You mean... like... normal society?
Normal
American society?
Most of the "first world" countries don't have the death penalty.
How come people who think that the death penalty is wrong can't explain why to the rest of us? How come they always end up posting incoherent threads like this?
Maybe you just haven't met the right person yet.
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.
Well, cost-benefit analysis is the only way a government or other bureaucratic entity can operate. While I do understand that I don't think that "financial cost of execution" and "financial cost of imprisonment" should be the only things considered, I think there should be a (rather large) amount assigned to the mere fact of killing a person.
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.
There is a
big difference between the cost not to prevent a death and the cost to end a life.
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.
Not the case. Since there are certain fairly strict conditions which must be met in order for the state to take your life, your rights still exist they are just... less guaranteed than might otherwise be the case.
In addition, it is sickening to think that I will be paying the meals of this person for the next 30 or so years.
If it makes you feel any better, your yearly taxes are paying for the one pea closest to his left side for dinner on January 23rd of that year.
Because murder is immoral? In fact, it's so immoral, we have the death penalty for it...
Yeah... wow... I find it hard to believe you actually had the gall to refute your own position so clearly.
It shows that the application of something as definitive as the death penalty can be used as a means of oppression.
Anything can be used as a means of oppression. Some things are just more effective than others.
You can answer it with either "yes" or "no".
I don't believe there will ever be a relevant and meaningful question which can only correctly be answered with "yes" or "no".
For 8 executed, 1 is found innocent. Since there are 3,350 on death row (Jan 2007), that gives us 372.
Three hundred and seventy two.
Do you feel good about that number? Knowing what it means?
It means that 372 people had their cases examined closely enough to find the evidence which exonerated them so they could go free instead of (if there was no death penalty) sitting in jail for the rest of their natural lives. To be clear, I don't think this is an argument in favour of the death penalty, I just don't think it's an argument against either.
I'll go over what other people have said already about this: this statistic is irrelevant.
Since we know that if you are sent to death row there is a 1 in 9 chance you will be later acquitted, we know that the system makes initial mistakes. We find this number, however, since these innocent people are
later acquitted and not actually executed, therefore this number tells us nothing at all about how many innocent people are executed - for all we know we may find all the innocent people before execution (I doubt that's the case, but the statistic doesn't even suggest otherwise).
Now, for my own position on the subject.
I am categorically opposed to the death penalty. I believe that the only entity who should have a right to take a person's life is the person themself, regardless of any circumstances or past actions. I believe this not because of the way the death penalty is applied and not out of some risk-reward analysis, but out of pure sentiment and desire for people to decide their own fates.
I also realize that I cannot expect this belief to be held by everyone else, nor do I expect it to be the best choice for society as a whole, but this is why I will always vote against the death penalty.
I am wary to speak of justice since I have never heard a definition of it which does not boil down to a combination of revenge, rehabilitation and protection of others. The reason I therefore dislike speaking about justice is that I think it is more accurate to speak about these three potential purposes separately.
Revenge: I think that revenge should never be an aim of a judicial system. I realize that it will come into play in people's thinking about these matters, but I think that it should never be a formal reason for judicial action and that the people involved in judicial decisions should try to remove it from their considerations.
Rehabilitation: I see this as a worthwhile goal of the judicial system, thoroughly intertwined with
Protection of others: I believe that these two should be the primary goal of any judicial system. Rehabilitation becomes impossible with the imposition of the death penalty, but there are certainly cases where the individual in question makes rehabilitation impossible anyway. In such cases, it can be necessary to simply protect the rest of society from their actions and this is where my sentiment comes in - I would rather see them in a not-too-uncomfortable environment, unable to affect the rest of society for the rest of their natural lives than see them unwillingly put to death. Of course, if they would prefer death to decades of incarceration, I then have no problem with their death.
The distinction here (and the reason I included "not-too-uncomfortable") is that incarceration
for the protection of others does not have to be punitive in nature and I would prefer it not to be.
Punishment: I have the feeling that someone will bring up "punishment" as another potential goal here, but I think that punishment, as an action is usually undertaken for a combination of the above purposes of revenge and rehabilitation. As such, I thoroughly oppose the use of punishment as a form of revenge and I understand that punishment is useful in rehabilitation, but punishment serves no purpose for protecting others. Additionally, the "punishment" of the death penalty can clearly not be used as part of a rehabilitative effort.
So there we go: In the purposes I think a judicial system should serve, the death penalty simply has no proper place except among the willing.
Remember that I do not expect to convince others with this position and I do not expect that this should be used by society at large, but I have simply stated my beliefs and my reasons for them.
Also, to those of you who are now writing about my dislike of the word "justice" conflicting with my frequent use of the word "judicial", I am well aware of their common origin and meaning, I am using the word "judicial" as a name rather than a description to refer to the legal framework and court system as a whole within a given society, in a sense I am using the term independently of the meaning of the word "justice".
