Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?
 

What's your opinion of the death penalty, and why do you feel that way? I'm looking for some really good, concrete reasoning for either side. I was raised in a Christian family and taught that the death penalty was necessary and right, but now I'm really questioning that, and trying to decide where I stand on the issue. Try to convince me why I should or should not be in favor of the death penalty.

well, i have no problem with the death penalty in theory. it really all depends on what crimes are allowed to have that punishment, if there is 100% proof to the persons guilt (you can release a man from prison when you find out 20 years later he didn't commit the crime, but you can't bring him back to life), and if it is fairly used and applied to all people who have committed that crime. so in reality, i don't think it should be used.

besides whether you think it is right to use the death penalty, you should think about why it should or shouldn't be used. is the purpose of our criminal justice system supposed to be to punish or rehabilitate? or a mixture of both? is the death penalty more about punishing the criminal or vengence for the victims?

i'm sure there are other things you should take into account, but other people will need to point those out.

hope this helps.

From a moral perspective, I've always been a strong believer in the death penalty. I always took a sort of pride that my home state (IL) was among the top three in executions. Recent releases of prisoners based on DNA evidence changed my opinion 180°. Illinois and Texas have released dozens of death row prisoners that have been totally vindicated. While I still support the death penalty on a moral and theoretical basis, I have no confidence that our judicial process can ever be 100% accurate in determining guilt. I'd rather let a 1,000 Chuck Mansons rot in prison, than execute a single innocent life.

what do you mean by 'from a moral perspective?' could you elaborate?

thanks!

Those 1000 Chuck Mansons you have to support with your tax dollars. If they allow DNA evidence to be taken into consideration at any time, and can be 100 percent sure of guilt, than these people should be executed. Remember the victims and their families.

Eye for eye, tooth for a tooth, and all. I'd personally go pull the switch for Chuck Manson. I have no problem with the execution of people for heinous crimes when guilt can be established 100%. I'm fine with the concept, not with the implementation.

My problem with the death penalty comes from a basic distrust of the process. Sheriffs and District Attorneys run for reelection, solving crimes quickly and having a high conviction rate are necessary for reelection. The more horrible the crime, the greater the incentive to cut corners toward a quick conviction. I just don't believe that a foolproof process is possible. DNA evidence is not foolproof or even applicable in all cases. The fact that dozens of people have been released from death row means that the process is severely flawed.

To misquote the president "I'd rather err on the side of life".

Thanks for your input, guys. You made some good points, and I'm taking it all into consideration.
Here's another angle I'm struggling with: I am pro-life and morally opposed to abortion because I believe that life is sacred. Therefore, is it hypocritical of me if I support the death penalty? Is it morally justifiable to say that the innocent unborn deserve to live, but those who have committed murder should die?
My brain hurts :-)

That's something to consider, too. I guess I always thought of the death penalty as a warning to all the potential murderers out there (although I guess it hasn't been working that way, for whatever reasons). There's also the perspective that society is protected from those dangerous individuals, although I suppose if they're incarcerated, they aren't posing much of a threat to the general populace.

well, i guess it all depends on where you get your morals from... if you're an old testament kinda gal, you can find the death penalty moral in the manner stant mentioned. if you swing more towards the new testament, then i don't really see how you can rationalize supporting it... (he who is without sin cast the first stone... although i could be wrong, i don't think jesus was or would have been pro-death penalty).

I believe innocent unborn deserve to live and murderers deserve to die. These are two vastly different situations. Although I dont morally believe in abortion, I don't want the goverment telling women what to do with their bodies. But, I dont mind the government passing laws allowing execution. Confused yet?

Right: People harp on about these people's rights however people who have killed others (not self defense etc but "I think I will go kill someone today" people) no longer have rights, they deprived another of their rights so eye for an eye... Similarly for theft, if someone breaks into my property and steals something they have violated my property and self and deserve what ever they get.

/ Hates theft and Murder, rapists are probably high up on that list too.

but an eye for an eye will just make the world blind...

The penalties for breaking laws have two purposes. The first is a punishment for the crime that is intended to prevent the infraction being committed again. The second purpose is for the punishment to be a deterrent that will hopefully prevent the law being broken in the first place.

