Atheists/Agnostics who are against the death penalty?

Question

I'm just wondering if there are any. I posted a question that referenced why people are against the death penalty and have read many other Q/A regarding the matter.
It seems as though the only main reason people give for being anti-death penalty is because they believe that it is God's place to judge and not man's. Or they cite a general religious belief against it.
Others only state everyone has a right to life in a single sentence answer, but do not give any specific reasons for this belief.
I am just curious about any reasons other than these that people have for being against it.
So anybody who is against it for reasons other than 'It is God's place to decide', would you mind explaining to me what your reasons are for being anti-death?
If there are any atheists/agnostics who are against it, what are your reasons? Please give more detail than 'everyone has a right to life'.

I am an agnostic myself am very much for the death penalty.
And I'm only asking out of curiosity.

I have nothing against those who are anti-death. I am just seeking feedback and opinions, not trying to promote my beliefs.

Thank you for your answers! I voted evryone a thumbs-up who stated an actual reason for their belief (i accidentally gave one a thumbs-down-sorry).
Even though I STRONGLY DISAGREE with almost every answer I've been given, I didn't ask the question just to hear people agree with my beliefs. So thank you to everyone for the feedback.

Georgia, please read the question I posted before this one. It was regarding exactly what you are saying, about being for/against death or abortion. You might like it.

Actualy I would love for everyone who answered this to read my previous question also, titled 'Pro-Choice/Pro-Death?'

Answer 1

I am so torn on the death penalty issue... I don't have a stance yet.

From a strictly economical side, I'm against the death penalty, because I've heard in multiple places that it costs 2-3 times more than life in prison w/o parole.

From a moral standpoint, it's hard to say. Killing someone removes them once and for all as a threat. Granted, while in jail they are only a threat to other inmates and the prison guards, but still, you cannot make a blanket judgment on whether those people (in the case of the other prisoners) deserve the threat, or (in the case of the guards) willingly accept the threat by being in that job. Also, there's always the chance of escape. You don't have that chance with death.

In addition, there's the obvious fact that if you accept the death penalty, almost regardless of standards for conviction, you're going to eventually get an innocent person in there. Making the standards for conviction extremely high just leads to multiple expensive appeals, which brings us back to the economic reason to be against it. It also makes the death penalty so rare that any appeal to it being a deterrent is just silly at that point, because even if you are convicted you'd have to be one of the unlucky ones to get the chair.

In fact, I have not seen any evidence that it actually serves as a deterrent, regardless of the extensiveness of its use.

I do believe that the highest value must be placed on human life, but when you have one human life that continues to threaten others, isn't it respecting that value to end their life?

I don't know. I'm an atheist struggling to have a position on this.

Answer 2

I am no longer of any faith, nevertheless I do have my possess ideals, so I don't magnificence myself as an atheist. When it involves the demise penalty I can't support however be careworn myself in what I think. One facet of me believes that 2 wrongs in no way make a proper and the demise penalty does no longer fairly resolve something. It does no longer undo anything has been performed and taking a existence individually isn't proper. The different aspect of me has the same opinion that humans who devote severe crimes and are one hundred% responsible, with none doubt must be punished. There once more the reason to the demise penalty could be to make the perpetrator undergo like he/she did there sufferers, nevertheless as soon as there existence has been taken then they undergo not. Surely making them reside the leisure of there lives in prison among different severe offenders is extra of a punishment. The ache that the sufferer/s enjoy does no longer finish simply due to the fact that the perpetrator is useless. For this motive and this motive handiest, I could say that I am extra towards the demise penalty then for. Also in the event that they had been to deliver again the demise penalty there could continuously be the viable risk that a person who used to be truthfully blameless could lose there existence.

Answer 3

I am prolife in both the idea that the death penalty should not be used nor should abortion be permitted. I am not only just an atheist, I have taken atheism to its logical conclusion of nihilism.

However, when I view the death penalty through the combined effort of deontological and utilitarian ethics, I cannot support it. First, from the utilitarian side, the death penalty ends a human potential -- in prison for life, the person may recant his error, pursue education, and become meaningfully contributing to society despite life imprisonment. For example, recently, I learned that the single person certified to transcribe higher math texts for the blind is in an Arkansas Prison, I believe for life without parole.

