Convince me to oppose death penalty

[Jumi]

I have no sympathy for the argument that it is permissible for the state to take a few innocent lives because their loss is morally out weighed by the "justice" in ending a greater number of guilty lives. I know no one here is making that calculation, but I have seen it made in other places.

I agree with you. The idea that someone might be condemned to death because the jury was racist or otherwise biased against someone is stuff of nigthmares. The same can be said of many punishments.

 

[columbus]

I have no sympathy for the argument that it is permissible for the state to take a few innocent lives because their loss is morally out weighed by the "justice" in ending a greater number of guilty lives. I know no one here is making that calculation, but I have seen it made in other places.

I doubt more than a tiny handful of people make this calculation. What is much more common, in my experience, is the calculation that the tiny number of truly innocent people (as opposed to people who were very guilty, just not the crime convicted of) are more than balanced by the numbers of innocent people who aren't murdered due to the deterrent effects of Capital Punishment. Both in the sense of making people choose against murder in the first place and also making it impossible to repeat offend.
I find that a very strong argument, which I struggle with. As I said earlier, I find this a very complicated issue.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

If you truly feel that way, then why not propose giving them the choice?

I wouldn't give anyone that took a life further choices. We shouldn't give choices to criminals.

They know the punishment for their actions. If any choice is to be given, it's the choice of not murdering to begin with. They forfeit their freedom once they commit the crime.

 

[BSM1]

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.

Sooo...how do we rehab a serial killer? Or a rapist who smothers ten year old girls while he rapes them? Or someone who kills your family in front of you and laughs while he grabs your infant son by the ankles and bashes his head against the wall? I'd be real interested in knowing how we rehab these wonderful human beings.

 

[idav]

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.

Because if your killing a person for murdering your resorting to their level, a level not agreed with in the first place. It isn’t justice it’s revenge. Not that I have much against revenge in some cases but let’s not try and call it something it isn’t.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Premeditated, cold blooded, calculated taking of life- that's what we consider the ultimate crime, I agree we should. So to punish it with the most premeditated, cold blooded, calculated killing imaginable.. ?

i.e. it's not just about what they saw as acceptable, but what we do.

+ you can't reverse a death penalty when new evidence finds the accused not guilty.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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 can’t argue with it...don’t want to. I agree.

To the extent someone has disregarded someone else’s rights, then to the same degree, that perpetrator’s rights should be disregarded.

And quickly, too: not languishing in prison, waiting for a court date.

Ecclesiastes 8:11.

Some poster on here intimated, ‘if we kill the killer, we’re like them.’

I don’t agree at all! The killer of the innocent, does so for selfish reasons. The killers of the killer, do so for justice.

Motive matters.

 

[Augustus]

Say police arrive, you're still killing people.

Police lie every day,we know that to be fact.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

The death penalty in America is definitely a bad idea given the racism, the nearly institutionalized condoning and cover-ups of the lying and planting of evidence by police by their superiors, high levels of fear and resentment in general among the population from which juries are selected, and an apparent disregard among jurors for the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as evidenced by the Innocence Project findings following the advent of DNA sequencing that put the quality of the process to the test.

Of course, this doesn't address the OP, which is not limited to America, and seems to more about the moral status of executing the guilty rather than practical matters such as not executing the innocent.

My answer to @Jumi would be the same as @columbus and @Bob the Unbeliever I find the death penalty repugnant.

Instead, I like the idea of island penal colonies patrolled by boats offshore and fitted with the means to survive such as seed, shovels, plows, livestock, means to fish any lakes or rivers, and the like. Nobody gets off the island once sentenced to it, and nobody that isn't a prisoner ever need go on. If they can cooperate and form a community, great. If they want to kill one another, that's their business.

They can build their shelters, make their clothes, cut their firewood, etc.. No telephones, electric power, Internet, etc., and really no modern technology at all, although others might grant them some medical supplies, radio contact with the mainland, but I'm good with a pre-industrial life for them similar to the early American colonists.

