Convince me to oppose death penalty

[Jumi]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

 

[Estro Felino]

nooo...u ...an European....are for death penalty?

(cries)

 

[Jumi]

nooo...u ...an European....are for death penalty?

(cries)

Don't get discouraged... I'm open for arguments.

 

[Augustus]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims.

The main argument, imo, is that sooner or later you will kill an innocent person.

 

[BSM1]

The main argument, imo, is that sooner or later you will kill an innocent person.

So you'd be okay with the death sentence for a person with irrefutable evidence of the horrendous crime such as valid eyewitnesses, video, positive DNA and fingerprints, and a confession from a mentally competent killer?

 

[Windwalker]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

So, people who do not have a conscious justifies us murdering them? I can understand locking them away because they are a threat to others and we need to protect the innocent, but killing them because they don't fit in to society is us choosing to kill, just like they chose to kill. It makes us them. And that is a contradiction.

 

[Augustus]

So you'd be okay with the death sentence for a person with irrefutable evidence of the horrendous crime such as valid eyewitnesses, video, positive DNA and fingerprints, and a confession from a mentally competent killer?

"We should have the death penalty if we really know they did it. In the cases where we aren't really sure, then they should just be sent to prison, but life should mean life."

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Don't get discouraged... I'm open for arguments.

If I was sentence to death then.....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

The first time I read the novel, A Stainless Steel Rat, by Harry Harrison, I had an epiphany: One life is all that humans are granted, as far as any actual evidence can be had.

How can we be so egotistical, as to take that one life for any reason? Who are we to make such a choice?

Yes-- some persons need to be separated from Polite Society, possibly for the entirety of their life.

That's the Primary argument.

The Secondary argument? No trial is ever perfect, because it involves human Things, including hackable videos, photoshopped images, and bad-memory "testimony".

No amount of evidence or eyewitness can be perfect.

But Killing someone is Irreversible. There is no "Restore Game" function with a Human Life. You cannot Undo the act. Death is Final.

Furthermore? All government-- no matter how well intentioned, is Corrupt to some degree.

Do we want to give the Power Of Life And Death to such fallible Constructs? I say, emphatically, NO.

If you lock someone up? And later on, it is found there was Corruption In The Kingdom, and that person is not guilty of Death-Deserving Crime? You let them out. No, you cannot undo the lost life-- BUT-- you can give them whatever is left of it.

However, if they are dead? Do you dig up the corpse and apologize? Perhaps display it in public, with a sign: "This person Should Not Have Been Killed. We Are So Sorry."

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

It's quite simple, IMO. According to this study, 4.1% of all death row inmates since 1973 in the US were not guilty. I cannot in good conscience support death penalty with such a high error rate. But even if we assume that all death row inmates were unequivocally guilty, how can the state stand on a moral high ground by punishing them to death? I believe in rehabilitation over recrimination. I do understand the urge of a someone who's lost a loved one to a murderer to exact revenge. However, that is the very reason why the state should step in and make sure that vigilantism does not take over. I would much rather have a murderer live in imprisonment for a long, long time reflecting over their crime than giving them the swift release of death.

 

[Nous]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

My arguments that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment are essentially those of Breyer in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross. See posts #1 and #2 here: Is the Death Penalty Constitutional?

Other than Breyer's arguments, and the facts and figures noted in those two posts, I would just note a couple of other factors that argue against (or might argue against) the death penalty. One is that redemption, rehabilitation, reformation, or whatever you wish to call it, does occur among prisoners and otherwise people who have committed heinous crimes. For instance, there is a case from the 1950s or 1960s where a man raped two high school girls, tormented a couple of other guys, and shot and killed 1 or 2 police officers, all within the span of a few hours. He was only identified and arrested some 40 years later. That was apparently his only crime; he had become an upstanding and well-respected member of his small community in another state, was a retired grandfather who did lots of volunteer work when he was arrested, tried and convicted.

Convicted murderers occasionally turn out to be exemplary prisoners who do good works in prison--e.g., teach illiterate prisoners to read.

The death penalty prevents such redemption/rehabilitation/reformation.

Another factor that might argue against the death penalty is that it a good many of those given life sentences without possibility of parole would prefer to die rather than spend 60 years in prison. And there is indeed a high suicide rate among such prisoners.

