis as other policies have.  In addition, it is unethical, and discriminates against minorities and the poor, who are the majority of people waiting execution.  Proponents of the policy may try to cut down on the costs of the death penalty by curtailing the appeals process, and limiting trial expenses.  However, the first interferes with a critical part of the death penalty process and could result in the execution of innocent defendants, and the second could end up costing more than the current system (Deiter, 1999).  Although many people may believe that appeals process is wasteful, it actually does not constitute most of the death penalty’s costs.  In a cost study conducted by Duke University, trial costs in North Carolina made up over four times the appeals costs for each death sentenced imposed (Hull, 2010).

References

ALM Media. (2011). Capital punishment / capital offense. Legal Dictionary of Law.com. Retrieved May 05, 2011, from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=132

Amnesty International. (2011). Executions of juveniles since 1990. Amnesty International. Retrieved May 05, 2011, from http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/executions-of-child-offenders-since-1990

Applegate, B.K., Cullen, F.T., & Fisher, B.S. (2002). Public views toward crime and

correctional policies: is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89-

100.

Baldus, D.D., & Woodworth, G. (1998). Race discrimination and the death penalty: an

empirical and legal overview. In Acker, J., (Ed.) America’s experiment with

capital punishment (pp. 385-416). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Banner, S. (2002). The death penalty: an American history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bowers, W.J. (1984). The pervasiveness of arbitrariness and discrimination under post-

furman capital statutes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 1067-

1088.

Bright, S.A. (1995). Discrimination, death and denial: the tolerance of racial

discrimination in the infliction of the death penalty. Santa Clara Law Review, 35,

433-483.

Britt, C.L. (1998). Race, religion, and support for the death penalty: a research note.

Justice Quarterly, 15, 175-191.

California Commission of Fair Administration and Justice (CCFAJ) (2008). Official

recommendations on the fair administration of the death penalty. Http://

www.ccfaj.org/rr-dp-official.html.

Contributers. (2011, May 1). Use of capital punishment by nation. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

Death Penalty Information Center (2004). Race and the death penalty .http://deathpenalty

Info.org.

Deiter, R.C. (1998). The death penalty in black and white: who lives, who dies, who

decides. Death Penalty Information Center. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

article.php?scid=45&did=539.

Deiter, R.C., (1999). Smart on crime: reconsidering the death penalty in a time of

Economic crisis. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Drawing and quartering. (2011). New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 01, 2011, from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Drawing_and_quartering

Fox, J.A., Radelet, M.L., & Bonsteel, J.L. (1991). Death penalty opinion in the post-

furman years. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 18, 499-

528.

Gottesman, R. & Brown, R.M. (1999). “Capital Punishment”, in Violence in America:

An Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, pp. 198-203. New York: Gale Group.

Green, M. S. (2005, May). History of the Death Penalty & Recent Developments. UAA Justice Center. Retrieved May 05, 2011, from http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/history.html

Hull, E. (2010). Guilty on all counts: the death penalty in the United States. Social Policy, Winter, 11-25.

Ladd, E.C. (1997). Crime and punishment: an American odyssey. Public Perspective, 8,

10-12.

Linder, D. (2002). The Trial of Socrates: An Account. UMKC School of Law. Retrieved May 01, 2011, from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html

Discussion of Kohlberg's six stages of moral development

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation

Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished.”


Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinz’s theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. For example, a child might say, "Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it's not like he stole something big; he won't get punished.” Even though the child agrees with Heinz’s action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern is with what authorities permit and punish.


Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange

At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. "Heinz," they might point out, "might think it's right to take the drug, the druggist would not." Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests. One boy said that Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesn't have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better-looking. Another boy said Heinz might steal it because maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn't steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he could stand.


What is right for Heinz, then, is what meets his own self-interests.


You might have noticed that children at both stages 1 and 2 talk about punishment. However, they perceive it differently. At stage 1 punishment is tied up in the child's mind with wrongness; punishment "proves" that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, in contrast, punishment is simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoid.


Although stage 2 respondents sometimes sound amoral, they do have some sense of right action. This is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals. The philosophy is one of returning favors--"If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." To the Heinz story, subjects often say that Heinz was right to steal the drug because the druggist was unwilling to make a fair deal; he was "trying to rip Heinz off," Or they might say that he should steal for his wife "because she might return the favor some day.”