Life imprisonment may provide the same punishment value (they will never murder again, or at least that is the goal) but it does not provide the same deterrent value as the death penalty. I will admit that it is possible for someone to be convicted falsely but that is why we have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" method. Pulling punches because of the inherent uncertainty in life is a road to nonsense; after all it is quite possible that someone who is found not guilty might in fact be guilty, so should we take that into account and punish them a little?

i have to disagree with you. penalties for breaking the law are to punish the perpatrators. that some people will be deterred from breaking the law becuase of the reprecussions is a side effect, not a purpose of the law. based on the number of repeat offenders that there seem to be, the law doesn't seem to have much of a deterrent effect.

life imprisonment isn't the same punishment value as the death penalty. while both may end up with the persons life ending in prison, one of them is the govt. sactioned execution of the other, where the person knows when the end is coming, the other is a natural death where the person has to wake up day after day for the rest of their lives knowing that it will be the same way every day. i think living until your 75 knowing that you wasted your entire life is much much worse than being executed at 30. but that's just an opinion, ymmv.

moving on though, studies seem to show that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent for crime. check out some of the studies done here...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...id=167#STUDIES

now i couldn't tell if they're actually slanted pro- or con-death penalty just by skimming it. but it's got information worth considering.

I Am Not Your God......and it would seem , from all I have read of these sacred texts that only this God entity has the right to take life. And he/she/it has no problem doing so according to a couple of those books.
Still....its pretty damn clear that it dont want you doin it......I think its in one of those commandment thingys....somewhere.

Actually, a better translation is "do not murder". There are several instances in the Bible where God supports war efforts.

I would rather my tax dollars pay for life imprisonment rather than see the death penalty. I have two reasons;

1) I don't believe we have the right to make that decision,
2) I think someone who has been bad enough to warrent the death penalty (proven to 100%), it's too easy a way out. I think they should live with their acts, that would be a more deserved fate in my opinion.

I support the Death Penalty, and unfortunately, it is unrealistic to have a perfect system. Reading StanT's arguments, I have to agree that it is unfair to kill even one innocent person, but even with DNA testing, innocent people will be put to death. It is a matter of probability; planted evidence, faulty technology, error in judgment of jurors, etc. The best I could hope for is that the number of innocent who die is minimal. That is such an unfair statement, but I truly mean it.

Perhaps the debate also should include the process of appeals. Should long appeal processes and numerous years on death row be considered favorable because it may result in the discovery of new evidence that leads to a fair acquittal? Proponents would argue that the former of the two costs tax dollars. In theory, perhaps the sentence of death shouldn't be made without the 'best' efforts of the judicial system, and thus the need for a long appeal process shouldn't exist. I really don't know, I have never researched the laws or read the thoughts of a death row inmate or family member of a victim. This thread reminded me that I should look into those resources.

When is it right for the state to do what it is wrong for the citizens of the state to do? I'd say just about always. If someone needs killing, then kill them and take your lumps, but don't make the rest of the people killers by proxy.

In my humble opinion, the death penalty runs in opposition to the spirit of punishment: to teach a lesson. If someone kills someone else, and is found to be sane, this person needs to be taught that murder is wrong. You can't learn if you're dead. I know what kind of an investment it is to try and teach someone basic morality, but it is necessary to have a functional society.

If you aren't punishing to teach someone, you are doing it out of revenge (I don't consider deterrance to be a reason for killing someone). There is no justice in revenge, so it has no place in the justice system. Vengence under the guise of justice is an easy way to get away with murder. That's the death penalty; vengence in the guise of justice.

Even if I did think it morally acceptable to kill someone, the system that executes the order is flawed in many ways. People are exonerated from death row, which means they might have been put to death (a very final punishment) while they were innocent. That simply isn't worth the risk. Would you kill someone if there were a chance they were innocent?

lol. "Like pro-lifers, that support the death penalty" -Immortal Technique (a rapper)
It's not hypocritical..It's something based on your opinions..Abortion and Death penalty are very different things.. I'm personally against death penalty and I defend the right to have abortion (I just think about the raped 12 year old girls)
And the abortion debate brings to another philsophical debate: when does life start?

