Convince me to oppose death penalty

[Nous]

How about the lives that the murderer took? We're supposed to feel compassion for murderers

Compassion for murderers is not a component of any argument I made or that Justice Breyer made (I strongly encourage you to read those two posts).

In fact, the last factor I noted in #11 on this thread, in my next-to-last sentence in #11, suggests just the opposite of compassion: torment these murderers in prison for 60 years rather than giving them what they want--a pleasant, painless death.

 

[suncowiam]

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".

First, you're not being technical here. They are not the same acts as when a murderer is killing versus when the murderer is being executed for his crimes.
The definition of murder:
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Your own personal definitions and views allows for no such distinction. I have a feeling you have that set in stone so it doesnt matter how I continue.

 

[Trackdayguy]

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

They already have

The Life of David Gale (2003) - IMDb

 

[Sirona]

Back when I was a law student, I was a member of Amnesty International, so half out of curiosity, half out of engagement for the group I gave an anti-death penalty lecture. The most interesting facts not appearing yet are

that favor for the death penalty shows a brutalization of society in general. When, in the 1950's, Germany thought about a potential reintroduction of the death penalty, the authorities received mass applications from "good" ordinary people who wanted to be executioners at any price.

nobody cares about the emotional states of the executioners. During executions, there are always two buttons where only one is deadly so when both executioners push the buttons at the same time they can't know for sure wich one of them actually killed the criminal. If the death penalty was moral, the trick with the two buttons should not be necessary. Also, there were and are executioners who commit suicide because of their job.

One smart German named Soering escaped the death penalty by claiming that the actual cruelty of it is not the death penalty by itself but the fact of being forced to wait on death row, sometimes for years.

Soering v United Kingdom - Wikipedia

A short but strinking (and short) anti-death penalty book is
On Crimes and Punishments by Cesare Beccaria. Don't get scared by the age of the book (1764), it's very modern and reasonable.

On Crimes and Punishments - Wikipedia

And a personal remark: Don't want to bash anyone but I always wondered how turning the other cheek gets along with demanding the death penalty, given that the founder of Christianity was executed at well.

 

[Woberts]

I'll let the objectively funniest man in the universe explain that to you.

Spoiler: Language(?)

 

[Mock Turtle]

What about free will and all that - no mention of the determinist argument that the murderer couldn't have done anything else. Not that I believe this. Killing the innocent is the main reason why I would be opposed plus the savagery that this seems to suppose - we are no better than them? It's difficult to oppose though, given the horrendous crimes some commit, and often commit again when released from prison. No satisfactory answers really - but I am still opposed.

 

[pearl]

The death penalty prevents such redemption/rehabilitation/reformation.

That would be my main reason to end the death penalty.
That and the possibility of executing an innocent person. And I think its been proven that the dp offers no determent for committing murder.

 

[Nous]

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?

Compassion for murderers is not a component of any argument I made or that Justice Breyer made (I strongly encourage you to read those two posts).

To briefly summarize what I consider the strongest and most important arguments of Justice of Breyer, I noted first and foremost that the death penalty of unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual. As I noted and quoted at that the above thread:

Quoting Atkins v. Virginia (which quotes Enmund v. Florida), he notes that “if the the death penalty does not fulfill the goals of deterrence or retribution, ‘it is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering and hence an unconstitutional punishment.’” But the death penalty can’t fulfill the goal of deterrence because, as demonstrated by unequivocal evidence that Breyer cites, it actually is an unusual punishment (and thereby serving one criterion of its unconstitutionality):

. . . if we look to States, in more than 60% there is effectively no death penalty, in an additional 18% an execution is rare and unusual, and 6%, i.e., three States, account for 80% of all executions. If we look to population, about 66% of the Nation lives in a State that has not carried out an execution in the last three years. And if we look to counties, in 86% there is effectively no death penalty. It seems fair to say that it is now unusual to find capital punishment in the United States, at least when we consider the Nation as a whole. See Furman, 408 U. S., at 311 (1972) (White, J., concurring) (executions could be so infrequently carried out that they “would cease to be a credible deterrent or measurably to contribute to any other end of punishment in the criminal justice system . . . when imposition of the penalty reaches a certain degree of infrequency, it would be very doubtful that any existing general need for retribution would be measurably satisfied”).
​

Punishment by death is also unusual on the international scene, at least among developed countries: Capital punishment by country - Wikipedia
​

One simply cannot argue that the death penalty is anything but an unusual punishment, rarely practiced in modern societies.

