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.

Let me advise you to read my posts before replying so harshly.

If you will notice, right here I am pointing out how judging the death penalty to be immoral is difficult without resorting to religion, and that religion is a very poor platform to argue from because not everyone believes the same religion. Later on...

And I respond...
...to an already weak position based on religion pointing out how there is scripture contradicting him. As you say, "When you start pulling the rules for 7000 year old desert dwellers into the argument, then you have no argument," except that you neglect to notice that I already said that.

Futhermore, your quote of "Thou shalt not kill" was addressed be me two days ago, on 05-14-2005, 08:59 PM. You did not think through "What is done to the least among you is done to me," because if you will look at Genesis 9:6 (quoted in my above posts) you will see that it says the same thing but goes on to specify the punishment and who would deal it out. Yep, the punishment is death and man will do it.

RTFT!

No-one can deny that mistakes are made and the trial system of the western world is not perfect.

What about (in the case of the US) taking the responsibility for the death penalty out of the hands of the state.
It becomes an executive decision. People of a state (state govt) can request it, but the case has to meet certain requirements.

Absolute proof: Multiple witnesses, confession.
Multiple homicide: Events like the Dalmer case.

IMO, there would be a lot less and most people would be quite convinced of the guilt in those cases. It would also take the local pressure off the state to execute those people. It becomes a more objective case at a national level.

Problem is, what do with all those folks who are probably guilty but don't meet the requirements.

Well, what is the death penalty really?
It's a society's declaration of its unwillingness to have certain individuals within its scope. We try hiding them in prisons, but sometimes the crimes are so vile that the aftermath still reminds us of that persons presence in our system.
It's like having a large, bright, noxious weed in the yard that, even though it's covered up by other bushes, it still affects us in the nearby house.

So to take it to an objective rational level, do we 'weed' out and burn those individuals or do we just toss them on a rubbish heap somewhere where they might stay around for a bit, but as it's a dump, no-one minds them taking root there.

Or do we accept that even weeds have a role and need and place or use them somewhere that they become useful?

I say use them to make insulin or organ donation. ;) j/k

Phage, your reading of Romans is... Yeah. There is nothing is that passage that implies a death penalty. It implies that outside of God, there is death. In God, there is life and the light of the world.

While i find Imago Dei theology important, i do not follow it in justifying a death penaly. The whole system of sacrificial/substitutionary violence is undone in the Cross. In this case, the revelation of Christ supercedes previous understandings.

I never said go out and break shit, either. I am a law abiding citizen, and i'm in favor of reasoned law enforcement. I believe in community policing, beat cops who know the nieghborhood and who make a difference. i beleive in laws that keep order and promote the public good, and do not uneccesarily imprison folks for private choices. i believe in responsible alligience to my goverment...that i owe it my loyalty, and my loyal dissent when i am in disagreement.

None of those passages authoritatively creates a basis for a Christian endorsement of the death penalty.

"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing."
I don't know about you, but that seems pretty clear to me. Life imprisonment is not usually represented by a sword.

In any case, that is not my point. My point is that it might be well and good for you to justify your opposition to the death penalty by citing your religion, but you are not going to convince anyone else because your position boils down to "Because I don't like it." I think the readers of TFP deserve more.

Phage, you misquote me. The quoted material is my response to your first selection from Romans 6 by stating that you are not reading that from the passage, but into it.

I respond to your reading of Romans 13 by stating my relationship to the government. Your latest quote, focusing on the "sword" is equally unconvincing. Paul is writing in the midst of a hostile empire. While he is telling people to keep their heads down, he is not writing to descibe the ideal state. The US is a democracy, and a majority Christian nation. from a Christian viewpoint, there's no reason we need to be in the moral slums with the Roman Empire.

Your last line is both insulting and ill-informed. My argument begins with my assumptions (my confession of faith) and procedes from there, like any other argument ought to. The readers of TFP deserve more? That's a snide and snotty thing to say when you aren't even responding to the content of my postings.

How ironic.

