Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Puppycow]

The OP is a nonsequitor. It is not relevant to the death penalty. I don't see any basis for serious debate.

Are we supposed to discuss the death penalty or personal revenge?

 

[Wolfman]

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

Dude, imprisoning people can also be used as a "definitive means of oppression". As can any number of other methods.

The fact that something can be abused does not mean that it is implicitly wrong. The Chinese government abuses its power to arrest and imprison people -- sometimes for the rest of their lives -- for purely political reasons. That does not mean that imprisoning people is wrong; only that it can be abused. The American government used imprisonment and other punishments to oppress black slaves for quite some time; again, that doesn't mean that imprisoning people is wrong, only that it can be abused.

You've entirely shifted your stance now; at least you're no longer trying to argue for the ridiculous "death penalty is wrong because it is racist" thing. I think that you, I, and pretty much everyone else here can agree that the death penalty is wrong when it is used to promote a racist agenda, as would any other form of punishment used for the same purpose. But this argument in no way 'proves' that capital punishment is wrong, no more than it 'proves' that imprisoning people is wrong.

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.

What is "baloney" is the arguments you've suggested thus far. I know a number of very legitimate arguments against the death penalty, and have used some of them myself; so it rather stresses me to see several people who are so adamantly opposed to the death penalty to be using such weak and illogical arguments.

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.

Actually, if you will attempt to read what I've written, I have not criticized your stance on the death penalty at all. I have not ventured any opinion whatsoever as to whether I agree or disagree with your stance.

What I have criticized is your arguments to defend that stance -- and regardless of whether my own position is pro or anti death penalty, your arguments still are not substantial or logical arguments. If this is the best you can do, then I'd suggest that your convictions apparently lack even the most basic research into arguments to support those convictions. Which isn't that terribly impressive.

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".

Tell ya' what. I'll give you one more try at actually coming up with a good argument against the death penalty. Not an argument based on a faulty premise like racism. Not an argument based on emotion or feeling. There are lots of such arguments out there.

If you are still incapable of doing so, I'll gladly step in and state not only my own opinion, but also supporting arguments that are considerably more substantial than your own.

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.

WHAT?!? Racial bias is a result of having the death penalty?!? So abolishing the death penalty gets rid of racial bias? Man, I'm getting tired of these grossly unsubstantiated generalizations. Get rid of the death penalty, and you know what? American prisons will still have a far higher proportion of black inmates. Yeah, it'll lessen the punishment they're receiving, but to claim that racial bias is somehow caused by the death penalty, or would be diminished if it were abolished, is just way beyond any reality that I've seen.

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

Again, no. There are tons of coherent arguments against the death penalty, some of which I have used myself in the past. The fact that the only arguments you've been able to raise are so flawed and logically inconsistent is a rather telling demonstration of how much actual thought and research you've put into this issue.

Every claim you've made thus far is based on gross over-generalizations that appeal to emotion and rhetoric, rather than to rational and reasonable discussion and debate. You use terms like "racial oppression" so that anyone who disagrees with you is not just supporting the death penalty, they're also supporting racism. When, in fact, the two issues are entirely separate. We can have the death penalty without racism, and we can have racism without the death penalty.

 

[Wolfman]

The OP is a nonsequitor. It is not relevant to the death penalty. I don't see any basis for serious debate.

Are we supposed to discuss the death penalty or personal revenge?

This is obvious to you. It is obvious to me. It is obvious to several other people here.

However, it apparently is not obvious to everyone...which is why I am focusing the debate on the issue of the claims being raised to support these arguments, than on the issue of the death penalty itself.

 

[strathmeyer]

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

You're right, I'll stop having thoughts.

 

[ile]

Bad OP

To state my opinion clearly: I am wholeheartedly opposed to the death penalty, and to abortion, and for similar reasons too. (please, do not confuse my reasons to oppose them with my arguments against them - nor your reasons and your arguments either).

However, as has been stated above, the story being told is in no way a good argument, I am afraid; since people that would defend the (to my eyes utterly abhorrent) death penalty could perfectly well state that the man in the story would be in the wrong to take a "vigilante" attitude. And it would not be inconsistent. The issue there is the very complicated one of the "surrender" (if indeed it is a surrender) of personal "rights" (if rights they were) to the political community.

