Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[juniper_ann]

This argument is just sickening, you are basing the decision to end a human's life on an economic cost analysis. The argument may be emotionally appealing to some people, if you really think about it, this is as immoral as it comes.

I have two reasons to be against the death penalty.

My first reason is that the legal system should be about justice not revenge. The death penalty is a way to "get even", the legal system should not be about "getting even", it should be about punishment fitting to the crime.

While putting a price tag on a life is instinctively repulsive, it is something that people have to do every day. Your car could be an impenetrable fortress, guaranteed to protect you from any conceivable wreck. However, you probably wouldn't be willing or able to pay for such a car, nor to put gas in it. In other words, your life (and your kids’ lives) is not worth an infinite amount of money to you. Money is a measure of something more valuable--time. If the average person earns a million dollars in a lifetime, then every million dollars spent on feeding criminals (or subsidizing dialysis, for that matter) represents a lifetime not spent exploring one’s hobbies, playing with one’s kids, enjoying nature, etc.

I, also, think that revenge should never, ever be a primary function of the legal system. However, I am more willing to pragmatically deny the rights of a criminal than those of a law-abiding citizen—which is sort of a passive form of revenge.

Personally, I would feel best served by a justice system that vastly preferred imprisonment over the death penalty, but which was ready and willing to use the death penalty on people who could be shown (beyond a reasonable doubt) to continue to threaten society while in jail. So in my ideal world, “murder” is not a capital crime, but “conspiracy to murder while in prison” is.

 

[Puppycow]

This argument is just sickening, you are basing the decision to end a human's life on an economic cost analysis. The argument may be emotionally appealing to some people, if you really think about it, this is as immoral as it comes.

I have two reasons to be against the death penalty.

My first reason is that the legal system should be about justice not revenge. The death penalty is a way to "get even", the legal system should not be about "getting even", it should be about punishment fitting to the crime.

The second reason, and maybe the most important one, is that the death penalty is irreversable. We all know how many people are now getting released even after 20 years, because new pieces of evidence, or new methods to look at evidence have become available. Had these people been put to death, this would have been institutionalized murder of innocent people. Since the legal system cannot garantuee a 100% aquital rate of innocents, it should not have the death penalty included in it's list of penalties.

What exactly is the difference between 'justice' and 'revenge'?

 

[Wolfman]

Matteo,

Sorry, but your argument is not valid, regardless of whether one is pro or anti capital punishment.

I could use your argument to argue that just imprisoning someone is wrong. I would just use exactly the same story, but instead of going and killing this guy, instead I kidnap him and imprison him in my basement for 30 years.

Such action would be both morally wrong, and illegal. That does not mean that therefore imprisoning a person is morally wrong.

There is a huge difference between judgments and punishments that are carried out by the state, and judgments and punishments that are carried out by individuals. It is legal and proper for the government to seize property from you in lieu of unpaid debts; it is illegal and improper for you to steal property from someone else who owes you money. It is legal and proper for the government to imprison a person who has broken the law; it is illegal and improper for you to abduct and imprison a person on your own.

The question of whether or not capital punishment is proper or not is a valid and interesting debate, with a wide range of opinions and arguments; but I'm afraid that your particular example adds nothing to the debate whatsoever.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is a huge difference between judgments and punishments that are carried out by the state, and judgments and punishments that are carried out by individuals. It is legal and proper for the government to seize property from you in lieu of unpaid debts; it is illegal and improper for you to steal property from someone else who owes you money. It is legal and proper for the government to imprison a person who has broken the law; it is illegal and improper for you to abduct and imprison a person on your own.

How is it proper for a state to have to power to legally kill its own citizens? Especially when the killing has such a racial slant, and is applied arbitrarily, depending on the current public mood?

Think about this: If the state can legally take your life, it doesn't matter what rights you have. Your rights are only a sham.

