Death Penalty?

Question

The two most important arguments for death penalty are:

F1) It is a strong deterrent
F2) It is essential for retribution

The two most important arguments against death penalty are:
A1) It is not a good deterrent
A2) The law might be objective, but its implementation is very subjective. Once life is taken a subjective error cannot be corrected.

Sorry, I cannot include any religious arguments

I strongly agree with F1 and F2. But A2 is true. In my opinion A2 trumps both F1 and F2 - so I am against it.

Your thoughts?

Argument for Public Safety:

This seems very appealing at first, but has flaws

This makes the assumption the person convicted is predisposed to the crime - given a chance to mingle with the rest of the society, he will comiit the crime again. This is something that cannot be validated at all! No scientific technique exists that will give us this information about this person.

Answer 1

F1 is objective - it has been shown repeatedly in studies that it does NOT deter crime (mostly murders). Murders are mostly committed in the heat of the moment, and the felon is not calculating the chances of being sentenced to life imprisonment or death. Death sentences would deter crimes like tax evasion, because the culprit has time to consider the consequences (though that might be a bit extreme for tax evasion!)

F2 is a subjective morality issue, so that's down to personal beliefs. I don't think retribution is necessary or advisable.

A1 - agreed

A2 - agreed - men are as yet unable to resurrect the dead in the event there is a mistake. Even one incorrect death would be intolerable in a civilized society - and US statistics show there have been many over the last two centuries.

There is a third argument against; cost. Because of the extra effort required for death penalty cases - two separate trials, extra testing/expert witnesses, automatic appeals, additional appeals and so on - the actual cost to put a prisoner to death exceeds the cost of keeping them alive for 50 years. I'd rather lock them up, throw away the key, and keep the tax money.

Answer 2

I have to agree to a point with your assessment. But what if stiffer restrictions were put on the death penalty. Say for instance the accusers can only be sentenced to death if there was a direct witness to the crime with good credibility, or when proved competent to make a confession to the crime and it be admitted only then.
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world so I have to say I'm for the death penalty. Because when someone takes a child's life or rapes and kills a woman, or murders another human being, they made their victims pay the ultimate price so why shouldn't they pay the same price?

Answer 3

This is an excellently laid out question. I used to be entirely in favor of the death penalty for all capital crimes, but as you point out, travesties are often created by over-zealous prosecutors and mistaken witnesses. So I have changed my views somewhat. To wit: Life imprisonment at hard labor with no chance of parole is a pretty horrific sentence, and seems to me that it should be about as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. (You will remember that Timothy McVeigh opted for execution after only a few years of imprisonment.) And it would satisfy your concern about not being able to correct subjective error. However, I would still reserve the death penalty for murder or treason when evidence is virtually irrefutable, and for murder commited by someone already under a life/hard labor sentence. Another thing you might want to consider concomitantly with your concern about "subjective error" is the fact that by the time one is nailed for murder (or any crime) he has undoubtedly commited other crimes of a similar nature for which he was never caught. (Willy Sutton, the infamous bank robber of the 30s and 40s, noted in his memoirs that he had been convicted of 9 robberies, 3 of which he did not commit. But he did not hold that against the system since he was never charged with another 26 that he did commit.) So while an occasional error may in fact be commited, the overall purpose of justice and punishment is most usually attained, albeit sometimes indirectly.

Answer 4

I have never heard of a single study proving that F1 is true, and I and i strongly agree with both A1 and A2, so I am very strongly against the Death Penalty.

Answer 5

I think all child molesters should be put to sleep! I am aware that would eliminate a big portion of the human race, but think about it, everyone left would be so scared they probably wouldn't do it. As for everyone else, if they committed the crime, are found guilty and are afraid of dying then I think they should be put to sleep. Let them feel the fear of dying just like their victims. If they are ready to die then I think we should keep them alive in jail. And when I say jail, I mean one meal a day, no t.v., no air conditioning, no gyms (only to make them bigger! That's stupid), no privileges AT ALL. Prisoners sometimes say, "they treat us like animals", well I think if they didn't act like animals they wouldn't be in there in the first place. I think they should work but only to pay for their clothes, food, facility expenses, and pay a small portion everyday to the victims or their families. That way everyday they are reminded of why they are in there! I do think the payment should go to a bank account where the victims are not reminded daily of the experience. That way they can deal with it on their own when they are ready. I really do agree the only time they should use the death penalty is when they know for sure they committed the crime. As for criminals who really didn't physically hurt anyone I think they should put them in a jail away from the hard-core criminals, but I still think they should work for everything.

Answer 6

i agree that f1 is bs
vengeance isnt really a good reason for killing either

i think that it does however, save lives by keeping repeat killers from hitting again 100% of the time

also, i think it is a favor over life imprisonement
i took a poll of ppl on here and 17 out of 20 so far have said they would prefer death over life imprisonement
i think maybe it should be an option for the inmate to choose from if he is given this choice

these are my thoughts

Answer 7

Good question. In my view it depends on the severity of the crime committed...although I've always been a fan of "eye for an eye" myself, the death penalty should not be considered in a case unless the court is 110% sure the person is guilty.

Answer 8

ok, well i understand the death penalty has convicted to many innocents.

but we need the death penalty for the low lives of our society, to get rid of them for good, or they get 4 yrs of jail and commit crimes again.

but we need to make sure we are 1000% sure it was that person who did the crime.

the death should be for killers, and really big crimes.

i honestly think the amerikan system is very dumb,i bielieve in the Hummarabi sys.

eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

dont commit a crime if u wuldnt want it to happ3n to ya.

Answer 9

i think that if there is death penalties they should only be used for people who cannot be rehabilitated like sociopaths and child molesters but A2 still trumps that so i disagree with the death penalty also

Answer 10

I've not committed any crime.
YET.
however I've often thought about some serious muther funking crime, just because of the death penalty.
Howzat for a new perspective?