The process of seeking the death penalty in almost all cases more expensive than simply feeding and housing the prisoner for a life imprisonment. So the death penalty is more costly, this may be viewed as constituting secondary harm to society.

Further, many persons have been executed by the state only to be posthumously proven innocent. Many death-row inmates have likewise been proven innocent; a recent case (past ten years) was a high school class in law that elected to take on a murderer's case and managed to prove his innocence shortly before his execution, much to the class's, court's and prisoner's surprise. These people have been irreparably harmed -- time lost in prison cannot be recompensed, those dead cannot be revived.

I would *RELUCTANTLY* yield the permissiveness of death ONLY in a case where the person has confessed freely, has explicitly waived all right to appeal, there are three or more CREDIBLE witnesses, plus irrefutable physical evidence (video of the crime being committed, etc). In such a case, this would be half-execution, half-suicide, and while I'd prefer the prisoner make effort to reform in prison, I will yield him the right to elect death over a lifetime imprisonment.

Answer 4

I spent 25 years in Christian churches and the only supporters of the death penalty I've ever known are Republican Christians. I am an agnostic and support the death penalty, which makes me a minority among agnostics. I am also pro-choice. I think my belief system is in alignment, wherein the Republican Christians' is contradictory. You either believe in quality of life or not. I have never seen how one can support the death penalty AND oppose all abortions. I also don't understand how one can be pro-choice AND oppose the death penalty. Support the right to life for a convicted murderer, and be indifferent to the unborn? If I had to choose one to keep, I'd keep the unborn. I don't get that. On a side note: I think that the death penalty should apply to first-time child-sex offenders. I place no value on the lives that were wasted already, who do nothing but consume and endanger society.

Answer 5

I am an atheist and against the death penalty because it just doesn't make any sense for a government to say it is wrong to kill and then back that up by killing someone. Also if one innocent person is given the death penalty it negates all. And I'm sure that at least one innocent person in the US has been given the death penalty(not to mention other countries).

Answer 6

I am for the death penalty in only a very few cases. The only thought provoking argument that I have ever heard is what about the possibility of executing an innocent person. Obviously, this has happened. I have no argument for that, either. I just think that if you kill a child, you should die.

I am agnostic,

Answer 7

I am totally against the death penalty and am an atheist, most atheists I know are also totally against it.

Firstly it is all about vengance, you do not bring people back from the dead by killing someone else, an eye for an eye is fine for bronze age morality but not for me not in the 21st Century.

Secondly it does not work as a deterrent, people do not kill people because they think they will 'only' get a life behind bars, there is no evidence at all that there is a detterent effect.

And thirdly look at the company you keep. States with the death penalty include only one real functioning democracy, the rest of them are dictactorships and regressive regimes, only barbarians kill people in cold blood whatever the provocation.

Answer 8

If you are an Atheist, you believe that this life is all we have and to take another's life in a capricious manner is a terrible waste. Granted, there are criminals who clearly deserve to be put to death, but put yourself in a jail cell awaiting execution and you are in fact innocent (which happens a lot), what would be your opinion of the death penalty. Many executed people were later found to be innocent and even though their name is cleared, they are dead. Not having the delusion that they will somehow wake up in a fantasy land makes their death a terrifying experience. Life in prison without parole, while not fair to the convicted innocent victim, does allow for corrections to be made and justice to be truly served.

Answer 9

The trouble is, the idea of the death penalty is to give an example to others who have, or would commit the same crimes. It is a warning to others, not a punishment to the criminal. If you seek justice against a man who killed your mother, you would want them to suffer, the death penalty doesn't usually allow for that, at least not here in the states. Then again, neither does a prison sentence anymore. It has become something akin to a vacation.

Answer 10

I am against it on the terms that no person has a right to take another person's life. (Then again, I'm a vegetarian because of much the same reasons. Chalk it up to spending too much time with Buddhists--they make too much darn sense.) It's less a person's right to life than another person's non-right to take it.

However, I also understand why people are for it, and their reasoning is valid. I also understand that there are cases in which one should commit an atrocity to prevent further, worse atrocities--to fall back on a tired old standby, not a thing wrong with killing Hitler.

My other reason, based on my own reasoning...if someone is already in prison, why kill them? Their role as a menace to society is done with. Just leave them to rot in jail. (Then you get overcrowded prisons, but I dont think killing prisoners is necessarily the best solution...)