Capital Punishment: What are you thoughts on the Death Penalty?

Question

If you feel it necessary, what do you think is the most “humane” method of implementing it?

Note:
I wish this to be an intellectual discussion based on the aspects of morality and humanity or anything that influenced your sensibilities on the subject. I would also truly appreciate it if we could keep this civil and objective.

Many thanks, in advance.

EDIT:
YOUR thoughts. Sorry for the typo error. Oops

Such great responses, everyone. I honestly feel overwhelmed by the insights and perspectives I am getting here. I will need more time in digesting all this, so I've decided to extend the expiry date.

Please feel free to add in further, I do not mind extensive answers.

Shai Shammai: Welcome back! It's great to hear from you again.

Student of Life: No need to apologize, I have asked for a discussion, haven't I? I do appreciate the time you spent on this, and also your insightful answer. I may need some time to digest all, though.

This has been quite an enlightening week for me. On the outset, I truthfully did not expect this question to garner much response; I was afraid that many would not be keen to answer a question so argumentative in nature. However, by the end of the first day, I managed to receive an avalanche of such spirited and insightful answers that it really began to overwhelm me. Thus I felt compelled to look more deeply into this issue, and the research had taken me to places I never expected to be.

As in here, I found out that the arguments of the pros and cons of the Death Penalty issue move strongly both ways. I even went deeper in the religious aspects of this issue, and I found some pretty interesting development as to the interpretive nature of passages found in religious texts on the matter of the Death Penalty. And with this new “enlightenment”, I am able to deliberate on each answer here with a lighter disposition on my consciences, and be more objective.

I would like to say here that it would not be my place to say which side is wrong or right. This matter has been debated by people more evolved in their understanding on this matter compared to myself, and I am simply here to learn more, and to find out the sentiments of the public on this very grave matter. Therefore, my choice for the Best Answer would be for the one who has succeeded in relaying his/her argument in the most in-depth, insightful and convincing manner.

But please, for the ones not chosen, do not feel alienated in any way. I appreciate each of your opinions and views; for it is essentially what I have asked from the very beginning. Thank you so much for spending time here. You all have my deepest and most sincere gratitude…

Answer 1

I think it is great to have a calm discussion on answers for once. It is late, but I am so impressed by a person wanting an intellectual discussion on here, of all places, that I will stay up later than I should. I hope you read the whole thing, and I hope my logic is clear, but since I am tired, I can make no guarantees. :)

One thing that everybody should keep in mind is whether the logic they use would lead to allowing torture. I am not going to argue here against torture, but if you oppose allowing torture while the logic you use to defend the death penalty leads inevitably toward torture, your beliefs have some serious contradictions. I will be assuming that we are all opposed to allowing torture (and I mean torture for the sake of punishment, not the ticking bomb scenario which is sometimes brought up.) A key question is whether there is any reason to have the death penalty and whether the arguments that we use to argue for the death penalty lead to condoning torture (which I am assuming is bad.) Another question to keep in mind is what moral consideration the convicted deserves. I'm sure many people will here stop thinking and assert "none," but would at the same time not be comfortable with allowing him to be tortured. This is a contradiction that often exists in this debate, so its best to make sure it is in the open. If you believe that the condemned deserves no moral consideration, then you believe there is nothing inherently wrong with horribly torturing him (although there may be external considerations, such as how it would make our society appear to the world.)

doug_donaghue claims that it costs more to keep people in jail for life, but this is not true. It is well documented that it costs more to execute a prisoner. http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost This is certainly not an unbiased site, but I am too tired to do any in depth research. You are free to check this out elsewhere if you do not believe me. Even if it were the case that it was cheaper to execute people, this would not decide the issue. In matters of justice money is less important than fairness. If we really need to cut spending, there are things that should be cut long before the justice system.