It's arguable that anyone who kills is insanse, but I gave the system the benifit of the doubt as it is their call whether someone is legally sane or insane. Clearly the benifit of this coubt came back and bit me in the ass. What sane person would kill someone else? I can't think of a time where a sane person would kill someone else (besides self defence or accedent; neither of which are really a murder 1 charge).
There is a difference between 'exhausting every reasonable doubt of innocence' and knowing someone is innocent for sure. Why kill if you aren't 100% sure? It's the finality of death that puts the death penalty in a much different catagory that any other punishment. History shows that second guessing at any point is not insane. It is just. People are exonerated from death row; some after execution. And I always check my mirrors and look about because there are a lot of kids in my neightborhood.
That's a case of gross negligence (murder 2 or manslaughter), not premedetated murder (apples and oranges).
You showed no hypocracy in my stance. Perhapse you can be more specific. Oh, and I rarely flounder.

You believe in life as something that has a value... One of the things that comes from those old books of religion from which politicians base their moral values on also probably say that life has no price..
I'm sorry, I just can't believe you're advocating the capital punishment because you believe it'll make you pay less.. You'd rather save up that little bit of money(tax)...at the risk of killing an innocent person?
I think if you were wrongly accused of a crime you'd change your mind.
That tax you pay is in some sort, something you need to give in order to live in society...isn't it better that your money is actually used to keep those potentially dangerous isolated from the rest of society?

Well it is hardly my fault if you cannot be bothered to state what you are talking about. Anyway, the point of my interpretation of Romans 6:23 was that God considered the appropriate punishment for sin to be death; this implies that God does not consider execution itself to be immoral. Linking the practice to be acceptable for men needed a different quote.

Your argument might follow the correct pattern, but I refuted it simply by pointing out that your assumptions are by no means universally agreed on. The TFP is a multinational, multicultural, and most relevantly a multireligioned group. An argument that is based on assumptions many would not agree with is going to be useless to many on the forum, and I was suggesting that you find one with a more universal appeal.

In any case, we are moving far off the focus of the thread. My argument against your stance is that not only do I not agree with your line of reasoning after your assumptions, but that your assumptions are not always valid.

I am not saying that someone who kills is insane, obviously there are some instances where a sane person would consider the risks or penalties for murder worth it. My point is that if they did not know it was wrong/against the law we would at least give them a lesser charge. Someone who is otherwise mentally stable but had no concept of right or wrong might be considered a sociopath, a form of mental sickness. The distinction is not that people who kill are insane, but that not knowing that killing was against the law/wrong would indicate insanity.

I wonder how much you can really "take back" any form of punishment. Obviously a fine is easy to refund but what about imprisonment? I don't know of any way to give people back their time.

Another thing to consider is if the worst you can do to someone is life imprisonment it puts anyone who has been convicted of such a crime into a very dangerous position. Once a person had committed such a crime once they would have absolutely no reason not to kill again; what more are you going to do to them?

And yet innocent people still suffer it. Again, there is documentation that I will leave to those more adept than I at finding it. Being as death is final, the standard needs to be absolute, infallible certainty. The only way that happens is when some twisted fuck decides that he wants society to kill him (Tim McVeigh, anyone?) and goes and commits a capitol crime. Suicide by judge, with a media circus. So we have either the chance of convicting an innocent person in such a way that no restitution can be made when we discover our error, or we provide a platform and an exit for the truly evil among us.

I submit that is intolerable.

I had three paragraphs. You quoted three passages. They were in order. Forgive my disbelief, but i find it hard to understand how there was confusion.

Read beyond the single passage in Romans 6. This is cosmic, not particular. This is not about execution. There is no indication that idea is even remotely being addressed here. Paul is explaining that outside of salvation in Christ, that there is no life. I understand you have this particular reading in your head, but it's an isogesis not an exegesis. You take a principle, and read it in to the text. You are not starting with Paul's words, but a commitment to the death penalty. Paul was executed by state authorities, for what it's worth. According to Acts, he repents of his participation in one (that of Timothy, the first Christian marytr). How you get a death penalty advocate out of Romans is to torture your reading of the text.

Thanks, but no thanks. Of course, TFP is not uniformally Christian. But there are Christians here, and there are people who contest what Christianity means here. I wrote to inform that section of debate, and for those who want to know....to explain why i had concluded an anti-death penalty ethic from Christian traditions and scriptures.