I will give an argument against the death penalty. It is a quotation, and in all likelihood you have recently heard it in a film:

'[...] He deserves death.'
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends.'

Of course, it sounds much better if it is Sir Ian McKellen saying it...

 

[Dan Beaird]

Right or wrong, the United States Government is specifically empowered to execute death sentences by the Constitution. What I think is wrong about it is that our legal system has shown itself unable to apply a fair standard of application. My final argument against U.S. capital punishment is that the costs outweigh the results; It can cost three million dollars to prosecute a capital crime successfully to execution, more than four times than the expected lifetime costs to sentence a prisoner to life. It's simply bad economic sense.

But Matteo, I think you'll find that I support capital punishment, so if you're looking for an evil person to attack with your scathing second part then go ahead and fire. Human life does not have infinite value and while I admit that capital punishment is as imperfect as any other human method of justice, I still see it as a useful tool for a well-ordered judicial system. For every case of injustice associated with capital punishment you can find 100 where the punishment was just and appropriate. The system in the United States is not perfect, but it's a damn site better than quite a large part of the world:

In 2006 the United States executed 52 criminals, most by lethal injection (supposedly the most humane of methods) and all after extensive judicial review. In the same year Iran executed 182 people, many executed in public and most by short-drop hanging which can be expected to cause excruciating agony for three to five minutes before the condemned falls unconscious due to asphyxiation. Why are you not writing to Iranians? Or how about the Chinese, they reportedly killed 58 (that they've admitted to) by lethal injection and shooting after extremely limited judicial review.

Unfortunately capital punishment can also be a tool used by corrupt governments and men (The Terror of the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Modern day Iran) to control and cow the population. For an evil regime, no law banning capital punishment will keep them from using it and we find that the most humane methods of execution are quite often the ones that are abused most. We can console ourselves by remembering that the people who instigate reigns of terror often find themselves on the scaffold at the end of the party, but abuse of capital punishment under these terms should not reflect upon it's use by more reasonable judicial systems.

As prison populations skyrocket in this country due to "get tough" laws enacted by short-sighted legislators we will eventually reach a point where we can no longer afford to warehouse the guilty. We can hope for a new and enlightened way of dealing with the crime problem, but if no such solution becomes available, then capital punishment becomes the only alternative to surrendering civilized society to the tender mercies of the merciless.

 

[CFLarsen]

Dude, imprisoning people can also be used as a "definitive means of oppression". As can any number of other methods.

Yes. But none is as definitive as killing people.

The fact that something can be abused does not mean that it is implicitly wrong. The Chinese government abuses its power to arrest and imprison people -- sometimes for the rest of their lives -- for purely political reasons. That does not mean that imprisoning people is wrong; only that it can be abused. The American government used imprisonment and other punishments to oppress black slaves for quite some time; again, that doesn't mean that imprisoning people is wrong, only that it can be abused.

You've entirely shifted your stance now; at least you're no longer trying to argue for the ridiculous "death penalty is wrong because it is racist" thing. I think that you, I, and pretty much everyone else here can agree that the death penalty is wrong when it is used to promote a racist agenda, as would any other form of punishment used for the same purpose. But this argument in no way 'proves' that capital punishment is wrong, no more than it 'proves' that imprisoning people is wrong.

I haven't shifted my stance. I am still pointing out that the death penalty is wrong, because it is applied to unfairly. However - as I have made clear - it is not the only reason why I think the death penalty is wrong.

What is "baloney" is the arguments you've suggested thus far. I know a number of very legitimate arguments against the death penalty, and have used some of them myself; so it rather stresses me to see several people who are so adamantly opposed to the death penalty to be using such weak and illogical arguments.

And I was right: You automatically reject any argument as invalid, simply by calling them "weak" and "illogical".

Actually, if you will attempt to read what I've written, I have not criticized your stance on the death penalty at all. I have not ventured any opinion whatsoever as to whether I agree or disagree with your stance.

What I have criticized is your arguments to defend that stance -- and regardless of whether my own position is pro or anti death penalty, your arguments still are not substantial or logical arguments. If this is the best you can do, then I'd suggest that your convictions apparently lack even the most basic research into arguments to support those convictions. Which isn't that terribly impressive.