It's pretty fair, inexpensive, and humane, and solves the problem of these people existing without killing them or even caging them.

I would send them to that island only after they are confronted with the horror they unleashed on their victims to the point where they beg for death and repent completely.

 

[Sunstone]

I doubt more than a tiny handful of people make this calculation. What is much more common, in my experience, is the calculation that the tiny number of truly innocent people (as opposed to people who were very guilty, just not the crime convicted of) are more than balanced by the numbers of innocent people who aren't murdered due to the deterrent effects of Capital Punishment. Both in the sense of making people choose against murder in the first place and also making it impossible to repeat offend.
I find that a very strong argument, which I struggle with. As I said earlier, I find this a very complicated issue.
Tom

My challenge still stands. If -- for whatever reason -- you believe the state is justified in take an innocent life, then have the courage of your convictions and volunteer to stand in for a condemned man or woman on the chance they're innocent. If that's not ok with you, then why is it ok with you to allow some other innocent person's life to be taken, but not your own?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

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.

Absolutely. As I said in my earlier post, I would rather have the killers repent for what they've done for a long time.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

While there are most likely countries with better records than ours, the US is no worse than many countries and better than some. We're probably middling. Which might make us a good example for comparative purposes.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Sooo...how do we rehab a serial killer? Or a rapist who smothers ten year old girls while he rapes them? Or someone who kills your family in front of you and laughs while he grabs your infant son by the ankles and bashes his head against the wall? I'd be real interested in knowing how we rehab these wonderful human beings.

I think you are confusing revenge with justice.
EDIT: Also, I never said that rehabilitation is easy. First step to rehabilitation is repentance.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

To the extent someone has disregarded someone else’s rights, then to the same degree, that perpetrator’s rights should be disregarded.

Would you apply that same logic to a rapist? i.e, to the same degree that a rapist raped someone, the state must also appoint someone to rape them?

 

[Jumi]

Would you apply that same logic to a rapist? i.e, to the same degree that a rapist raped someone, the state must also appoint someone to rape them?

I'd say that's a special case. Rapes have ruined plenty victims in many ways to the point of killing themselves.



All right I'm stepping back from all this and the thread. I got plenty of ideas thanks to all of you.

 

[columbus]

My challenge still stands. If -- for whatever reason -- you believe the state is justified in take an innocent life, then have the courage of your convictions and volunteer to stand in for a condemned man or woman on the chance they're innocent. If that's not ok with you, then why is it ok with you to allow some other innocent person's life to be taken, but not your own?

Do you honestly think that makes any sense?

If you believe that Capital Punishment results in fewer innocent deaths, taken as a whole, and you see that as a good thing, how does that obligate you to anything?

Sorry dude, that doesn't make sense. I didn't respond to that part because it's abject histrionics.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Some poster on here intimated, ‘if we kill the killer, we’re like them.’

I don’t agree at all! The killer of the innocent, does so for selfish reasons. The killers of the killer, do so for justice.

What you call justice is merely vengeance. Vengeance is a selfish and ugly motive.

The ProLife thing to do is oppose people choosing death for other people. You aren't God, you don't get to decide that.
Tom

 

[Sunstone]

Do you honestly think that makes any sense?

If you believe that Capital Punishment results in fewer innocent deaths, taken as a whole, and you see that as a good thing, how does that obligate you to anything?

Sorry dude, that doesn't make sense. I didn't respond to that part because it's abject histrionics.
Tom

I can see it doesn't make sense to you. That's all I can see. But what difficulty there is in grasping the principle I was espousing is beyond me.

 

[Woberts]

The death penalty hurts the taxpayer's wallet more than life sentences do.
Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

I don't know how biased this website is, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[BSM1]

I think you are confusing revenge with justice.
EDIT: Also, I never said that rehabilitation is easy. First step to rehabilitation is repentance.

Well...seeing how it's that simple.