We're all carrying in assumptions about punishment, crime, justice, etc. Few are provable. Few are universal. We're stating assumptions, and the conclusions we draw. And that's not limited to religious perspectives.

The argument has been made that the dath penalty may not be a deterrent, and there are also multiple studies that show most people who commit a murder will never commit another. Consider those like Jefferey Dahmer, could he ever have been a productive member of society again? Or all the serial sexual offenders who are released "despite reservations from prison officials" (I'd like to puke every time I see that in a story about a violent crime). I firmly beleive that some people cannot be rehabilitated, and don't see the point in allowing them to live.

If there is clear and convincing evidence, supported by criminal intent and a violent personal history, I beleive this is why we have a judicial system in place.

I find it very curious that those who oppose the death penalty for premeditated crimes, support the killing of unborn, who do not yet have rational or criminal thought. More than this, I can accept the legality of abortion, but then how can people be charged for the murder of an unborn child as in the recent Scott Peterson case?

i've never heard of people disagreeing with the death penalty in premeditated murders. that would be included in opposing the death penalty period. but there's a big difference between saying 'the death penalty is always wrong/immoral/whatever' and saying 'the death penalty for premeditated murder is wrong/immoral/whatever.' can you agree with that?

and scott peterson was charged with two counts of murder for two reasons. one was that there had been the intention by laci to carry the child to term (a weak argument in my opinion) and because pro-life advocates had managed to get a law on the books making a fetus to be conisidered as a second victim in a crime against a pregnant woman as a means to chip away roe.

In my personal belief, I support the death penalty if it's not an abuse of power. If you've killed someone, then you should die. If you've raped someone, then you should die. Other than those two things that I can think of off the top of my head right now, should you be killed for.

If we don't, we'll just spend more tax dollars on opening new prison systems around the country.

A hundred years from now we'll look back, scratch our heads and wonder what the hell we were thinking! As we evolve as a society, we'll begin to understand that putting people to death reflects who we are, and we're not going to like what we see. At one point we thought that burning witches at the stake was the right thing to do as well.

MoJo

Of course that was probably due more to most people not believing witches exist rather than a change in values. Cursing people and sacrificing/eating children would probably still be met with cries for death today.

What exactly do you mean by "putting people to death reflects who we are"? I don't see how your prediction of future popular opinion really addresses the underlying question of morality.

I think that if we worked a bit harder, then the death penalty could be something I would vouch for. As is, I do not think it is a either useful deterent, or just. The continual assignment of innocents to the death penalty is reason enough to stop.

I think that the death penalty should not be assigned until after a couple of years (ie. 5-10) in prison. I believe that if the criminal still exhibits vicious or malevolent behaviour and intent while incarcerated, and also shows no signs of rehabilitation, then perhaps it would be best if they were put on death row. I realize that this is much more effort, and relies much upon psychology and sociology, but I believe that it would be a better method than what is currently used.

I also think that the religious arguments ought not be used in a debate of such matter. I think that there are much better arguments from both sides that don't rely on ancient texts. (I'm not saying that religious views shouldn't be expressed, I'm just saying that "The Bible says it's okay" wouldn't really hold up in real philosophy)

I have no moral objection to executing people who are guilty of heinous crimes. But personally, I think people convicted of crimes that would warrant capital punishment should be given a choice: They can choose to be executed, or they can choose to spend the rest of their lives in prison doing hard labor.

The anti-death penalty advocates will have scored a victory in the sense that criminals are no longer being put to death against their will. And we can use the prison labor to perform tasks at a much lower cost than hiring regular employees.

I really don't see how this is a valid comparison. In this day and age the government isn't executing people for practicing alternative religions. Because people were wrongfully executed once upon a time, it is totally unacceptable to execute anyone ever again? Hey; governments used to imprison people for all sorts of ridiculous "crimes", and still do in some places. Does that mean we should never again put anyone in prison?

If someone kills, say my wife, and is caught, he should get a choise of either death or working?

Pardon me while I think thats nuts.

I don't want murderers turned into slaves of the state, I want revenge and justice, and to me an eye for an eye works out nicely for murder.