I have argued extensively against the death penalty in many threads over the years.

Tell ya' what. I'll give you one more try at actually coming up with a good argument against the death penalty. Not an argument based on a faulty premise like racism. Not an argument based on emotion or feeling. There are lots of such arguments out there.

Yep:

Deterrence.
There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent. People who commit crimes that would lead to the death penalty (e.g. murder) don't think just before they kill "Oh, I'd better stop! I might be caught and I might get the death penalty". Murders are either crimes of passion or done by killers who cannot refrain from killing. Impulsive or compulsive, but neither are prevented by the threat of the death penalty.

Also, fear of retribution is morally wrong: Do you refrain from killing because you fear retribution, or do you refrain from killing because you think it is wrong? It is the same reasoning that religious people argue why they are moral: They fear God.

Brutalization of society.
Allowing the government to kill its own citizens validates the most brutal act of all: Killing another human being. If the government can do it, why not its citizens?

Revenge.
"An eye for an eye" - in this case, "a life for a life", is Old Testament thinking. Do we blind people for making other people blind? Rape the rapist? The death penalty is vengeance, not justice.

Arbitrary.
Some crimes may result in the death in some places, where other crimes do the same in other places. Even the same crimes do not result in the same punishment in the same court.

Racist.
There is a huge overrepresentation of blacks on death row. The death penalty is given far more often to non-whites, especially if a white person is killed by a non-white.

Human rights.
If even the worst criminal have a right to legal defense, he should also have the right to life.

Government-imposed killing of citizens.
If the government can take a citizen's life, there are no limits to what other rights it can take away - with the public's full acceptance.

Appeal system.
An appeal system acknowledges that the court's decision is not always just. Therefore, a court decision sending a convict to his death is flawed from the outset. The outcome of the appeals rely very much on the quality of the legal defense. Most people on death row do not have the money to get good legal defense.

Mob justice.
There is no doubt that some cases result in highly emotional spectacle, especially the cases where children are killed. One case may lead to execution, a similar may not, depending on the public mood. It is also a problem for democracy, when politicians achieve power by playing on these public moods.

Innocents will be killed.
With new methods of finding evidence (e.g. DNA), innocents are freed from death row in an increasing number. The safeguards against sending an innocent man are evidentially not sufficient. For every 8 people executed since 1973, 1 was found innocent. Those are odds that should make anyone stop and consider.

Undermining the concept of justice.
Even the possibility of sending an innocent to his death fundamentally undermines the concept of justice. You can not have even the pretense of a just society, if innocent people are punished. Since no system is perfect, some innocents will be punished, but there is always the possibility of some kind of retribution, except in the case of execution.

Is someone punished by being dead?
If you don't believe in an afterlife (where some kind of consciousness exists), then you believe that the executed will not experience anything after being killed. Why is that a punishment? You can say that he is denied the right to life, but he won't know that he is dead. If someone is to be punished, he must be conscious about being conscious - otherwise, where's the punishment?

Keep in mind that the actual killing cannot be "cruel" or "unusual". So, the punishment is denial of consciousness. But if you aren't conscious, how are you aware of your punishment?

Freedom.
Life on death row certainly isn't a picnic. Isn't it better to know that each morning, you are a free man, but he is not, than you waking up each morning knowing that he doesn't feel anyting? If freedom is the highest goal of mankind, taking away his freedom is the worst punishment of all. If he is dead, he doesn't feel anything anymore, and doesn't care if he is free or not.

It doesn't always happen to others.
How would you like to be on death row, knowing you are innocent?

Knock yourself out.

If you are still incapable of doing so, I'll gladly step in and state not only my own opinion, but also supporting arguments that are considerably more substantial than your own.

Now you are changing your stance: Before, people had to provide sound arguments, before you could deign to provide your own. Don't hold back, go right ahead: Join the debate, instead of sitting on the sideline, sniping at others.

WHAT?!? Racial bias is a result of having the death penalty?!? So abolishing the death penalty gets rid of racial bias? Man, I'm getting tired of these grossly unsubstantiated generalizations. Get rid of the death penalty, and you know what? American prisons will still have a far higher proportion of black inmates. Yeah, it'll lessen the punishment they're receiving, but to claim that racial bias is somehow caused by the death penalty, or would be diminished if it were abolished, is just way beyond any reality that I've seen.