 

[Wolfman]

How is it proper for a state to have to power to legally kill its own citizens? Especially when the killing has such a racial slant, and is applied arbitrarily, depending on the current public mood?

Think about this: If the state can legally take your life, it doesn't matter what rights you have. Your rights are only a sham.

I'm not arguing that capital punishment is right or wrong here. Only stating that the argument being used in the OP is not a valid argument to demonstrate that it is wrong.

There are numerous arguments to be made on both sides of the equation. I could just as easily state that if the state has the right to seize all your property, and deprive you of freedom, then it doesn't matter what rights you have, your rights are only a sham.

And you refer to capital punishment as having "such a racial slant"; obviously, you are not discussing the moral issue of "capital punishment" in general, but rather the specific application of capital punishment in the United States. I assure you that capital punishment in China, for example, has pretty much no racial basis whatsoever...which would, again, render your argument entirely invalid in regards to an overall discussion of whether capital punishment is moral or not.

I'm not arguing for or against capital punishment as such; only pointing out that the argument upon which this entire debate is premised, that in the OP, is flawed. Come up with a better foundation for the argument, and I'll be happy to jump in with my own position on the matter.

 

[SomeGuy]

What exactly is the difference between 'justice' and 'revenge'?

If you don't know you need a better moral compass.

 

[yairhol]

This argument is just sickening, you are basing the decision to end a human's life on an economic cost analysis. The argument may be emotionally appealing to some people, if you really think about it, this is as immoral as it comes.

I have two reasons to be against the death penalty.

My first reason is that the legal system should be about justice not revenge. The death penalty is a way to "get even", the legal system should not be about "getting even", it should be about punishment fitting to the crime.

The second reason, and maybe the most important one, is that the death penalty is irreversable. We all know how many people are now getting released even after 20 years, because new pieces of evidence, or new methods to look at evidence have become available. Had these people been put to death, this would have been institutionalized murder of innocent people. Since the legal system cannot garantuee a 100% aquital rate of innocents, it should not have the death penalty included in it's list of penalties.

You preferred reading only part of what I wrote.
IMO, taking the lives of others by intention or in other words stripping them of their right to live should deprive that person from the right of living, getting married and having children. In addition, it is sickening to think that I will be paying the meals of this person for the next 30 or so years.
Like Junniper said, would you pay A LOT to save your family from a pausible car crash or not?
Are you still sick now?

Regards,
Yair

 

[Matteo Martini]

The thing is, the scenario you posed has nothing to do with the moral rightness of the death penalty, so your point 1) and point 2) are not related.

Do not worry if it is related or not.
This is just part I
Please, answer

 

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo,

Sorry, but your argument is not valid, regardless of whether one is pro or anti capital punishment.

I could use your argument to argue that just imprisoning someone is wrong. I would just use exactly the same story, but instead of going and killing this guy, instead I kidnap him and imprison him in my basement for 30 years.

Such action would be both morally wrong, and illegal.

If you consider capital punishment as valid, why would be such an action be considered as " wrong "?

 

[Wolfman]

If you consider capital punishment as valid, why would be such an action be considered as " wrong "?

I might as well ask you, "If you consider imprisoning someone as valid, why would the action of abducting and holding someone in your basement be wrong?". Or, "If you consider seizing a person's property to repay a debt is valid, why would the action of stealing property from someone who owes me money be wrong?"

I believe it is morally wrong for me to detain and imprison someone who has wronged me; that doesn't automatically mean that I believe it is morally wrong for the government to detain and imprison people.

I believe it is morally wrong for me to steal another person's property because they owe me money; that doesn't automatically mean that it is morally wrong for the government to seize a person's property in order to repay debts.

And believe it is morally wrong for me to execute another person; that doesn't automatically mean that it is wrong for the government to execute someone convicted of a specific crime. (Note -- I'm not saying that capital punishment is necessarily right or wrong; only that the correlation you are attempting to establish is false)

And please note -- I've asked a number of questions, and raised legitimate points, all of which you've failed to respond to, you just reply with another question that essentially re-states your initial argument, without adding anything new or addressing my argument. I've addressed your questions; if the only way you can defend your position is by avoiding my questions, you reveal just how weak your position is.