I wouldn't have any moral objection to executing people guilty of things like pre-meditated murder, mass murder, or even attempted murder. I was just offering a solution that would "throw a bone" to people with differing views on the issue. Some criminals would choose to live, which would make death penalty opponants happy. Some would choose to die, which would make death penalty advocates happy. Those who chose to live would do things like cleaning up trash on freeways, building security fences along our porous border, etc., which should make a lot of people happy.

No I would be most unhappy if they are given this 'choice'. Did they give their victims a choice?

We have plenty of good old fashioned criminals to work in the chain gangs.

Well, you can't please everybody. And try to keep in mind that our prison system doesn't exist for the purpose of enabling people to seek personal revenge against the criminals who've wronged them.

The system is mostly punative. Rehabilitation is a happy dream not a reality, nor are prison sentances based on the thought of 'how long will it take to rehabilitate'.

Its punishment and as such, a great many of us think that the punishment for murder should be death.

Is this really so complicated an argument?

1. Society in general holds that "killing is wrong". Can we all agree on that? Seems a bit ironic that this is both the rationale for and against the death penalty! Also note that this is a prerequisite to administering the death penalty; that the perpetrator know (or more accurately accept society's opinion) that killing is wrong.

2. Assuming 1 is true, then the death penalty can be looked to as serving one or two broad purposes:

A. As a deterrent by threatening to take the life of someone who kills indiscriminately; based on the assumption that the perpetrator must value his life and therefore the fear of loosing it (if caught) outweighs the desire to kill.

B. Provides for "just punishment" and retribution of said crime committed. This could be both vengeful and also serve as a social purification process - i.e. if society holds that killing is wrong, then eliminating those who do not accept this maintains order and discipline.

The problem of course is accepting the judgment of society as authoritative in carrying out the sentence of death. It becomes nearly impossible (and distasteful) to accept this responsibility, therefore we (society) revert to religion for an answer; seeking out a divine arbitrator to decide for us so we don't have to.

It's logically quite simple, I'd think. Removing religion from the equation you're forced to rely on society's determination that "killing is wrong" and should not have any issue accepting society's means to enforcing the rule. There are countless other "wrong" things mentioned in Christianity, which seems to be the general focus of the thread - yet none of these seem to be nearly as debated as the death penalty. I've yet to see a thread about the legal ramifications of not "Honoring thy Mother and Father"...it’s this dichotomy of enforcing religious rules that to me, renders the religious factor nearly invalid – merely an attempt to escape accepting responsibility as a society.

Consider this: A person who admittedly kills indiscriminately, professing that they know full well that society holds that this is "wrong". In other words, this person is mentally capable of accepting social norms and otherwise belonging to our society, but actively chooses not to.

At this point we (society) have one of two broad choices to make. They are:

1. Ignore this person and allow them to kill indiscriminately at will.

2. Remove them from society.

No one seems to have an issue with choosing number 2, yet it's number 2 that causes so much confusion. Here we have two more broad choices:

1. Lock the person up indefinitely, thereby effectively removing them from society until they fully accept the social norm that "killing is wrong". By the way, we'll pay lots of money for this...

2. Kill them and be done with it.

If you accept that this decision is ultimately based on the enforcement of a social (not religious) rule and is intended to serve for the betterment of society in general, then I’d say that the choice is clear.

You decide.

Unfortunately there is the rub. Some people argue that killing is inherently wrong in all cases while others take the position that "murder" is wrong. Those arguing that killing is wrong in all cases usually do so using religion as a justification, and may as you said be using it as an escape from responsibility.

The thread title might be misleading because it asks if the death penalty is "Right or Wrong". Defining morality in my view requires using religion, and I think it is obvious that even if a majority hold a religious view we should not implement it as law unless it also fills a valid social need independent of religion. However, the first post also is "looking for some really good, concrete reasoning for either side," which the pro-death penalty side has provided in deterrent, punishment, simple removal of a problem, and revenge. I have not seen any religion-independent well-reasoned arguments against the death penalty yet, so I am starting to think that there is not one.

I'm going to try and make a (I hope) well reasoned, non religious argument against the death penalty, or at least against the way it is imposed at the moment.