You completely misread what I say. Nowhere do I say that racism is only caused by the death penalty. I am saying that the death penalty is applied in a racist way.

Again, no. There are tons of coherent arguments against the death penalty, some of which I have used myself in the past. The fact that the only arguments you've been able to raise are so flawed and logically inconsistent is a rather telling demonstration of how much actual thought and research you've put into this issue.

I didn't respond to you.

Every claim you've made thus far is based on gross over-generalizations that appeal to emotion and rhetoric, rather than to rational and reasonable discussion and debate. You use terms like "racial oppression" so that anyone who disagrees with you is not just supporting the death penalty, they're also supporting racism. When, in fact, the two issues are entirely separate. We can have the death penalty without racism, and we can have racism without the death penalty.

You weaken your own position, when you so misrepresent other people's stance.

 

[strathmeyer]

Yes. But none is as definitive as killing people.

So we should only exclude the most definitive option? You haven't offered any reasoning for this, you are just stating a fact and acting like it should lead us to your conclusion. This doesn't make any sense.

I haven't shifted my stance. I am still pointing out that the death penalty is wrong, because it is applied to unfairly. However - as I have made clear - it is not the only reason why I think the death penalty is wrong.

But any penalty can be applied unfairly. Should we eliminate the penalties, or try to apply them fairly? This doesn't make any sense.

And I was right: You automatically reject any argument as invalid, simply by calling them "weak" and "illogical".

Are you sure he doesn't just dismiss weak and illogical arguments as weak and illogical? Try offering up a logical counterpoint to something Wolfman disagrees with and we'll see![/quote]

Deterrence.
There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent. People who commit crimes that would lead to the death penalty (e.g. murder) don't think just before they kill "Oh, I'd better stop! I might be caught and I might get the death penalty". Murders are either crimes of passion or done by killers who cannot refrain from killing. Impulsive or compulsive, but neither are prevented by the threat of the death penalty.

Let me think... do they normally have the death penalty for murders where the offender thinks before they kill? Or are those crimes treated the same as murders were offenders act in the heat of the moment? This doesn't make any sense.

Also, fear of retribution is morally wrong: Do you refrain from killing because you fear retribution, or do you refrain from killing because you think it is wrong? It is the same reasoning that religious people argue why they are moral: They fear God.

Then why do we send people to jail? Shouldn't people think about the results of their actions? This doesn't make any sense.

Brutalization of society.
Allowing the government to kill its own citizens validates the most brutal act of all: Killing another human being. If the government can do it, why not its citizens?

No; should we not send people to jail because it teaches people slavery? This doesn't make any sense.

Revenge.
"An eye for an eye" - in this case, "a life for a life", is Old Testament thinking. Do we blind people for making other people blind? Rape the rapist? The death penalty is vengeance, not justice.

No, technically speaking, the death penalty is justice. This doesn't make any sense.

Arbitrary.
Some crimes may result in the death in some places, where other crimes do the same in other places. Even the same crimes do not result in the same punishment in the same court.

You're right, since some crimes may result in different punishments, we should never punish anybody. This doesn't make any sense.

Racist.
There is a huge overrepresentation of blacks on death row. The death penalty is given far more often to non-whites, especially if a white person is killed by a non-white.

There is a huge overrepresentation of blacks in jail. Jail time is given far more often to non-whites, especially if a white person is legally violated by a non-white. This doesn't make any sense.

Human rights.
If even the worst criminal have a right to legal defense, he should also have the right to life.

No, that doesn't make any sense. Again, you're stating facts and then pretending that we should come to the same conclusion as you. I believe this is referred to as "weak" and "illogical".

Government-imposed killing of citizens.
If the government can take a citizen's life, there are no limits to what other rights it can take away - with the public's full acceptance.

No, this premise is not correct. The government can do anything the people let it do.

Appeal system.
An appeal system acknowledges that the court's decision is not always just. Therefore, a court decision sending a convict to his death is flawed from the outset. The outcome of the appeals rely very much on the quality of the legal defense. Most people on death row do not have the money to get good legal defense.

