is it ok to ride the fence about the death penalty?

Question

i can't make up my mind about whether i support the death penalty or not. i can see where both sides have a point. any reccommendations on how i can decide for myself whether or not i support it? why is it so hard to decide one way or the other what my view is?

Answer 1

It is a tough decision. Read about it, hear other people's arguments and eventually you'll make a decision. There is no need to rush yourself. Some decisions are sensitive and hard to think about.

Personally, I think the death penalty should only be allowed in EXTREME cases such as Osama Bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Hitler, etc....

Answer 2

There are a lot of issues in life that are neither "black" nor "white"--there are a lot of grey areas, and this subject just happens to be one of them.

First of all, consider this. If one of your close family members or close friends were murdered in cold blood, I'm sure your first instinct would be to want revenge on the person who did it. That is only normal and most people who say otherwise are not being truthful.

However, we are hearing more and more about how DNA tests are proving that some convicted "killers" did NOT commit the crime. This is not extremely frequent, but it is happening. The problem I have with the death penalty here, is, we may be putting some innocent people to death. That's a scary thought.

My recommendation to you, is, take each case as an individual case. Each circumstance is different. Analyze the facts you know and give it some thought. You may think one case warrants the death penalty, and another one doesn't. I don't think you should feel guilty for any stance you take on this, as long as you feel justified in your heart to believe the way you do.

Answer 3

I personally believe that death penalty is NO PENALTY, because the guilty person is put out of the game, so to speak. So, where is the penalty? Actually, by killing a person who is found guilty of repeated murders, or proved to be a rapist or serial killer, you put an end to his life but not to that type of crime. You'd have helped him twice: avoid the penalty, and get rid of his misery. How could it be a penalty to let a rapist rest in peace? What good does it do to the victims other than assuring them that THAT particular criminal is going to harm them no more? What about the other rapists? Are the victims immune against them? The point is, death penalty does not help eliminate crime, nor does it penalize the criminal. It even looks like we are rewarding the criminal with two valuable prizes.
In my opinion, a better penalty yet is to put him to a permanent, irrevocable nonnegotiable life-long useful-to-society hard work so he suffers severely and pays back dearly, some of his debts to society. That could be called a penalty.

Answer 4

Usually if it hits home is when you can't make up your mind. You can agree with it or not. If you are on a jury that would be hard, because you would have to decide one way or the other. I also think a lot of it has to do with what that person has done. I believe in the death penalty. Men and women that sexually abuse children are the ones I don't care for.

Answer 5

Wanna hear a good one? I will tell you up front my bias comes because I am a Christian, and think I know my Bible pretty well. So my answer would be whatever it says should be my answer.

I can't make up my mind either.

I don't say this to say that the Bible is unknowable, because I believe it is, but I think you can spark debate among people who think they understand it perfectly and come down on opposite sides.

I think of the story of Jesus being brought an adulteress. In Jewish law, she and the man she was with should have been stoned to death. It was another case of people trying to trip Him up (partially bringing her but not him), and Jesus didn't get into a debate with them. He forgave her, told her to sin no more, and let her go.

So that part says no, but otherwise we are told to submit to government authority, so that part says yes. The whole idea of stoning for this offense originated with God in the Old Testament, so I don't believe that was a mistake, and I don't think this story is about a single issue like the death penalty.

So join the fence riders. It's good to think about serious issues like this and investigate the best information you can get.

Why is it so hard to decide? Because people who have opinions on the subject often get all worked up about it emotionally. (I expect to get flamed for this answer!) You can see why the decision is difficult for me, but on a more personal level, the decision for you might be hard because you don't have a personal involvement on one side or the other and want to look at this philosophically. There are good arguments on both sides.

Answer 6

I just got done watching The Life of David Gale. Read both sides of the issue. Put yourself in a murderer's shoes and imagine if being executed in a controlled manner by your own government is a fair justice. Check out Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevski. It's okay to be on the fence, but I simply cannot give an unbiased answer. I stand firmly against the death penalty.

Let's break it down like this. Abolitionists who oppose capital punishment do so because they feel it is wrong. Proponents of the death penalty feel it is the right thing to do. That is the issue in its most base format. We could then go directly into the debate of what is morally unjust against what is morally just. There's an endless amount of reasons why it is wrong, and just as many reasons why it is justified.

The fact remains. The opposer feels it is morally corrupt to commit state ordered executions, and feels it is just to let the criminal suffer in jail for the rest of their life. The proponent feels it is just to condemn a man to death, AND it is also just to let that person suffer in jail for the rest of their life. Now, does the proponent feel it is morally corrupt to NOT execute a brutal murderer? I should hope not. It just feels good, but the counter viewpoint is a valid one as well. For the abolitionist, the counter viewpoint to their ideal of not executing a man is an iniquitous one. What it breaks down to is the only thing that is wrong in this whole debate, the only thing that anyone has a real issue with, is condemning a man to death by order of the state. To execute the man does not make his crime go away. It is a retardation of a civilized society. It is only for the sake of vengeance. A family member of the victim[s] witnessing the execution of the accused feels better knowing that the killer is dead. It gives people solidarity to know that vengeance has been exacted. Unfortunately, condemning a man to die by order of the state will not bring the victims back. It does not make anything right.

If someone close to me was brutally murdered, I would want to see the guilty die too. That is a natural human feeling. I would want to kill him myself. I wouldn't be right in doing so, and could face criminal charges myself. Just because the state does it, does not make it anymore humane than if I were to put a bullet in the head of the guilty myself.

As far as cost is concerned, most people on death row stay there for ten to fifteen years under special treatment. It costs an exorbitant amount of money to hold a person on death row for that long when we could've just had him incarcerated for life. It is cheap, however, to simply put a man to death.

You simply have to decide what is morally right for you, and imagine if you were the executioner. Does the penalty seem pointless, or is it valid and honestly give peace to the victims? Put yourself in the murderer's shoes. Put yourself in the family's shoes. Come to an honest conlusion when both sides of the issue have been thoroughly evaluated. You should eventually come to a decision on this. It is an important decision, and you are a member of society whose tax dollars pay for prisons and executions. Personally, I feel being incarcerated for life is a far worse punishment than death.

One more point, then I'm off my soapbox.
What if the man you're executing is innocent?

Answer 7

It's a good sign that you haven't made up your mind after thinking about it - far too many people have made up their mind without thinking about it.

Read Jonathan Glover's "Causing Death and Saving Lives: The Moral Problems of Abortion, Infanticide, Suicide, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, War, and Other Life-or-Death Choices". I read it at university and found that it got right to the heart of the issue.

It's hard because these questions, like all philosophical questions, aren't meant to be easy. That's what makes life so interesting.

Answer 8

No I don't think it is ok.

By refusing to take sides, you are tacitly (if not actively) allowing those who advocate for the State's right to exterminate human life the right to continue doing so.

Being against the death penalty is not the same as saying you think crime should go unpuinished; it is saying that you think that the State's right over humans should be limited.

Answer 9

Watch Dead man walking (Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon). There's perspective from both sides. It's a really good film.
I have changed positions back and forth on this issue myself at different points in my life. Things like eternal vs earthly justice, quality of life, DNA results, jury biases against african americans in Georgia (Baldus study), and even economics have all played a role in coming to some sort of decision. One thing- I'm glad to see that you care enough to be disturbed over your position or lack thereof.

Answer 10

Red wine or white wine? Depends on what you're having.

Death penalty or not? Depends..... Isn't it too serious an issue to decide the answer for all future questions based solely on principle? In isolation of any information?

You're not wrong to reserve your decision for each case based on its merits.