The next big claim (and really the only claim that actually matters) is the deterrent claim. If it can be conclusively demonstrated that executions tend to reduce crime (and there is actually very little or no evidence that shows this) then we would have a very good reason to allow the death penalty. But here is where it is useful to keep in mind the slippery slope. The logic which says it is ok to kill a convicted murderer (and in doing so cause him severe mental anguish) if there is a deterrent effect would imply that it is also ok to torture him (cause him severe physical anguish) if doing so has a deterrent effect.

There is not a sharp moral distinction between mental suffering and physical suffering, and this is one of the biggest weaknesses of the modern pro-capital punishment argument. They want to draw the line and claim that physical torture is wrong, but mental torture (an almost necessary part of executions) is ok. But what reason is there to draw this line? Arguably the point of not allowing physical torture is to not cause suffering more than is necessary to the convict. But mental suffering is often just as intense as physical suffering and, in the case of executions, just as unnecessary. The person who wants to allow executions but condemns torture needs to offer reasons why we should take great steps to avoid one type of suffering while not caring about the other type at all, especially when both are intense and not necessary to a functioning society.

I think the third major argument in favor of capital punishment is the closure it brings to the victim's family. But this is really a circular argument. It only works because capital punishment is already an accepted practice. We do not allow the convicted to be tortured in order to bring closure to the family, even if it is what the family really wants, even needs. Societies which have abolished the death penalty do not allow the family's wishes to lead to an execution. Arguably torture could bring closure, maybe even more than execution. But we do not allow the closure argument to lead to torture, only execution, because we view execution as acceptable. If execution is not acceptable, the closure argument is irrelevant. There is also the problem that we should not be allowing individuals who have been wronged to decide the punishment. This is vigilante justice.

Inevitably people will ask "But what if it was your ___ who was killed?!" The honest reply is I would probably want the murderer to be tortured. Does it then follow that I should support the reintroduction of judicial torture? Of course not. What we want when we are extremely distressed is often very different from what we want when we are calm and rational, and it should be obvious that it is the calm and rational stances which should be given more weight.

The arguments in favor of the death penalty posted on here so far are either based on a misunderstanding of the costs involved or the unsubstatiated claim that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. I have addressed both these claims.

A few reasons to be against the death penalty:

-It is logically consistent with opposing torture, which nearly all of us oppose

-It eliminates the danger of executing an innocent person. of course an innocent person can still be sent to prison, but this is a far more rectifiable wrong than executing them is.

-It is cheaper to abolish it

-It will likely lead to a more "humane" justice system, since it is a step toward abandoning the outdated "eye for an eye" idea of justice which focuses more on retribution and punishment than actual benefits to society.

waia2000: Ok, then let's define "cruel." Being "cruel" means inflicting unnecessary pain on others. Since justice systems can operate just fine without inflicting certain pains (like those inherent in capital punishment), inflicting those pains is, by definition, unnecessary for the justice system in order to meet its goals, and by being unnecessary pain, is by definition "cruel." Cruelty does not mean whatever you want it to, but rather has a very precise definition which covers causing more pain than is needed.

Mandy: What are you talking about with an honor system? There are alternatives between execution and being let free.

aceyducey: Ironically it is the psychopathic and criminally insane who are quite safe from the death penalty, so I don't know how much water your argument holds. Lethal injection may not cause physical pain, but the fact of the execution undoubtedly causes great mental pain. You should explain why one matters and the other does not. Also, cutting the appeal time down to three years would lead to many more innocent people being executed. Is saving the taxpayers money (or whatever your reason) worth killing innocent people for?

Whoever has read this whole thing has my sincerest apologies. :)

Answer 2

The death penalty is there to not murder anyone but was put in place so that they could protect innocent people against the most horrific criminals and their crimes, there are some people who have no logic or conscience and therefore have no real idea or logic to prohibit them from committing the crime again, except for the death penalty. However, with that being said I do not quite fully agree with the death penalty because the people who serve the justice system (those who collect evidence, lawyers, police officers, judges and even jurors) are only following their human instincts and what is given in the way of facts and arguments to consider a person guilty or not and no matter how careful they are there is never 100 percent accuracy, there will always be human error intentionally and unintentionally. Sometimes a person who is found guilty of murder years later is proven to be innocent and if they were to get the death penalty before being proven innocent then we have just killed an innocent person and hence we become murders too.