The death penalty is wrong people death penalty convictions can be overturned? Please, are you even listening to yourself?

Mob justice.
There is no doubt that some cases result in highly emotional spectacle, especially the cases where children are killed. One case may lead to execution, a similar may not, depending on the public mood. It is also a problem for democracy, when politicians achieve power by playing on these public moods.

Huh?

Innocents will be killed.
With new methods of finding evidence (e.g. DNA), innocents are freed from death row in an increasing number. The safeguards against sending an innocent man are evidentially not sufficient. For every 8 people executed since 1973, 1 was found innocent. Those are odds that should make anyone stop and consider.

Ok, I'm stopping and considering it. Now what? Yeah, let's abandon the legal system.

Undermining the concept of justice.
Even the possibility of sending an innocent to his death fundamentally undermines the concept of justice. You can not have even the pretense of a just society, if innocent people are punished. Since no system is perfect, some innocents will be punished, but there is always the possibility of some kind of retribution, except in the case of execution.

The idea that some forms of normal, sane justice methods cannot be used because some people don't like it undermines the concept of justice. It's a two way street.

Is someone punished by being dead?
If you don't believe in an afterlife (where some kind of consciousness exists), then you believe that the executed will not experience anything after being killed. Why is that a punishment? You can say that he is denied the right to life, but he won't know that he is dead. If someone is to be punished, he must be conscious about being conscious - otherwise, where's the punishment?

Keep in mind that the actual killing cannot be "cruel" or "unusual". So, the punishment is denial of consciousness. But if you aren't conscious, how are you aware of your punishment?

Yes, someone is punished by being dead. If you don't believe me, please [rule 2].

Freedom.
Life on death row certainly isn't a picnic. Isn't it better to know that each morning, you are a free man, but he is not, than you waking up each morning knowing that he doesn't feel anyting? If freedom is the highest goal of mankind, taking away his freedom is the worst punishment of all. If he is dead, he doesn't feel anything anymore, and doesn't care if he is free or not.

Huh? Taking away someone's freedom is the worst punishment at all? This was your argument against the death penalty. This doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't always happen to others.
How would you like to be on death row, knowing you are innocent?

How would you like to be killed because the death penalty wasn't practiced? It's a two way street. This doesn't make any sense.

How come arguments offered by people who are opposed to the death penalty don't seem to make any sense?

 

[IllegalArgument]

CFLarsen:
Innocents will be killed.
With new methods of finding evidence (e.g. DNA), innocents are freed from death row in an increasing number. The safeguards against sending an innocent man are evidentially not sufficient. For every 8 people executed since 1973, 1 was found innocent. Those are odds that should make anyone stop and consider.

strathmeyer:
Ok, I'm stopping and considering it. Now what? Yeah, let's abandon the legal system.

What a strawman argument strathmeyer!

There is a huge difference between jailing an innocent man and executing them. In the first case, you can release, apologize and pay restitution. You know about the second.

The criminal system makes mistakes, I would rather them be painful not fatal.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The reason the death penalty is wrong is far simpler.

It is impossible to eradicate miscarriages of justice.

The problem isn't killing guilty people (that's another debate entirely), it's killing innocent ones by mistake.

Thank you. The OP is silly. But this much simpler statement is far more effective. Even if someone serves many years for a crime that he is later shown to be innocent of, at least the state can give him back his liberty. There is another factor though. The issue of unequal application. Sadly, in the United States it is still more likely that a poor person will be sentenced to death than a wealthy person who committed an equivalent crime. The same goes for ethnic minority vs. ethnic majority.

For me the matters of both risk of erroneous application and unequal application are enough reason to abolish the death penalty. This isn't because I feel all touchy feely about people who have done horrific things, but rather because I think it is better that a guilty man should keep his life than an innocent man lose his.

 

[CFLarsen]

So we should only exclude the most definitive option? You haven't offered any reasoning for this, you are just stating a fact and acting like it should lead us to your conclusion. This doesn't make any sense.

I have offered a very good reason: There are no forms of retribution. Once you kill someone, he is dead.

But any penalty can be applied unfairly. Should we eliminate the penalties, or try to apply them fairly? This doesn't make any sense.

