What is a good ethical theory to use, in order to argue in favor of the death penalty?

Answer 1

I don't agree with you, but I'll answer your question anyway. All you have to do is hear my side of it.

As someone who is from Texas, I can assure you, the death penalty doesn't really do much as far as crime prevention. Our percentages of homicides-per-population are basically the same as anywhere else, and sometimes higher. Actually, there have been more than a couple of years where Texas cities like Houston and Dallas led the nation in numbers of murders. The death penalty doesn't work in that sense because if you're willing to commit a murder, you don't do it thinking you'll get caught, so punishment is no deterrent.

The only reason we have the death penalty is because of voters who think hypothetically that if their loved ones were murdered, they'd want the murderer condemned to death. Thing is, those are the opinions of people who've never had a loved one murdered.

Every anti-death penalty group in Texas has at least one person whose family member was murdered and the killer was sentenced to death. They oppose the death penalty because it's more painful for their family to have to go through the legal process of condemning a man to death. It's not as simple as a criminal gets sentenced to death and then they rot on death row until they get lethal injection. If you get sentenced to death, your case is automatically sent to an appeals court to review the case, and usually their sentence is forestalled for years while they put in one appeal after another. And finally, the state does another review prior to executing the criminal.

Having to go through all of this is utter hell for the victim's family and loved ones because it keeps re-opening a wound that will never close anyway. It actually makes it harder for the families to get a sense of closure, because their life is basically in limbo until the killer is executed. The execution takes place years and years after the victim has died. Believe it or not, it's pretty common for it to tear the victim's family apart having to go through all of this -- depression, alcoholism, divorce and drug addiction are all fairly common for these families. When the killer finally dies, some families realize that it would've been no different to put the killer in prison for life: Either way, their loved one isn't coming back and a part of them has also died with that loved one.

None of this answers your question though. As you can probably guess, I'm against the death penalty. That also means I've discussed it with people who are for it. They're difficult people to debate with, because nothing will change their mind. Here are some of the responses I've heard:

The death penalty costs more than life imprisonment: The response is usually that we shouldn't think of costs when it comes to justice, otherwise we'd let every criminal go free because it's cheaper.

The death penalty doesn't prevent crime: The response is usually that the goal of the death penalty isn't to prevent crime but to punish it.

The victims' families go through hell because of it: The victims' families would go through hell either way. (I must say, I really think that's a very callous response -- but I've heard it before).

The death penalty means that innocent people get executed, and it also means that murderers who are severely mentally ill and not legally culpable for their actions get executed (which, again, is true): No system of justice is perfect.

When you follow up that last one with the fact that America's legal system is based on the principle that it's better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be punished: The consequences of letting a guilty man go free are much higher when the crime is capital murder. (I wouldn't use that point though, because doing so is an admission that you can't respond to the follow-up, which is that executing an innocent man contradicts that principle of our laws).

Answer 2

How could it possibly be ethical? Any system designed by human beings is bound to make mistakes, and with the death penalty system, the worst mistakes are irreversible. The system does make tragic and irreversible mistakes. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas for starting the fire that killed his children. Modern forensics has shown that the fire was accidental. Willingham was innocent. There wasn’t even a crime. Over 130 other wrongfully convicted people sentenced to death have been exonerated. DNA, rarely available in homicide cases, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Obviously, if someone is convicted and later found innocent you can release him from prison, but not from the grave. The death penalty doesn't stop others from committing murder. No credible study has shown otherwise. Homicide rates are consistently higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. Most murderers are not rational, and don't even think they will be caught. Life without parole, on the books in 49 states (all except Alaska), also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is not a picnic. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty. The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The high costs of the death penalty are for the complicated legal process, and the largest costs come at the beginning, for the pre trial process and for the trial itself. The point is to avoid executing innocent people. There are more sensible ways to spend money on keeping people safe. Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Is this ethical?? When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed? Families of murder victims aren’t unanimous about the death penalty. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principal have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative. Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 death row exonerees had already served more than 10 years. Speeding up the process (as some answers suggest) will lead to executions of more innocent people. Is this ethical? I think not.

Answer 3

Well, the easiest one I can think of is: "Dead people don't commit crimes." You may quote me. This is for serious crimes that seem to become a habit with re-offenders, like molestation, rape, serial murder, felony DUI. BTW, states with the death penalty seem to have higher rates of re-offense than states without it, leading some professors of ethics to question the value of the death penalty as a deterrent.

Answer 4

There isn't an ethical one...possibly you could use a utility argument (in theory, not in practice, it's cheaper to kill someone that incarcerate them). But in terms of ethics: it all falls apart quite quickly.

Answer 5

The right to take a life is not a right of man or society. To correct the doer by helping him/her to understand that he/she has no right to take another life. To prevent another life being taken by studying why it happened. To educate and take preventive action to save future lives. Death penalty is considered to be a deterrent - but not necessarily so. some consider that one deserves death because he/she took another person's life.This is revenge - It is barbarianism.

Answer 6

None. It cost the american public more tax dollars to put someone to death then to let them rot in prison for the remainder of their life.

Answer 7

You could use the functionalist theory and argue that they no longer have any benefit to society.

Answer 8

mmm, i guess you could argue that it is kinder to these criminals to just put them to death instead of letting them spend the rest of their lives in prison, but that one wouldn't stand up to anyone with a brain.....

Answer 9

Do unto others as you would want done unto you

Answer 10

if the crime is so bad that life is to good for them