I think it's fair to say that the arguments for the penalty seem reasonable:
1) It's cheaper than locking someone up for the rest of their life
2) It provides a sense of closure and retaliation for the victim's loved ones

And while I might argue for rehabilitation, and believe that everyone has the ability to change, and become better people, I accept the fact that there will be those that it would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming to rehabilitate to a safe degree.

I bow to those who point out the dangers of an inaccurate system, and further, the ease with which a state can shift the seriousness of the crime that warrants the penalty if that penalty already exists (the thin wedge argument)

However, the thing that really makes me feel that the death penalty is wrong is the way it is carried out by the state. If the primary reason is to remove someone from society because of the harm they may have done to a victim's family, is it right to ask a government employee to perform the act of execution?

In firing squads, they used to mix a blank bullet in amongst the live ones, so that soldiers could take solace in the notion that their bullet was a harmless one. But what does the executioner have to soften his conscience? He must occasionally have a dread that just maybe he got the wrong man, or some other guilty feelings. Perhaps not, but I think it's a tough state that asks one of its citizens to perform these duties.

Should the victim's families get the opportunity to press the button? It kind of makes sense, there are those who feel that vengeance is something required, and for those people, perhaps they would feel better pulling a trigger, or performing the final injection. In some societies, the use of stoning allowed for a community to share the responsibility of execution among themselves collectively. While in some sharia law jurisdictions, those closest to the victim are asked to commit a retributive act in keeping with the original offense. This means that a husband may be asked to stab the killer of his wife the same number of times the killer did in the the original murder. In some ways this makes sense, and allows the victims families to choose how to punish or forgive those that trespassed against them - but it makes me feel uneasy somehow.

And yet, perhaps this is the best way to deal with the hurt - it does at least leave room for forgiveness.

My overall point is that I feel it is unfair for the state to perform our acts of vengeance for us - If we wish for revenge, we have the freewill to act it out for ourselves - Yes we may be punished for it, because society doesn't function on a system of revenge and vendetta. If the need remains, then perhaps it should be controlled rather than exaggerated, and it should remain personal, rather than something doled out vicariously and anonymously by the state.

That is the beauty of technology; we can have several switches that when all activated perform the execution making it truly a group effort, or even have a randomizer attached which will selectively ignore the signals from random buttons. There is no requirement to have a single person pulling the switch, but even then there are people out there who would not dwell on the "what if". I am sure psychological care for those working on death row is top notch, and nobody is "forced" to work there.

studies have shown that it costs a lot more money to kill someone than it does to lock them up for life. links have been posted previously in the thread (if they haven't, i'll do it later, but don't have the time right now).

again, links posted earlier in the thread. studies have shown that the death penatly is a) not a deterrent, b) costs more than life in prison.

both life without parole and death penalty remove them from society and punish them.

and how is revenge something that the justice system is supposed to deliver? does that mean we should start making the punishment for rape be rape?

especially considering innocent people have and will be put to death, i have yet to see a valid argument from the pro-death penalty side.

We are talking about the morality of the death penalty, not about the cost the that it currently translates into. In theory it should be much cheaper to kill someone rather than feed and house them for their natural life, but there is a lot of extra care and second chances put into the death penalty process. Just because it costs more at the moment should not make it immoral.

These studies are by no means unanimous, but we can intuitively predict some problems with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Someone imprisoned for life still has the possibility of escape, or can quite often attack fellow prisoners or jailers as there is nothing worse to be done to them.

For instance, if both kidnapping and murder have the penalty of life imprisonment then what reason is there for a kidnapper to ever let a victim go?

I am not saying that I think revenge is a good motive, but it is something that many people feel the need for. It has been noted as a reason before, so I mentioned it.

There is a difference between a sane person considering murder in a fantasy and an unstable person planing murder, so let's get that out of the way. I suppose we all have let our baser nature get the best of us when we considered running that jerk in the Miata off the road for cutting you off. That is different than buying knives and rope in preperation for killing the guy in the Miata after following him home. Can both know what they are doing is wrong? Of course. Are they both sane because they know it's wrong? Nope. You do not have to be sociopathic in order to be found legally insane. I would argue that the second person is insane. Like I said before, I would argue that anyone who has ever cvommitted murder outside of self defence or accident is mentally and socially deficient in some way.
It's less 'taking back' and more 'allowing to reenter society and go on living'.
If one has been given a life sentence, the only people he/she can murder are prison guards and staff, and other prisoners. A life term of solitary confinement without the possibility of parole would rule out further murders. I cannot morally justify the death penalty, so I am against it. If you have different morals, you're decision might be different. To each their own.