Again, the finality of the death penalty.

Let me think... do they normally have the death penalty for murders where the offender thinks before they kill? Or are those crimes treated the same as murders were offenders act in the heat of the moment? This doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does. The point here is that there is no deterrence in having the death penalty.

Then why do we send people to jail? Shouldn't people think about the results of their actions? This doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does. Of course people should think about the results of their actions. But we don't live in that perfect world.

No; should we not send people to jail because it teaches people slavery? This doesn't make any sense.

I don't understand what your point is. "Slavery"?

No, technically speaking, the death penalty is justice. This doesn't make any sense.

Very well: If you think "an eye for an eye" is justice, do you similarly advocate that rapists are raped?

You're right, since some crimes may result in different punishments, we should never punish anybody. This doesn't make any sense.

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that crimes should be dealt with consistently. The death penalty is absolutely not handed out consistently.

There is a huge overrepresentation of blacks in jail. Jail time is given far more often to non-whites, especially if a white person is legally violated by a non-white. This doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does: The inherent discrimination also results in discriminating killings.

No, that doesn't make any sense. Again, you're stating facts and then pretending that we should come to the same conclusion as you. I believe this is referred to as "weak" and "illogical".

Sure it makes sense. Why have a right to life, if said right can be nullified by a lesser right?

No, this premise is not correct. The government can do anything the people let it do.

That's what I said: With the public's full acceptance. Glad you agree that this is a point that does make sense.

The death penalty is wrong people death penalty convictions can be overturned? Please, are you even listening to yourself?

Yes, but I think there is something missing from your statement. If you meant to say that "the death penalty is wrong because penalty convictions can be overturned, you are missing the point.

Huh?

Do you deny that some cases are more high profile in the media than others?

Ok, I'm stopping and considering it. Now what? Yeah, let's abandon the legal system.

Again, you misunderstand my point. I am not advocating abandoning the legal system.

What is your reaction to the high ratio?

The idea that some forms of normal, sane justice methods cannot be used because some people don't like it undermines the concept of justice. It's a two way street.

Why is it "normal" and "sane" to have the death penalty? Does that mean it is "abnormal" and "insanse" not to have the death penalty?

Yes, someone is punished by being dead. If you don't believe me, please [rule 2].

That's a very interesting stance: That you can be punished even though you are not aware that you are.

However, the punishment is only relevant to the victim's family: But then, it isn't justice, but revenge.

Huh? Taking away someone's freedom is the worst punishment at all? This was your argument against the death penalty. This doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it does: That's why we put people in jail: Taking away their freedom.

How would you like to be killed because the death penalty wasn't practiced? It's a two way street. This doesn't make any sense.

You didn't answer my question: How would you like to be on death row, knowing you are innocent?

How come arguments offered by people who are opposed to the death penalty don't seem to make any sense?

I think people can make up how much sense there is to it. However, merely repeating "This doesn't make sense" makes no sense.

 

[Ryokan]

I will give an argument against the death penalty. It is a quotation, and in all likelihood you have recently heard it in a film:

'[...] He deserves death.'
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends.'

Of course, it sounds much better if it is Sir Ian McKellen saying it...

I hear they've made a book based on that movie. I love Ian McKellen's character in it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Perish the thought. Wollery has stated, in a sentence, the best objection to the death penalty that opponents of it have.

I support limited use of the death penalty, not as punishment or revenge, but out of pragmatism.

I mix in all three, but lean most heavily on pragmatism, as in pest control.

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.

We have an accord.

If you have no intention of rehabilitating a person, then there is no sense keeping them alive.

Agreed.

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?

Aye. Pest control.

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

I don't have a moral problem with the concept of the death penalty. I do, however, have a problem with trusting the judicial system to not send an innocent to his/her death.

 

[strathmeyer]

Yes, it does. The point here is that there is no deterrence in having the death penalty.

No. This statement cannot possibly be true. If we started killing everybody who ate peanut butter sandwiches, are you saying that the number of peanut butter sandwiches eaten would not go down?

You didn't answer my question: How would you like to be on death row, knowing you are innocent?

I would feel better than knowing I was killed because society did not practice the death penalty.