So, let me return the question -- let's see if you've got the testicular fortitude to answer it.

A person invades your home. They kill your wife, and rape your daughter. You know who did it, but in trial, that person is released due to lack of evidence. Now, if instead of killing that person, you go and kidnap that person, and imprison them in your basement for the next 30 or 40 years, do you believe that is moral, or that such behavior should be legal?

 

[Leif Roar]

Do not worry if it is related or not.
This is just part I
Please, answer

I did answer: I pointed out that the behaviour in the scenario was immoral because it was an example of vigilantism and was not morally justifiable.

It's nonsensical to use your scenario as background for discussing the morality of the death penalty because the morality of the death penalty is not relevant to your scenario: As I pointed out earlier, you could replace the killing of the criminal with his incarceration and the morality in the scenario would be unchanged.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not arguing that capital punishment is right or wrong here. Only stating that the argument being used in the OP is not a valid argument to demonstrate that it is wrong.

There are numerous arguments to be made on both sides of the equation. I could just as easily state that if the state has the right to seize all your property, and deprive you of freedom, then it doesn't matter what rights you have, your rights are only a sham.

There is a heck of a difference between seizing your property and freedom, and seizing your life. That's the biggest problem of having the death penalty: No retribution possible.

And you refer to capital punishment as having "such a racial slant"; obviously, you are not discussing the moral issue of "capital punishment" in general, but rather the specific application of capital punishment in the United States. I assure you that capital punishment in China, for example, has pretty much no racial basis whatsoever...which would, again, render your argument entirely invalid in regards to an overall discussion of whether capital punishment is moral or not.

How do you know that there isn't racial bias in China wrt the death penalty (you can call it that, instead of the lesser gruesome capital punishment)?

I'm not arguing for or against capital punishment as such; only pointing out that the argument upon which this entire debate is premised, that in the OP, is flawed. Come up with a better foundation for the argument, and I'll be happy to jump in with my own position on the matter.

If you can ask questions like these:

I might as well ask you, "If you consider imprisoning someone as valid, why would the action of abducting and holding someone in your basement be wrong?". Or, "If you consider seizing a person's property to repay a debt is valid, why would the action of stealing property from someone who owes me money be wrong?"

I believe it is morally wrong for me to detain and imprison someone who has wronged me; that doesn't automatically mean that I believe it is morally wrong for the government to detain and imprison people.

I believe it is morally wrong for me to steal another person's property because they owe me money; that doesn't automatically mean that it is morally wrong for the government to seize a person's property in order to repay debts.

And believe it is morally wrong for me to execute another person; that doesn't automatically mean that it is wrong for the government to execute someone convicted of a specific crime. (Note -- I'm not saying that capital punishment is necessarily right or wrong; only that the correlation you are attempting to establish is false)

And please note -- I've asked a number of questions, and raised legitimate points, all of which you've failed to respond to, you just reply with another question that essentially re-states your initial argument, without adding anything new or addressing my argument. I've addressed your questions; if the only way you can defend your position is by avoiding my questions, you reveal just how weak your position is.

So, let me return the question -- let's see if you've got the testicular fortitude to answer it.

A person invades your home. They kill your wife, and rape your daughter. You know who did it, but in trial, that person is released due to lack of evidence. Now, if instead of killing that person, you go and kidnap that person, and imprison them in your basement for the next 30 or 40 years, do you believe that is moral, or that such behavior should be legal?

you can answer this: Do you think it is proper for a state to have to power to legally kill its own citizens?

 

[Tricky]

Even if one agrees that the death penalty is wrong in this absurd scenario, the thread title is horribly misleading.