Very interesting points on both side.

My own belief comes down to a point made several times - the death as a punishment is wrong.

My reasoning is that if it is wrong for an individual to kill, it must be MORE wrong for the state (with so many more resources, and so much more chance to think its actions through) to kill.

The state doesn't need to kill in self defence - it just needs to remove anyone with murderous intent from society.

That said - touch my daughter, you die.

if there's any chance that we're putting an innocent person to death, then it's immoral.


can we? you're right, they aren't unanimous, but you're predictions are rather far fetched and silly. yeah, someone imprisoned for life can kill another inmate, but so can someone serving 10-15 for drug dealing. consider how many people are currently serving life terms. and how many prisoner muders do you hear of? my guess is very few. i'll admit right now i've not looked into numbers, nor am i going to. if you wish to really make this claim, you can back it up with evidence, otherwise, anecdotal evidence of not hearing about many (and my assumption is that many/most prison murders is from prison gangs) is better than your hypothosis.



well, attack fellow prisoners and it's possible that there will be retaliation. attack a jailer and you'll end a) getting the shit kicked out of you on a regular basis, and b) solitary, and any other nastiness that they can throw at you. you may be alive, but they can make you wish you weren't.


well, for one, death penatly isn't a given. i did a quick google and found that the under the federal law, death penalty can be asked for in a kidnapping, but it's not a given. murder the kidnappee and you're sure to get teh death penatly sought. treat the kidnapped person well, release them alive, and it's likely you can get away without the death penalty if caught. one way guaruntees it, the other reduces the likelyhood of it. if you're gonna get caught, do you want to make your situation better or worse?


which is why i mentioned the cost...

now for some other info on it being a deterrence (which is probalby one of the most important aspects in deciding if the DP is right or wrong)...

anyone know what 'aggrivating factors' are? for the four states that have kidnapping as a crime punishable by death, it is 'aggravated kidnapping' or 'kidnapping with aggravating factors.'


i looked at the information at www.prodeathpenalty.com. and not surprisingly, they have some abstracts to articles posted that say there is a deterrent effect.

based on what i've read on both sites, i have to say that i don't think there is a deterrent effect. the pro-death site mentioned that:
and the first star i think is very accurate. if i were committing a crime, i would consider what i was gonna get out of it (a tv?) versus whether or not i would get caught. i don't care if it would be probation, 2 years or 10 years. i also wouldn't differentiate between life w/out parole and the DP. it's 'can i get away with this or not?' the DP won't deter me, life in jail is the same as losing my life, but i have to live till i die naturally knowing that i threw my life away.

A big problem with the death penalty is that as a deterant, I'm not so sure it works. I used to think thatwas because the process was so long and dragged out that it kind of loses its potency. But then, I look at societies that have immediate executions (Saudi Arabia, China), it does not appear that capital punishment is effective (I don't have any hard sources guys, bear with me).

In China, it is carried out immediately upon sentencing (Texas could learn a thing or two from the chinese). It is really cheap - a bullet to the back of the head, billed to the family. Murders, rapist, govt. official who are corrupt - I really like this one. Can you imagine cleaning house in the US? If it were punishable by death then all the Ken Lays etc. Maybe the US would really be good).

But still, crime is not so low there. What about Japan? Isn't their crime rate low? do they have death penalty? Saudi Arabia - man, I would be scared to visit there let alone live there or comit a crime they are so oppressive. but yet, they have a whole bunch of crazies doing crazy things all the time - rape, murder etc.

Capital punishment still doesn't seem to work.

As far as satisfying revenge? I don't know, it doesn't bring your loved one back. Because, I would want the death penalty for drunk drivers, the one who kills my pregnant wife. And I;m not sure I would be any less grieved. Whether it was cold-calculated murder or a stupid, stupid negligent "murder", I would want that guy to be punished too, in theory. So if death penalty for Scott Peterson, then death penalty for the drunk driver or stupid teenage girl on the cell phone driving an SUV without a license who runs over my pregnant wife. And that gets really tricky.

