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

Sounds like homework....

Capital punishment is not essential for retribution - sometimes seeing the criminal suffering is better than if they are killed.
Capital punishment may be cheaper (and why should tax payers have to pay to keep criminals alive) However by killing them you are creating more murderers - its just legal murder if someone flicks the switch.

An alarmingly high number of those sent to death and killed are later found to be entirely innocent and then people have been murdered without reason - so as long as capital punishment is around and an unfair trial is possible or a corruptible legal system then you are giving people license to kill (sorry about the bond pun)

Answer 2

How can a government say it is wrong to kill someone and then make that point by killing someone. A2 along with the fact that at some time innocent people are going to be put to death trump all arguments for the death penalty. Plus most studies say it is not much if any of a deterrent.

Answer 3

For me the biggest problem with Death Penalty is A2)-- it is strong.
However it can be fixed. How about Death penalty ONLY in case with 2 witnesses or more?
This would Reduce the subjective error almost to zero, and we can still execute the most atrocious murderers(thus saving F2).
Of course the flip side would be that it will be a weaker deterrent.
But i think the balance in my proposed solution is better then to have what we have now and better then no death penalty at all.

Answer 4

i agree with a 2 and a 3
if it were such a great deterrent there would be no murders
how can you judge a man for murder only to murder him?
i dont know if this would be considered religous - but you place your hand on a book that says thou shall not kill but in turn you may be sentanced to death - its hypocritical- its not about the book being the bible its the point -
MY PROBLEM WITH F2 IS - if it makes you feel better to see someone die then you are in your heart no better than the person who commited murder - im not saying if someone killed someone in my family i wouldnt want them to pay, it just means in some cases i may be as guilty as the original killer -

now when it comes to kids and children - i do think the death penalty should be carried out- then again parents have coached kids to lie -

susan smith - she should have been put to death -

so i guess i dont like the idea of the death penalty - at the same time theres ceartin people i could care less about wether or not they died and some i think should ( like susan smith )

Answer 5

I have different arguments against. From a logic standpoint consider this:

- the state is composed of the people
- it is wrong to kill people
- why can the state kill people?

When I took Criminology about 10 years ago, they said it cost more to process the appeals than to house an offender for life. I would also object on financial grounds if this still holds true.

Getting old and dying in prison seems at least as bad as being executed. To my way of thinking that is also a deterent and serves retribution.

But still, in most cases, the people who are executed likely did such heinous crimes I just don't care what happens to them. It is the few borderline cases that concern me (mentally retarted offenders, poor public defenense, witnesses motivated by threat of prosecution, etc)

Answer 6

You trumped you own argument. The law is law, whether it's implementation is subjective, or not. You can be against it all you want, but until the law is changed, you are arguing academically. Persuade the majority of voters to change the law. Then you have done something, rather than stated an argument that may, or may not be refuted.

Answer 7

F1. It is a strong deterrent and it is inevitable.
But the judiciaries worldwide today's work around favoritism. I agree with it under a proper judiciary.

In some countries religious favoritism are very high. Many places racial discrimination are ruling.

Before you decide on death penalty..... Analyze the judiciary.

Answer 8

While it may be a deterrent for some it is obviously not a deterrent to all.
The death penalty serves no purpose other than eliminating a, perhaps, distasteful person from society.
But then when you look at the rehabilitation offered in the penal systems what other solution is there to deal with a cold, calculating murderer?

Answer 9

If the death penalty is a function of the state and we also believe in the separation of church and state, then for the function of the death penalty it cannot be assumed that there is a God nor can it be assumed that there isn't a God. Therefore it must be assumed that after you die you don't go to Hell, you just die. That in a sense is putting the criminal out of his or her "misery" so to speak. The only people whom it really punishes are the innocent family members of the supposed criminal. This is why the death penalty is a bad idea.

Answer 10

if some murders someone just for money, chances r they wont do it again. but if a person kills someone just because they feel like it, then theres a problem. You would keep this person under strict confinement and watch them. if this person escapes, and kills more people, he should be captured again but still not killed. he still has time to change. however, if he escapes again, and kills a lot of people, he should be brought back and put on the death penalty. otherwise he will keep killing innocent people for his own sake. that is not right. so he should be killed. he had more than one chance 2 change and he did not. in this case its justified.

i am NOT saying that he should have escaped 2 times to be killed, but his sentence should be decided on taking into mind the gravity of his crimes and if theres a chance he will do it again
hope this helps whoever

ps:
by killing someone, ur no better a person than they were.
(Scott Peterson: He most likely wouldnt have done it again, so y kill him? im not siding with him tho im just saying that killing him isnt teh best way 2go)