I support limited use of the death penalty, not as punishment or revenge, but out of pragmatism. I see no point in keeping someone alive in prison for the rest of their life. To me, that is cruel and unusual punishment, and the only think it can do is give the person an opportunity to kill again, perhaps a guard or fellow prisoner.

If you have no intention of rehabilitating a person, then there is no sense keeping them alive. Of course, I believe in doing the best you possibly can in making sure that the person is truly guilty of the crime for which they are charged, but I recognize that errors will be made. Still, I believe it is for the greater good. We destroy dangerous animals don't we?

 

[Wolfman]

There is a heck of a difference between seizing your property and freedom, and seizing your life. That's the biggest problem of having the death penalty: No retribution possible.

Again, CF, please try to understand this. I am not arguing whether the death penalty is "moral" or "immoral"...I have not stated a position one way or the other. I am stating that that basis for this debate was not valid, and that it is pointless discussing deeper issues of morality if the basic foundation of that argument is wrong.

How do you know that there isn't racial bias in China wrt the death penalty (you can call it that, instead of the lesser gruesome capital punishment)?

I really don't care which term is used, I've used both terms in my responses here.

In regards to China, perhaps some education is necessary...perhaps you are unaware that almost the entire population of China is one particular race? Arguments regarding "racial discrimination" in countries are based on statistics such as the fact that that the percentage of blacks who live in the U.S. is far, far smaller than the percentage of blacks who are executed. This is not the situation in China. If you wish to make such a contention in order to 'prove' the immorality of the death penalty, then it is your burden to demonstrate that your main contentions are true. The idea that I am somehow bound to accept your claims, without any evidence or justification for those claims, is absolutely ludicrous.

The "race" situation in China, and in the U.S., are entirely different issues.

You can answer this: Do you think it is proper for a state to have to power to legally kill its own citizens?

As I've said above...I'll offer an opinion on this for myself once others have given me actual, valid arguments for their positions. The argument that "killing someone by yourself" means that capital punishment is wrong is illogical, as I've demonstrated above. The argument that the death penalty is wrong because it is racially biased is also, in my opinion, flawed -- it may be valid in situations where you have a population that is quite racially diverse, where one particular race is disproportionately subjected to the death penalty (as in the U.S.); but that argument does not extend to every country or culture on the planet. If you want to argue if the death penalty as implemented in the U.S. is immoral, this is a valid argument. If you are arguing for the morality of the death penalty in general, it is not.

 

[strathmeyer]

"Always"?

Poisoning the well a bit?

Want me to try explaining why the death penalty is wrong?

You're right, drawing conclusions from my summed life experiences is wrong. Guess I'll be walking around in a confused haze from now on...

I would like anyone to explain why the death penalty is wrong. Why isn't that clear from my post?

Why?
Please, answer this..

Because murder is immoral? In fact, it's so immoral, we have the death penalty for it...

 

[baron]

I believe it is morally wrong for me to detain and imprison someone who has wronged me; that doesn't automatically mean that I believe it is morally wrong for the government to detain and imprison people.

I believe it is morally wrong for me to steal another person's property because they owe me money; that doesn't automatically mean that it is morally wrong for the government to seize a person's property in order to repay debts.

That's an interesting perspective. Why is it morally wrong to do either of these things? Lawfully, yes, but morally?

A person invades your home. They kill your wife, and rape your daughter. You know who did it, but in trial, that person is released due to lack of evidence. Now, if instead of killing that person, you go and kidnap that person, and imprison them in your basement for the next 30 or 40 years, do you believe that is moral, or that such behavior should be legal?

My take on this is as follows.

No, it is not moral.

No, it should not be made legal.

Yes, I would do it, and a heck of a lot besides.

I wouldn't kill the guy outright because killing is not a punishment. A punishment needs to be experienced, and how do you experience something if you're dead? I would want him to experience something remotely pertaining to my own grief.

