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

I agree with A1 it is not a deterrant. Most people who murder don't think about it. I am against the government doing it but if anything was done to my family I"d kill the suckers myself After they were tried & proven guilty.

Answer 2

I take A1 over F1. The threat of 25 years in prison deters.

I don't buy F2 -- it is retribution, but of a kind that involves killing people to feel better. That, like murder, is pretty evil.

Another good argument against is that you lose the ability to explore further crimes. For Saddam, he could be executed in 3 months for killing fewer people than Tim McVeigh did. Shouldn't the families of the other 200,000 or so people get their day in court.

Also, execution assumes a person cannot be rehabilitated. Surely, an 18 year old son of a gun collector who shoots his neice could have a chance to live a decent life after he turns 50 or so.

Finally, a public policy of killing makes a country less "good," just as a public policy of ethnic cleansing or racism can lead to spontaneous acts of evil.

Answer 3

I disagree with f1 but i agree with f2. and a2 should not be a factor for consideration. Its true some innocent people may be executed but life is not fair and We the people can always send out apology letters. I believe the Death Penalty is needed to maintain some semblance of order and the perception of safety.

Answer 4

I agree with A2. The fact that errors can be made is very scary. Imagine being on death row and knowing you didn't do it and they were going to zap you anyway.

That said, there are some people I would gladly kick the stool out and see them swing:

Tim McVeigh
Ted Bundy
John Gacy

all were human trash who had forfeited their right to life.

So I guess the bottom line for me is: yes to the death penalty, but very, very selectively and carefully. But I take no joy in it.

Answer 5

Well I would agree that a major problem with it is that this type of punishment on an innocent person is unable to be corrected. As long as all measures are taken to insure a guilt/Innocent verdict is correct, however, I am for the death penalty. I simply put myself in the victim's family's shoes. Someone kills someone in my family, and I, honestly this sounds bad, but I would honestly want them to die...just my opinion however

Answer 6

If I was sitting in a cell waiting to be murdered by the state for a crime I didn't commit, A2 would definitely be my choice of logic.

Answer 7

The death penalty is not a deterent to crime.

The legal process could cost millions per case, and if there's a mistake there's no going back.

It is better, and cheaper to lock someone in prison for the rest of their lives. Death is an easy way out.

Answer 8

Ask Valerie Moore's most recent victims...oh wait, you can't because they're dead.

The death penalty is a deterrent, at least to the repeat offender.

Answer 9

You are absolutely correct: A2 holds the strongest argument.

P.S. Daydoom is an idiot.

Answer 10

No death penalty. Society should be paid with life from the guilty. Comatose, blood used, eyes and organs. Debt paid in Full.