Further, imposing the death penalty is a gross imposition on society due to its cost. Again quoting a couple of facts noted in the above thread:

One of the primary reasons that so many states have either repealed or abandoned their death penalty statutes is due to the stunning cost. A 2008 report by a California Commission found that the death penalty costs the state $137 million per year whereas comparable life sentences without parole would cost $11.5 million per year. A 2000 investigative report in the Palm Beach Post calculated that each execution in Florida cost an additional $23 million above a sentence of life without parole.​

Justice Breyer argues the cruelty prong of the 8th Amendment restriction primarily on three bases, the first 2 of which are:

(1) Sentences imposing the death penalty are unreliable in that a significant portion of people on death row or are put to death are found to be actually innocent. A much larger portion of people sentenced to death are wrongfully convicted.

(2) The death penalty is arbitrarily imposed. The most heinous crimes often do not result in the death penalty, and there is certainly a racial (racist) component where the death penalty is imposed.

 

[Augustus]

no mention of the determinist argument that the murderer couldn't have done anything else. Not that I believe this.

Doesn't this also mean that the country couldn't have done anything else but implement the death penalty and execute the criminal though?

 

[Nous]

The death penalty prevents such redemption/rehabilitation/reformation.

That would be my main reason to end the death penalty.
That and the possibility of executing an innocent person. And I think its been proven that the dp offers no determent for committing murder.

Thank you for mentioning the issue of the possibility of redemption/rehabilitation/reformation. It's something I had thought about recently and I was wondering what other people thought of it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Most of the laws do not carry the finality of death. And indeed-- laws that are unethical are often challenged in court, and eventually, they are removed.

The most notable example being marriage equality; first it was illegal, then it wasn't. Prohibition against gays marrying never was moral, and never should have had any place in the legal system.

 

[Jumi]

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

What if we stick to cases where there is no chance of misidentification that they are indeed the responsible ones? Say people like Anders Breivik who will probably do something again when set free, and already killed dozens of kids to make a political statement.

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

It's true that it ends all discussion in a rather unpolite way...

 

[Mock Turtle]

Doesn't this also mean that the country couldn't have done anything else but implement the death penalty and execute the criminal though?

Possibly, but I believe in free will, so the authorities should have this as well. And it is so like pandering to the mob anyway - another reason to not do it - can't have popularity governing our behaviour now can we? Given that the mob are the least intelligent usually, with the worst solutions.

 

[Nakosis]

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 kind of doubt it's about having the correct logical argument. It's about feelings and emotions. You feel it's the right punishment for such a heinous act.

Me, I don't see the point in it. What values does it have? Revenge, vengeance? These things I've no desire for. Forgiveness provides closure for me. So you kill someone because it will make you feel better. Maybe it will allow you to feel justice has been served.

I'm not saying your are wrong, you feel what you feel. Having another person put to death serves no purpose for me. Just makes me a little sad. Another life lost for no purpose.

Our morals are about feelings, not about what is right or wrong.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

First, you're not being technical here. They are not the same acts as when a murderer is killing versus when the murderer is being executed for his crimes.
The definition of murder:
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Your own personal definitions and views allows for no such distinction. I have a feeling you have that set in stone so it doesnt matter how I continue.

You have utterly failed to answer even one of my points, but instead sidelined into a rabbit trail, focusing on my deliberate misuse of the word "murder".

I'm aware of the legal definition, but I used the same word to equate the two acts.

Why is it illegal for one person to end a life based on some arbitrary condition, but perfectly legal for government to kill, based on a second set of arbitrary conditions?

Why is the individual prohibited, but government granted what is essentially the same act?