Personally, I think the death penalty is too easy. Some of those a-holes want to be executed!! F that man,! I say 50 years hard labor in the mines at $.50 hour. Then every week he has to mail a check for half or two-third his earnings to the family as restitution. Something like that, you get the point.

Well Harry, I'll have to say that you're pretty thorough in presenting evidence supporting other's acceptance of your beliefs. Let me ask you:

Are your beliefs influenced by the apparent preponderance of evidence showing that others share your beliefs or are you firm in your beliefs regardless of what a skilled (and determined) researcher/debator can assemble?

I'm willing to postulate that if I or someone else were determined enough, we could produce just as much evidence supporting the DP as you've presented against it - thereby reducing it to a function of determination and debating prowess.

I don't mean to be confrontational - I respect your thoroghness and to make decisions in the absence of fact would be silly. Just wondering what your "gut feeling" tells you.

my beliefs are my beliefs. that others happen to share them is irrelevant. in my gut, i think it's wrong for the state to execute prisoners. it makes us no better than them. if you want to live in a society with one foot in the past, that's your decision, but one i don't support. innocents have been exonerated after the execution has been carried throuhg. the money spent on prosecuting those cases could be put to better uses. the deterrent effect doesn't seem work. i have looked at the studies that say it does and i find myself unconvinced. (i don't feel the need to post the pro-death side, this isn't an essay after all). i don't see a reason to support the death penatly other than for revenge, and that's far from a compelling reason.

I agree. I'm just saying that we should make a point to maintain an objective standard for handing out punishment to criminals.

Perhaps if we take away all the TVs, VCRs, books, computers, ball games, book deals and such in prison, then far less real crimminals would be willing to do a crime that gets them life in prison. IMHO there are way too many prisons that are a guarenteed "3 square meals a day" and time to relax in a cell that has all the accoutrements of most people's living room! The stats state that most hardened criminals DO return to prison...even after they do the time and act like the have been rehabilitated. As for adeath penalty....only if the criminal is proven guilty without a speck of doubt....that's the hard one for the courts & juries these days. Proof vs. a mighty good lawyer.

It seems most of you are saying an eye for an eye... let the punishment fit the crime.
There has also been some talk about the $ cost $ of the criminal in relation to the punishment.
I say it CAN BE and SHOULD BE that simple... there should be no doubt (in the prosecution), no hesitation (in carrying out the sentence), and no second chances.
Lastly, don't over think the issues. That's how mediocrity creeps in.

Cheers,

Seriously, don't overthink the death penalty, what sort of statement is that - quick kill them before I resolve my thoughts and change my mind

If you had bothered to READ the first part of my post you would have caught that little thing about there being "no doubt in the prosecution"!
Once a verdict is reached don't waffle, don't second guess, and don't change your mind.

Cheers,

Hmm... an eye for an eye. What do you think is the reason for punishment? Is it to create an equilibrium of violence or immorality to balance violence and immorality? Or should the equilibrium be reached by doing a good to cancel out the bad?

If a boy robs a convience store, what should be the punishment (eye) for his robbery (also eye)? Should we steal from him? How does prison fit the crime?

Sorry for all the questions. Is punishment simply a penalty or should it serve to teach those who have done wrong? I'd like to think that justice for those who have done wrong isn't simply a penalty, but an opportunity to learn and grow so that the person can become better. If, hypothetically, there was a way to completly reform someone who had commited hainus (death penmalty worthy) acts, would you not want to punish them and then help them? What if a murderer could be punished and then helped to understand that what he or she did was wrong and should not be done? Doesn't that seem better than stuffing them into a crate for 20 years and then gassing them or injecting them with poison?

I READ it, my point still stands, you can't change your mind once you've killed them anyway - my point is that you can't overthink reasons pertaining to taking someones live, how do you reach the "no doubt" conclusion otherwise?

Unfortunately, such a thing as a "no doubt conclusion" doesn't exist. Hence why people say "beyond reasonable doubt".