 

[metis]

If one is falsely charged and then executed, it's kinda hard to then tell him "I'm sorry".

 

[suncowiam]

So, people who do not have a conscious justifies us murdering them? I can understand locking them away because they are a threat to others and we need to protect the innocent, but killing them because they don't fit in to society is us choosing to kill, just like they chose to kill. It makes us them. And that is a contradiction.

No, it does not make us them.

They killed imorally. We kill morally. We do not kill on a whim. We do not kill emotionally. We kill behind a judicial process with jury, lawyers and judges. There is a huge difference. The only similarity is the word kill.

 

[suncowiam]

My arguments that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment are essentially those of Breyer in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross. See posts #1 and #2 here: Is the Death Penalty Constitutional?

Other than Breyer's arguments, and the facts and figures noted in those two posts, I would just note a couple of other factors that argue against (or might argue against) the death penalty. One is that redemption, rehabilitation, reformation, or whatever you wish to call it, does occur among prisoners and otherwise people who have committed heinous crimes. For instance, there is a case from the 1950s or 1960s where a man raped two high school girls, tormented a couple of other guys, and shot and killed 1 or 2 police officers, all within the span of a few hours. He was only identified and arrested some 40 years later. That was apparently his only crime; he had become an upstanding and well-respected member of his small community in another state, was a retired grandfather who did lots of volunteer work when he was arrested, tried and convicted.

Convicted murderers occasionally turn out to be exemplary prisoners who do good works in prison--e.g., teach illiterate prisoners to read.

The death penalty prevents such redemption/rehabilitation/reformation.

Another factor that might argue against the death penalty is that it a good many of those given life sentences without possibility of parole would prefer to die rather than spend 60 years in prison. And there is indeed a high suicide rate among such prisoners.

How about the lives that the murderer took? We're supposed to feel compassion for murderers after they took all hope and future away from their victims?

I lean to the left but not in this case. I want a hard example to people that chooses to murder.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, it does not make us them.

They killed imorally. We kill morally. We do not kill on a whim. We do not kill emotionally. We kill behind a judicial process with jury, lawyers and judges. There is a huge difference. The only similarity is the word kill.

How, exactly, is this a huge difference? Why does involving a giant bureaucratic committee of professional lawyers make it more moral?

I just don't see it, myself-- adding in more and more people only muddles the water, it seems.

 

[suncowiam]

If one is falsely charged and then executed, it's kinda hard to then tell him "I'm sorry".

If one was correctly charged and then executed, then you'll have no issues?

I don't think anyone here would argue against you on a false charge.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How about the lives that the murderer took? We're supposed to feel compassion for murderers after they took all hope and future away from their victims?

I lean to the left but not in this case. I want a hard example to people that chooses to murder.

How does taking even more lives ever make up for anything? A life is irretrievably lost-- so we take another life? How is that better?

The people related to the victim do not feel better-- you can show studies about that. They will grieve pretty much the same, either way.

It's not like we are taking the life of the murderer and giving it to the survivors...

I just don't see how committing another murder makes the first murder "better".

 

[metis]

If one was correctly charged and then executed, then you'll have no issues?

I personally don't accept it on religious and humanitarian reasons since most societies have other options, such as imprisonment.

I don't think anyone here would argue against you on a false charge.

But we can't often determine which is which, and we have seen quite a few people released from death row in recent years because dna evidence indicated that they were innocent.

 

[Quintessence]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but have some rather unconventional perspectives on the issue that might get you thinking about this from another angle.

It begins with a question - is death really the worst thing that can happen to a human? I answer that question with a resounding "not even remotely." Death is a release. Torture is not. We did, for better or worse, prohibit more overt forms of torture in the prison system. But prison life is certainly torturous for many even in the absence of that.

There's another component to it, but it's probably inappropriate to discuss in depth. I'll just say it relates to human overpopulation and let your imaginations do the rest.

 

[suncowiam]

How, exactly, is this a huge difference? Why does involving a giant bureaucratic committee of professional lawyers make it more moral?

I just don't see it, myself-- adding in more and more people only muddles the water, it seems.

If you say that about any of our one laws then you're suggesting none of our laws have ethical or moral weight...