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

This is such a difficult thing to decide, so I will say this:

I agree with A2 and I have never been a big fan of the death penalty.

However, I do have to admit that if the person sentenced to die is a pedophile or one who has inflicted harm on a child then I'm inclined to say go ahead and kill them...not because I feel that the death penalty is 'right' but because pedophilia is incurable and that person will ALWAYS be a danger to society and innocent children.

Answer 2

Mixture of thoughts. (I wrestle with this question from time to time myself.)

I don't agree with F1. In most cases where the death penalty may be considered the person typically has no belief that they would be caught. So it really doesn't act as a deterrent at all. Also in other cases the person has more or less wigged out and rational thought is out the window anyway, so again I don't believe anyone can make the case for it being a good deterrent.

Also I don't agree with F2 either. It can help many people associated with victims reach closure but not all. In many cases strong religious beliefs have the families of the victims campaining against the death penalty for the perpetrator. So I disagree with it being essential.

I agree with your A1 as already stated and I also agree with your A2, there is no way to go back.

Oddly enough I'm for the death penalty but for a different reasons.

1. Protection for the general population. Nothing drives me crazier than hearing about some wackjob who was released from prison for who knows what reason and goes right back to killing and or raping people.

2. And this one will take a little explaination... Humane treatment of all people. You get a 25 year old who commits some horrible crime where they end up in prison for the next 60 years and people actually think keeping that person alive is humane. I feel it is the exact opposite. Have you ever seen a caged animal who has not been let out of the cage for a long time. It only gets WORSE.

To me the most important thing is to only pull the trigger on the death penalty if and when the courts can be 99.9 percent sure the person is guilty. If not that then we need to do something else rather than life in prison. It does no good for anyone.

Interesting question.

Answer 3

F1 is false. There has never been any evidence that the death penalty is any better a deterrant than life imprisonment. In fact, the states with the highest murder rates are the states that have the death penalty! Most people who commit a crime don't worry about the consequences, because they think they'll get away with it. The only real deterrent would be CATCHING murderers, and enough murders (and other crimes) go unsolved every year that criminals can still think they'll get away with it, thus nullifying the deterrant value of any kind of sentence.

F2 is entirely subjective. The Amish recently illustrated how retribution is not essential, and in fact showed how forgiveness can facilitate healing if only everyone involved is socially and emotionally mature enough to renounce retribution.

A1 is correct. If you can find one piece of reliable evidence to the contrary, please email me - I just love debunking false or misused statistics

A2 is also correct.

That being said, I believe the death sentence has some useful applications. I think that a 3-strike rule for violent crimes should carry the death penalty. This isn't about retribution, or even justice. It's about public safety. If someone keeps on breaking the law and injuring other people, that person is a risk to society and should be removed from society so everyone else can be safe. I see no reason to waste millions of dollars to keep people who are such a threat comfortably incarcerated, so unless tey can be put to work and pay for their incarceration, I say we pop 'em and use their worthless carcasses for fertalizer.

Answer 4

I agree that A2 trumps both F1 and F2. I don't like the idea of having my taxes pay for an individual who has committed a horrific crime to spend time behind bars but at the same time I don't agree with the prospect that rehabilitation will benefit the individual. I know people can change but can they change to the extent that it makes a difference when they have already exhibited the level of hatred they have toward human life? I don't want to be God and pass judgment on anyone, so I would still agree that A2 trumps F1 and F2 and I will continue to let my taxes pay for the individuals housing and care as long as it means that the individual has no chance of harming anyone else.

Answer 5

From a legal standpoint the person committed a crime against the state, not an individual. So it can't be retrobution. It actually does not deter crime. Look at the #'s from state who do not have the death penalty, they have low crime rates. I am against the death penalty because it's wrong to kill people (wars are an exception and it can't be avoided) no matter who does it. Also, it's extremely expensive to tax payers. It doesn't provide any closure to victims familys. Lastly, it effects too many people. Imagine being the nurse to insert the needle, the guard who straps them down, ect. I was a criminal justice/law enforcement student for many years and I'm against the death penalty for those reasons.

Answer 6

"An eye for an eye makes the world blind."

I don't know who said that, but it makes sense. America is the ONLY republic who uses it. All the rest...England and etc. DO NOT use the death penalty.

Here's a question:
Would it cost more to feed a criminal for 30 years, or to execute someone?

To execute someone!

It is ALSO against the constitution!

It also gives the criminal no time to think over what he did was wrong, and gives the criminal no 2nd chance. The death penalty just isn't a good penalty and should be cut out.

Answer 7

wow this is a nice question I am against it. A2 does trump all others.....then again I am not for paying for some no good loser to spend his life behind bars. I my (lowly) opinion I think families of those imprisoned should have to support them the entire time. That'll make you think twice bout killing your family...or doing nasty things to the children in the fam....I think China has something like that. If your family doesn't bring you food you don't get anything but some rice and water!!! that's a great idea don't kill anyone make their family pay for them....that'll teach them...that's just me though!

Answer 8

I am in favor of the death penalty because it tells a lot about how we measure the seriousness of crimes like murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.

If we give the criminal, say, 25 years to life, for example, then we are saying in effect that we do not consider these crimes to be very serious. And you better believe they are dam serious!!

Answer 9

I am for it.
But make sure the facts are there first I don't need to read anymore wrongful convictions than I already reading.

If the accused has taken lives like Saddam Hussein for example they should be executed.

Answer 10

I got with A2) because humans can't be grim reapears themselfs, and decide who lifes and who doens't, plus their too many flaws and in courts even innocent person could be proven guilty for something her or she didn't do.