About the death penalty, I'm completely against. The only thing I want is complete isolation of the potential killers from society. About their life, I don't believe we have the power to decide.. Killing a killer is lowering oneself to their level. Killing is a primary instinct, I think an evolved society can find a better way to take care of criminals.
As someone else said, I don't care if prisons ae coming from my taxes.. In fact I even like that. As long as me and the rest of society is safe..

I support the death penalty in theory, however in application it is seriously flawed. The death penalty in the US is not applied equally across the boundaries of gender or race. Women rarely get the death penalty for crimes that a man would certainly be put to death for (the Susan Smith case is a prime example) as well as several more minorities are put to death than caucasians. I also believe that we ought to restore public executions, sell tickets, and broadcast them via pay per view. I don't understand the logic that we need to keep the actual execution a dirty little secret, I say let anybody over 18 who desires to watch an execution, have the opportunity to do so.

I don't believe that the death penalty is ever justified because I don't believe that there could exist a situation where the death penalty is necessary to protect others. Unnecessary harm is unjustified, in my mind.

And to comment on the other discussion in this thread: I'm also anti-abortion rights, with the sole exception of protecting the mother when pregancy threatens her life. But I don't view any combination of anti/pro death penalty and anti/pro abortion as necessarily inconsistent. They're two significantly different subjects.

if there's any reason for a death penalty, it's meant for the jerk in Chicago who just murdered his 9 year old daughter and her friend for not coming home when asked. Unbelieveable.....

but what's worse? the death penalty where you know your gonna die, the date is set in stone... or having to watch your back every day for the rest of your life in prison because the other prisoners don't like people who molest and/or harm children? (kinda weird how that is, i think)

watching your back everyday day in prison and then getting executed....alright by me for this guy.

I am seriously curious....as this is a forum of thought:

What is the difference percieved here, If you kill someone....is it not Murder?
Or do we get to pass the guilt of this act onto the faceless entity of societal acceptance. To me at least....killing someone is a bad thing....regardless.

I do not need the Negative Karma

I am for the death penalty. I believe in stern punishment.

However, in a world of imperfect information, like poker, when do you truly know when to go all in and kill the guy on death row, or when to fold. How do you know when to concede that, really, we think the guy is guilty enough to put him in jail, but not guilty enough to kill him? Then, doesn't the 'beyond a reasonable/shadow of a doubt clause come in? If you aren't sure enough to put the man on death row, how are you sure enough to commit him in the first place?

If it didn't cost time, money, space, or effort ot keep criminals in jail, then the death penalty wouldn't be an issue. Why kill them? Just throw them into the criminal box and close the lid, take them out in twenty years. But it doesn't work like that. There is money involved, and morals often take a back seat to dollar signs.

Either you have to concede a few innocent lives here and there, or a whole lot of money, time and effort into keeping these people off the streets.

In theory, I think the death penalty, like communism, is grand. Unfortunately, reality makes it suck the big one, and so we have life sentences, with chance of parole after fifteen years.

What?!

How does life in prison versus a death sentence teach a lesson? Does the person have a chance to use the lesson learned? If they are never let out of prison again does the lesson being learned do any good? What if the criminal doesn't learn the lesson? What about the possibility of the person escaping and commiting the same crimes again?

I am for the death penalty. If the person has done something bad enough to earn a life sentence, then they have done something bad enough to deserve to die. For in both instances you are removing the person from society, permanently. And if your certain enough in the conviction to put the person in prison for the rest of their life, then you should be certain enough to have them exucuted.

In my view, prison would be like any other community... You would have a chance to at least learn and interact within this community.

Murder is of course any killing that is not approved of. :rolleyes:
I think you would be hard pressed to give a reason for the act of killing another person being morally wrong without resorting to religion. You mentioned "negative karma", but of course there are many people who would not consider that a valid argument.

Excellent, then once I can show you that it costs more to execute a criminal than it does to jail them for life, you'll change your opinion. I like that. Not going to go looking for the data just now, but I hope I can find the resources I have seen that show this to be true.