Respondents at stage 2 are still said to reason at the preconventional level because they speak as isolated individuals rather than as members of society. They see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the values of the family or community.

Level II. Conventional Morality

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships

At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because "He was a good man for wanting to save her," and "His intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves." Even if Heinz doesn't love his wife, these subjects often say, he should steal the drug because "I don't think any husband should sit back and watch his wife die.”


If Heinz’s motives were good, the druggist's were bad. The druggist, stage 3 subjects emphasize, was "selfish," "greedy," and "only interested in himself, not another life." Sometimes the respondents become so angry with the druggist that they say that he ought to be put in jail. A typical stage 3 response is that of Don, age 13:


It was really the druggist's fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I don't think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was charging too much.
We see that Don defines the issue in terms of the actors' character traits and motives. He talks about the loving husband, the unfair druggist, and the understanding judge. His answer deserves the label "conventional "morality" because it assumes that the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire community—"anyone" would be right to do what Heinz did.


As mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Kohlberg's first three stages and Piaget's two stages. In both sequences there is a shift from unquestioning obedience to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. For Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order

Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story, many subjects say they understand that Heinz's motives were good, but they cannot condone the theft. What would happen if we all started breaking the laws whenever we felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos; society couldn't function. As one subject explained,

I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework.

Because stage 4, subjects make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole, they think from a full-fledged member-of-society perspective.


You will recall that stage 1 children also generally oppose stealing because it breaks the law. Superficially, stage 1 and stage 4 subjects are giving the same response, so we see here why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into the reasoning behind the overt response. Stage 1 children say, "It's wrong to steal" and "It's against the law," but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole--a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.

Level III. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights

At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. They are said to take a "prior-to-society" perspective.


Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all. They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.


In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage 5 respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wife’s right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage 5 respondent sometimes defend Heinz’s theft in strong language:

It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property.

This young man went on to say that "from a moral standpoint" Heinz should save the life of even a stranger, since to be consistent, the value of a life means any life. When asked if the judge should punish Heinz, he replied:

Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly.

Stage 5 subjects,- then, talk about "morality" and "rights" that take some priority over particular laws. Kohlberg insists, however, that we do not judge people to be at stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their social perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, subjects frequently talk about the "right to life," but for them this right is legitimized by the authority of their social or religious group (e.g., by the Bible). Presumably, if their group valued property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making more of an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value. They often reason, for example, that property has little meaning without life. They are trying to determine logically what a society ought to be like.

Stage 6: Universal Principles

Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.
Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.


In actual practice, Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions by looking at a situation through one another's eyes. In the Heinz dilemma, this would mean that all parties--the druggist, Heinz, and his wife--take the roles of the others. To do this in an impartial manner, people can assume a "veil of ignorance, acting as if they do not know which role they will eventually occupy. If the druggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority over property; for he wouldn't want to risk finding himself in the wife's shoes with property valued over life. Thus, they would all agree that the wife must be saved--this would be the fair solution. Such a solution, we must note, requires not only impartiality, but the principle that everyone is given full and equal respect. If the wife were considered of less value than the others, a just solution could not be reached.


Until recently, Kohlberg had been scoring some of his subjects at stage 6, but he has temporarily stopped doing so, For one thing, he and other researchers had not been finding subjects who consistently reasoned at this stage. Also, Kohlberg has concluded that his interview dilemmas are not useful for distinguishing between stage 5 and stage 6 thinking. He believes that stage 6 has a clearer and broader conception of universal principles (which include justice as well as individual rights), but feels that his interview fails to draw out this broader understanding. Consequently, he has temporarily dropped stage 6 from his scoring manual, calling it a "theoretical stage" and scoring all postconventional responses as stage 5.


Theoretically, one issue that distinguishes stage 5 from stage 6 is civil disobedience. Stage 5 would be more hesitant to endorse civil disobedience because of its commitment to the social contract and to changing laws through democratic agreements. Only when an individual right is clearly at stake does violating the law seem justified. At stage 6, in contrast, a commitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and broader. Martin Luther King, for example, argued that laws are only valid insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. King also recognized, of course, the general need for laws and democratic processes (stages 4 and 5), and he was therefore willing to accept the penalities for his actions. Nevertheless, he believed that the higher principle of justice required civil disobedience.

Summary

At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.


At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.


At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.