However, I don't see how this equates to the concept of a legal death penalty, with which I don't agree. I don't agree because my potential actions, as outlined above, are wrong. They are morally wrong and lawfully wrong, in the extreme. That wouldn't stop me doing it but that has no bearing on the question of whether immoral acts should be incorporated into the legal and moral framework of a civilised society.

 

[Wolfman]

However, I don't see how this equates to the concept of a legal death penalty, with which I don't agree. I don't agree because my potential actions, as outlined above, are wrong. They are morally wrong and lawfully wrong, in the extreme. That wouldn't stop me doing it but that has no bearing on the question of whether immoral acts should be incorporated into the legal and moral framework of a civilised society.

And that is exactly my point. The OP is arguing that the moral/legal framework should be predicated on the question of whether one individual killing another is "moral" or "immoral". I'm using my arguments to illustrate exactly the point you made -- that these are two entirely separate arguments.

 

[baron]

And that is exactly my point. The OP is arguing that the moral/legal framework should be predicated on the question of whether one individual killing another is "moral" or "immoral". I'm using my arguments to illustrate exactly the point you made -- that these are two entirely separate arguments.

Yep, apologies. I scanned the thread and missed your point. Glad we're agreeing, then.

 

[CFLarsen]

In regards to China, perhaps some education is necessary...perhaps you are unaware that almost the entire population of China is one particular race? Arguments regarding "racial discrimination" in countries are based on statistics such as the fact that that the percentage of blacks who live in the U.S. is far, far smaller than the percentage of blacks who are executed. This is not the situation in China. If you wish to make such a contention in order to 'prove' the immorality of the death penalty, then it is your burden to demonstrate that your main contentions are true. The idea that I am somehow bound to accept your claims, without any evidence or justification for those claims, is absolutely ludicrous.

The "race" situation in China, and in the U.S., are entirely different issues.

It shows that the application of something as definitive as the death penalty can be used as a means of oppression.

As I've said above...I'll offer an opinion on this for myself once others have given me actual, valid arguments for their positions.

That's baloney. You put yourself in a situation where you, at any time, can merely dismiss any argument as invalid, and hence, totally avoid stating your own opinion.

If you can criticize other people's stance on the death penalty, you should state what you think of it yourself. Especially when you countered with what is legal and proper.

Try again: Do you think it is proper for a state to have to power to legally kill its own citizens?

You can answer it with either "yes" or "no".

The argument that "killing someone by yourself" means that capital punishment is wrong is illogical, as I've demonstrated above. The argument that the death penalty is wrong because it is racially biased is also, in my opinion, flawed -- it may be valid in situations where you have a population that is quite racially diverse, where one particular race is disproportionately subjected to the death penalty (as in the U.S.); but that argument does not extend to every country or culture on the planet. If you want to argue if the death penalty as implemented in the U.S. is immoral, this is a valid argument. If you are arguing for the morality of the death penalty in general, it is not.

Racial bias is a resulting factor of having the death penalty, but it definitely isn't the only reason why the death penalty is wrong.

You're right, drawing conclusions from my summed life experiences is wrong. Guess I'll be walking around in a confused haze from now on...

I would like anyone to explain why the death penalty is wrong. Why isn't that clear from my post?

Perhaps because you didn't think anyone could present a coherent argument?

 

[Beerina]

And that is exactly my point. The OP is arguing that the moral/legal framework should be predicated on the question of whether one individual killing another is "moral" or "immoral". I'm using my arguments to illustrate exactly the point you made -- that these are two entirely separate arguments.

Hence the magical God's-eye view of the situation as originally proposed. You, one of the victims, know with certainty this person did it. "The system" failed to bring him to justice (although one could argue it succeeded in that the limits on prosecution, set down by the people, were adhered to, even if they let some legitimate cases slip through, and that this is to protect the greater good of limitations on government).

So would it be legal for a vigilante to do this? Obviously not. Ethical? Possibly, depending on how seriously you took the twin goals of reserving punishment to the state, combined with the restrictions on same just discussed.