Just found this page which I found pretty interesting

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

Oh, and maybe I should add that I am against the death penalty. Mostly because I do think it's wrong to take a persons life (Even if that person have killed someone. Just because I think death penalty is wrong does not mean I think murder isn't a horrible crime), but also because it obviously does not work as a deterrent.

besides the costs, which i have also heard are much higher than LWOP, i find it antithetical to my values to live in a state that commits such violence.

my confession is that i believe Jesus to be the Christ, and as such i follow an executed God. There is no way i could do so and be uncritical of the intersection of state power and violence. It has taken innocent lives before, and will do so again. it is the high powered finale of a whole system of violence designed to shock and awe, to keep an imbalanced society from tearing at the seams. the riot squad and the para-military cops have replaced the beat cop; the lockdown has been brought to the lives of millions of urban youth the moment they step in to a school.

tell me that violence is the path to salvation, and i'll disagree. tell me that the death penalty, and the whole structure of state violence that supports it is working to bring us better lives, and i'll have to ask you: for whom? the prison-industrial complex provides jobs, makes invisable certain elements of our society, and makes possible the kind of "nice" living that some of us are priviledged to experience. but it swallows up millions of non-violent offenders who learn to think of themselves as criminals, it promotes a culture of abusive violence, and takes lives to tell us that the whole production is working.

no...the death penalty is not moral. it is the last terror in a whole system designed to reinforce a fundamentally unjust society.

martinguerre
I was trying to avoid this, but consider your position:

Romans 6:23 (New International Version)
"For the wages of sin is death..."
^ This is God laying out the original death penalty.

Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
^ Since man was made in the image of God murdering them is an offense against God and requires the penalty of death, which you will note is expressly indicated be administered by man.

Romans 13:1-5
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
^ Obey the law!

I view murder to be an instance of killing that is unjustified. Of course, if you don't believe that there could be a sufficient justification, then killing and murder are one and the same.

I believe that killing is justified in self-defense and defense of others (where there is no practical alternative), as well as perhaps some additional scenarios in times and places of war - but my mind is a bit fuzzier on that.

I don't believe that the death penalty is ever justified, unless it somehow falls into one of the three categories above as well. I do consider it murder, otherwise.

Will you and I seem to be on the same track...

For all of those who are for the Death Penalty... do you see no room for forgiveness? Remorse? Rehabilitation?

Or is it all about retribution and revenge?

Thanks! That's what I was looking for.

When you start pulling the rules for 7000 year old desert dwellers into the argument, then you have no argument. However, let's try the following: What part of "Thou shalt not kill," do you not understand? How about "What is done to the least among you is done to me," or "thou hypocrite, first attend to the beam in thine own eye."

If you want to pull vague literature into it, let me recommend Larry Niven's, <i>The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton</i>, since reissued as <i>Flatlander</i> for the logical extreme of the death penalty.

People who do not know killing is wrong are not convicted, that is valid grounds for an insanity plea. You are naively ignoring the fact that almost all sane murderers know that killing is wrong, and do it anyway. We don't have to "teach them that murder is wrong", they already know it and murdered anyway.

The reason there is a death row is so that people have a chance to be exonerated; the time spent waiting for all of the appeals to go through is very long. In the end we have exhausted every reasonable doubt of innocence. Rational people can then apply the appropriate punishment; second guessing at that point boarders on insanity. When you back your car out of the driveway do you check your mirrors? There is always the possibility that there might be a small child behind your tires, having arrived there through methods unknown.

In then end I bet you back up anyway, trusting that your reasonably sufficient observations have found the truth. Well, in America by law you need 12 different people to agree on the truth plus any other combinations of people through all the appeals for someone to be executed. Unless you have more than 12 people agreeing that your tires are clear of children...

I leave you to flounder in the hypocrisy of your stance.

If I lived in a magical world where the death penalty cost less than life imprisonment and served as a major deterrent and everyone you executed was guaranteed to be guilty, then perhaps I would understand how some could support the death penalty.

In the real world, however, I fail to see any reason to support it other than as a tool for revenge, and that's not a very good reason.

It's not a significant deterrent. It doesn't save any money. It's not infallible.
It's indefensible.