Ok, you caught me... I don't watch "Law & Order".
Both d*d and willravel obviously bring forth valid points.
Life and death issues are and probably always will be shades of gray with almost limitless degrees between.
We are each individuals with different views and different takes on what we call life and death...

d*d, I appologize for my last post quoting you... I should not have done that in the tone I did.

Wrong.

It's kinda the wrong reason for punishment. Depending on the reason, no one should kill for justice. As other TFPers would say, it would not teach a lesson. Why would you want someone dead? For revenge? Then what? You will probably wanting more. In my opinion, when the families of the victims are interviewed after the convict's death, I don't think they are happy. They are still sad, not happy that he is dead. The convict's family is hurt because now they lost a loved one. More people are being punished than for the death of one person.

We should note that the Bible should not be taken literally. Catholics should know that! God wants us to live better lives; he is just implementing different examples of laws and how humans should live, and how and why we shouldn't.

Is it? OR is it claiming that because we are all sinful (original sin), we have earned eternal damnation. The second half of Romans 6:23 "...but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." When you take the whole verse in perspective, the message is clear. The death mentioned is the punishment given by God, not man. Man cannot sentence you to eternal damnation (unless you are a Reupblican...zing!).
Are you suggesting that capitol punishment is man acting as the hand of God?!
Where does that leave those who are discovered to be innocent who have been executed? Where does that leave all those Sadam killed? Whare does that leave all those who have been executed under an evil dictatorship?

Do you know what Paul meant when he wrote Romans 13:1-5? Well, I do.

At the time this letter was written, the Christians of Rome were being ruled by a non-Christian government. Christians were tempted to not submit (rebel) and claim allegience only to Christ. Paul was trying to prevent a rebelion, not suggest that the government is always right.

Well, sense it has happeneds all over the world and is not going to be stopped anytime soon the true question would have to be what is right and wrong and each individuals perceptions of what right and wrong are seperatly. Along with that is the argument of weather or not a persons sense of right and wrong is true to a universal standard which would of course be set by the given society that one inhabits. So it might be said that if a majority of society says that the death penalty is wrong or right then the society rules, inless of course you dont care about universal standard by which of course your saying that right and wrong are not true inless they follow your perceptions of what right and wrong are.

The death penalty is right. There are people out there that just deserve to die. Evil does exist.

I certainly think that some people should die for the suffering they've caused others, part of me just thinks that its an easy way out for them.
For me, the criminals should be given life sentences (and I mean LIFE sentences, not 25 years, parolled after 15) where they spend every waking moment til the day they die in a 6x4 room with nothing but a bucket and a matress for company.
That way they can contemplate what they've done. Not for rehabilitation purposes, just for their own personal torment. It's more of a 'punishment' in my opinion.

There are better ways of punishing a criminal. Killing someone does nothing to help society, aside from removing said person. Prison, in its current form, is also stupid. Criminals should be used as cheap labour to make our products. They could be hired out to companies at less than the wage they would normally hire foreigners in sweatshops, and we could have some guilt-free Nikes. Do it up concentration camp style.

And who cares if the criminals don't necessarily feel punished? Guilt and remorse are highly overrated by our society. Remorse is important for the average person, and the good person, but that does not mean that someone cannot be productive without it.

The only time one should take the life of another person is if that very person is himself threatening innocent life, and even then only if unavoidable.

[QUOTE=Suave]There are better ways of punishing a criminal. Killing someone does nothing to help society, aside from removing said person. Prison, in its current form, is also stupid. Criminals should be used as cheap labour to make our products. They could be hired out to companies at less than the wage they would normally hire foreigners in sweatshops, and we could have some guilt-free Nikes. Do it up concentration camp style.

And who cares if the criminals don't necessarily feel punished? Guilt and remorse are highly overrated by our society. Remorse is important for the average person, and the good person, but that does not mean that someone cannot be productive without it.

that makes a lot of sense to me!!

but i cannt answer this..too many perspectives...some ppl dnt deserve to be alive...chuck them to the sharks...lifes a death penalty anyways..no imoni been stupid..i dont know i realy dont..whether it is a good thng or not!!! i havent got a clue!!