The Death Penalty - Should it be abolished?

Hi edgar,
he or she is just not getting the point!
Personally, if I were a convicted killer, I'd prefer the death penalty over 40 years of no freedom, and daily smackdowns or anal rape by bigger inmates, anyway. But that's just me! I don't think either "choice" is a picnic for a convict. I think life in prison is an appropriate price to pay.

The Death Penalty is morally acceptable, but it is not politically acceptible.

The State should not have the authority to kill its citizens, but that doesn't mean that retribution is immoral.

The fact that the State has and will continue to execute innocent victims doesn't make the Death Penalty immoral.

If one argues that the Death Penalty is acceptible if guilt could be unquestionably proven, one cannot also argue that it is barbaric and immoral.

If one believes that a life spent in prison is worse than death, one cannot argue that the Death Penalty is barbaric and immoral.

When someone kills another human being they forfeit their right to their own life. As no punishment, including death, can bring back the person who has had all they were and all they ever would be stolen from them, the only morally acceptible punishment for the person is to share the loss they have imposed on their victim.

A society that has made a commitment to rule by law cannot allow its citizens to mete out retribution, but this does not mean that it is immoral for someone to kill the murderer of a loved one.

It is primitive, but then so is sex, and caring for children and forming social groups.

Are you so sure that we have improved ourselves in every way since the stone age?

I have a hard time thinking of the death penalty as 'retribution'. I see it as enforcing the law:
--If you are convicted of jaywalking, the penalty is a $10 fine.
--If you are convicted of speeding in a school zone, the penalty is a $100 fine and a 3-point violation on your drivers' license.
--If you are convicted of driving drunk and killing somebody, the penalty is loss of your driver's license, loss of your vehicle, and up to X numbers of months or years in jail.
--Armed robbery gets you 10 to 20, but
--If you plan and carry out a cruel, senseless, brutal murder, the penalty is death.

So long as the laws are on the books and available to the citizens, enforcement becomes a necessary and right thing and is not punishment or vindictiveness.

Statistics are mixed on whether the death penalty is a deterrant to violent crime, but there are instances where it has been shown to be a deterrant. Perhaps the defense that 'if only a few lives are saved' it is worth it might apply here.

And I didn't try to find a study on it, but I would guess that given a choice between a quick and painless death and life imprisonment with no hope of parole, 99% of convicted murderers would chose life imprisonment.

foxfyre said

That's a meaningless differentiation. Where did hanging/roasting/poisoning by prison officials come from, a random penalty-generating computer program?

This is about as true as saying that the evidence of small cars being less safe than humvees is mixed. There is no balance and nothing near a balance in the studies done on this question.

How so?

I suppose if one thinks of the Death Penalty as a tool of the State, then I understand your point, but if one sees it as punishing the transgressor by delivering death, than it is, clearly, retribution.

I believe in my example that a just society governed by laws can include the death penalty for certain kinds of crime. The jaywalker, the speeding driver, the drunk driver, and the bank robber all know they risk specific consequences when they choose to break the law. It should be no different for those who intentionally inflict great pain, suffering, and death on an innocent victim.

If there are no consequences for a choice to disobey the law, then there is no law at all. Law enforcement is less a process of punishing the wrong doer and more a process of applying consequences spelled out in the law itself.

Added thought: If the consequences for killing a potential witness are not more severe than the crime minus the killing, where is the incentive not to kill? Or is inflicting great pain, suffering, and death on an innocent victim the only crime that merits life imprisonment with no hope of parole?

As soon as I saw this thread, I thought to myself that I could create a list of those who would argue against the abolution of the death penalty. So far I'm at 100%.

You would have the same batting average with an opposite list, I bet.

a society that uses the death penalty indicates a lack of moral judgement; a society must demonstrate by example that it is willing to operate on the ethical level it expects from its citizens; otherwise, it is a society that has not matured.

The death penalty is necessary as a punishment for those who decide it is within their rights to kill another. Second it is necessary to serve as a deterrant.
To look at from another point of view, i.e. ignore the moral side of the issue: it ultimately saves taxpayers' money. It costs upwards of $30k a year to keep each prisoner.
It is necessary for the government to be able to rid our streets of these people who disrupt society and destroy countless lives.

And to the families of those wrongly convicted and executed you say what? "Sorry, your loss was necessary"?

Oh, and I suppose it's within rights of members of jury or judges to decide that someone should be killed, and it's within rights of executioner to kill another?
You cannot possibly in the same time think that no one is allowed to kill and that death penalty is okay....

In fact, my beliefs are not contradictory. If someone decides that its within their rights to kill someone, then it is within the goverment's rights to end their life. These murderers are low-lifes, contribute nothing to society, and therefore do not deserve to live.

so, killing is forbidden unless you kill - in that case killing circle can start?
And, does it mean that members of jury, judges and lawyers that made incrredibly lousy job and cause innocent person to be executed should be killed also? Or at least serve long-time sentence?

You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but I still think they are contradictory.
And as someone correctly pointed out before, killing someone is not only way to rid our streets of such people.
And with spending much bigger amounts of tax money for killing people in countries unfortunate enough to have oil, I don't mind taking some more for prisons instead of more killing.

Well, I'll admit that neither way is a perfect solution. I, however, still think that those who are proven guilty of horrendous crimes (murder, etc.) should be put to death. I do acknowledge that there have been numerous people who, unfortunately, have been put to death for something that they never did in the first place. Dont get me wrong, in no way do I find such occurences acceptable. However, I do think, taking into account the fact that it costs more than many people make in a year to house and feed these criminals, and taking into account the fact that these people do nothing but tear at the fabric of society, that some people deserve to be put to death. Can you honestly state that you feel bad for a person such as Timothy McVeigh (extreme case, but still) when he is sentenced to death?

Well, truth is that I can't say that I feel bad for Timothy McVeigh, that would be too much of course - difference is that if in some crazy scenario I was one that was choosing his sentence I wouldn't choose death, and also I would never kill him.
Of course, on the other hand, I am strongly for life sentence without parole or absolutely any chance of sentenced criminal to ever walk out of prison.

I think also that it's worth mentioning that USA is ONLY modern and civilized country (I don't mean to offend others with that, but USA is civilized society in every meaning, unlike others in that story -at least, some of them, if civilized in other meanings, are under close minded and non-democratic religious or political government) with death penalty - others are countries like Congo, Nigeria, China, Iran or North Korea.

Many anti death penalty people, such as myself, have absolutely no sympathy for guilty killers. That charge has no bearing on the decision to oppose it. It is simply not necessary for society to be another killer to get the same result as the death penalty - Confining these people for the rest of their natural lives removes their ability ever to strike again. You cannot undo the damage they have caused by killing them anyway. Confinement instead of death makes a mistaken conviction at least partially reversable, something you won't get with executions.

No matter how well the argument for a death penalty gets destructed, there will remain a certain primal blood lust that no amount of reasoning will dispel. I acknowledge this and so move on.

My only thoughts are that if the death penalty were effective then perhaps it would have some merit. But there is no correlation between putting a person to death and the deterrence of crime.

In addition, as a victim of a crime that carries the death penalty, I can say that the death of the perpetrator would not bring me any resolutions. My loved one is still dead.