Since you seem to have a problem understanding other people's ideas, can you answer this: how would you feel if you or someone you loved or cared about was killed because the death penalty was abolished? Are you getting it yet? Does this make sense to you? Does this answer you question? This is what "it's a two way street" means. You can't just consider ideas that are consistent with your worldview and not think about things that challenge it. You have to actually think about them.

I think people can make up how much sense there is to it. However, merely repeating "This doesn't make sense" makes no sense.

You're right, I will stop pointing out your nonsensical statements, since you seem to be unable have a coherent discussion about your thoughts. The rest of your post was pretty nonsensical and I'm not playing snip and disassemble with you.

How come you can't come up with a concise, coherent reason why the death penalty should not be practiced? What conclusion should I draw from this?

 

[Matteo Martini]

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.

Wait.
So, you agree that the killing of the burglar by the husband was immoral.
Now, assuming ( assuming only ), that we are pro-death penalty, why should be the husband` s behaviour` s wrong or immoral?
After all, if the jury had all the elements the husband had, they would have convicted the busrglar with murder, and, assuming he was in Texas, he could have been sent to death.
Now, the husband knew the the burglar had been a murderer, twice, and for sure, so, why was his behaviour, in any case, wrong?
I can not think about a reason why..

 

[Matteo Martini]

The OP is a nonsequitor. It is not relevant to the death penalty. I don't see any basis for serious debate.

If only people replied to my question, I would beg to make the point of why it is relevant clear soon.

 

[Matteo Martini]

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

It is not misleading, as my aim is to demonstrate that death penalty, is wrong..

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,

Then, you should let the prisoner decide.
Life in prison, or death.
And they will all decide..
for..

and the only think it can do is give the person an opportunity to kill again, perhaps a guard or fellow prisoner.

There are ways to prevent that, I assume..
Plastic knifes at lunch time..

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?

And people are like dangerous animals..
I see..
We also eat non-dangerous animals..
Can I have the leg of my ex-school teacher, for lunch, today??

 

[Matteo Martini]

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

Excellent.
Now, you calim that the husband` s " murder ", is immoral.
But, I argue, the husband had all the elements to decide for the guiltiness of the burglar, much more than the jury.
Now, assuming that, had the jury known that the burglar was guilty, they would have sent him to die, did not the husband just did what the jury should have done?
In other words, had the jury fould out the truth, about the burglar being a murderer, they would have sent him to death, right?
Let` s assume we are in Texas, or Virginia, for example.
Not in Sweden..
So, the husband did, indeed, now the truth.
So, he did what the jury should have done.
Why was he wrong?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Right or wrong, the United States Government is specifically empowered to execute death sentences by the Constitution. What I think is wrong about it is that our legal system has shown itself unable to apply a fair standard of application. My final argument against U.S. capital punishment is that the costs outweigh the results; It can cost three million dollars to prosecute a capital crime successfully to execution, more than four times than the expected lifetime costs to sentence a prisoner to life. It's simply bad economic sense.

But Matteo, I think you'll find that I support capital punishment,

The, please reply to my question, at the beginning of this thread.
Was the husband behaviour " immoral "?

so if you're looking for an evil person to attack with your scathing second part then go ahead and fire. Human life does not have infinite value and while I admit that capital punishment is as imperfect as any other human method of justice, I still see it as a useful tool for a well-ordered judicial system. For every case of injustice associated with capital punishment you can find 100 where the punishment was just and appropriate. The system in the United States is not perfect, but it's a damn site better than quite a large part of the world:

In 2006 the United States executed 52 criminals, most by lethal injection (supposedly the most humane of methods) and all after extensive judicial review. In the same year Iran executed 182 people, many executed in public and most by short-drop hanging which can be expected to cause excruciating agony for three to five minutes before the condemned falls unconscious due to asphyxiation. Why are you not writing to Iranians? Or how about the Chinese, they reportedly killed 58 (that they've admitted to) by lethal injection and shooting after extremely limited judicial review.

Two bads do not make one good - Grandma

As prison populations skyrocket in this country due to "get tough" laws enacted by short-sighted legislators we will eventually reach a point where we can no longer afford to warehouse the guilty.

I do not think the U.S. prison system had over-helming problems to keep those 52 condemned to death in life, somewhere..