Is either a case of Self Defense? Not even! In the case of Government, you'd have to show the government itself, or perhaps the country, was in peril, to claim self defense.

I'm curious how the morality of government sanctioned killing works here.

 

[suncowiam]

Most of the laws do not carry the finality of death. And indeed-- laws that are unethical are often challenged in court, and eventually, they are removed.

The most notable example being marriage equality; first it was illegal, then it wasn't. Prohibition against gays marrying never was moral, and never should have had any place in the legal system.

Then I agree...

So now, you're alluding to our judicial processes. You have a path to make the death punishment illegal.

I simply disagree with your opinions with my opinions.

I have little to no sympathy for those that choose to murder for their own gains. I don't see it all as black and white, as I do see some cases might be in self-defense or from coercion. But there are still many that just kills for satisfaction or benefit. I have no patience for their salvation.

Again, my opinions... There are some lines that we should never be able to cross and come back.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Possibly, but I believe in free will, so the authorities should have this as well. And it is so like pandering to the mob anyway - another reason to not do it - can't have popularity governing our behaviour now can we? Given that the mob are the least intelligent usually, with the worst solutions.

Agreed: The US Constitution was set up such that the mob could *not*, in fact, take away rights of the individual, even if they wanted to.

That whole Inalienable Rights shtick.

 

[suncowiam]

You have utterly failed to answer even one of my points, but instead sidelined into a rabbit trail, focusing on my deliberate misuse of the word "murder".

I'm aware of the legal definition, but I used the same word to equate the two acts.

Why is it illegal for one person to end a life based on some arbitrary condition, but perfectly legal for government to kill, based on a second set of arbitrary conditions?

Why is the individual prohibited, but government granted what is essentially the same act?

Is either a case of Self Defense? Not even! In the case of Government, you'd have to show the government itself, or perhaps the country, was in peril, to claim self defense.

I'm curious how the morality of government sanctioned killing works here.

Your points were contradicting themselves in the first place.

You just fail to see it. Not my problem.

You've defined murder and killing. You defined fair and justice.

I did not. I used our society's definition on all the matters. I noted exactly where my opinions were.

Like I said, you have it all set in stone, so why bother...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Then I agree...

So now, you're alluding to our judicial processes. You have a path to make the death punishment illegal.

I simply disagree with your opinions with my opinions.

I have little to no sympathy for those that choose to murder for their own gains. I don't see it all as black and white, as I do see some cases might be in self-defense or from coercion. But there are still many that just kills for satisfaction or benefit. I have no patience for their salvation.

Again, my opinions... There are some lines that we should never be able to cross and come back.

I think we are not quite as far apart as it would seem at first.

I have been pushing for years, to abolish the death penalty in the US. I think it's going to require a Constitutional Amendment, though, to make the rabid-eyed states fall in line.

I actually have no problem with the individual using deadly force to protect him or herself from deadly harm (or even home invasion). Self Defense, IMO, is one of those Inalienable Rights.

But I do have a real problem granting Institutions with such Power over Life And Death-- because history teaches us that Institutions will go corrupt, given enough time. I cannot find a single exception to that rule, sadly.

Maybe some day, when the Robot Overlords Take Over, and rule with Pure Logic, and zero compassion?

But would we want to live under such a thing? Would that not leave out room for Compassion and Empathy?

*sigh*

Notebook: When codeing up the next A.I., be sure to build in algorithms to simulate Compassion and Empathy. Make them hard-coded, and not subject to revision.

 

[Jumi]

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.

I don't see a contradiction. I don't see it as a divisor that if someone has killed, they must be a bad person. Much depends on the context.

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?"

One life is a belief. Maybe a true one, but there's no evidence that it's the only possibility.

In case where someone's life or perhaps a whole group of peoples lives were ruined or taken away, who were the perpetrators to make that choice? And should they end their days in peace, safe with knowledge that at least their lives weren't taken away by someone else.

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.

For reference, I'm not looking at this from a US legal perspective. I don't think that country's record in law and judgment in applying punishments is something to emulate.

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

Living in a box for the rest of your life... who are we to condemn others to that? I think the same reasoning applies, as to the death penalty.