Answer 3

I was pro-capital punishment for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 4

Capital Punishment is never a real deterrent, and therefore, never a real option in Justice.

In the US, there have been a number of cases, I forget the exact number, where the death row inmate was proven completely innocent, yet they are now dead (check with the organization called the Innocence Project on specific statistics). If even one Innocent is put to death, then there is no ethical reason for Justice to use this penalty. People often say that the Death Penalty should be used in societies best interest when the person proves to be an "ongoing threat to society and there is the liklihood of recidivism". But, the death of complete innocent people completely deprives us of any ethical grounds for support.

Additionally, others have claimed that the death penalty is a deterrent to other crime. This is complete fantasy. Convicts who have escaped the death penalty through legal wrangling still commit violent crime. Even more, Criminals who are not tried for "Death Penalty Crimes" are in no way dettered by anothers death. Many truly violent criminals will continue to commit crimes regardless of the death of another criminal. The deterrent does not work.

If you want a true detterrent to really violent crimes, make incarceration for "High Crimes" truly repugnent and harsh, let them be sent to a place like Devil's Island, where they do not have an exercise yard or TV privileges or real food, or let them spend the rest of their lives laboring in the service of the state. Especially in the US, we do not even deter our non-violent felons, we coddle them.

Answer 5

Well barring morals and all that other stuff, we should get rid of the death penalty because it actually costs more to keep a prisoner on death row then just life in prison with no parole. I know i was baffled by this too but when i did a report on this it was actually very true. There are several reasons why it costs more, one, in our legal system says that we must view all appeals seriously, and to this day i cant think of any death row inmate that wants to die, so the just appeal so we have to review every one, and that takes time and money. Also if one of those appeals are ligament then they take it to court, so now you got public defenders, judges, etc, etc. There are many more but i trust i has sparked your interest. To end on a little moral note, and that is all human life is a sacred thing, regardless of how evil or inhuman they may have or will be.

Answer 6

I see that Martin (answer just before mine) has already pointed out that the death penalty costs more than life and that it is not a deterrent. Sorry for the length of my answer but this is an important topic.

You don't have to excuse or condone brutal crimes or believe that the people who commit them should avoid harsh punishment to ask if the death penalty helps prevent or reduce crime and to be concerned about the risk of executing an innocent person. Whether or not we believe the death penalty is moral or just, we should take a careful look at how the system actually functions. In view of the fact that human beings are not perfect we should also ask if the problems in the system can be fixed. Here is some information about the system with sources below.

The risk of executing innocent people
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence and DNA is rarely availalbe in homicides and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that don't.

There is a viable alternative for keeping brutal killers out of our communities. Life without parole is available in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families orf murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

So, why don't we speed up the process?
Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 7

I can't find words to express how rewarding it was to read the answers to this profound question from those well informed, logical & humane. These three are essential to an intelligent discussion of so grave an issue. I carefully read Student-of-Life twice. The length was required to comprehensively clarify the misnomers in some of the answers that regrettfully were not informed, logical, or humane.
I believe cost, pain, deterrent, recidivism, & execution of innocent persons was adequately addressed. For those who have serious concerns about premeditated murder, (the death penalty), I'd like to refer to an insightful posting in Law & ethics about a month ago. John Cooly; a Horrible Crime, is A death Penalty Doing him a Favor? (Exact quote if you care to use "Search.") Part of Fr.Al's answer: "The worst part of capital punishment is not the the revenge or death of a criminal, but what it does to our national consciousness."
I will "edit" if I want to express more, as the first time, I was cut off & had to recall my thoughts.

I did want to comment on "closure." The difference often used as to how one would feel if it is "closer to home." A common, personal, emotional response...but not all victims of "the victim" share such a response--which is usually vengence, (vengence is not justice), & in their grief, have rejected the concept of the death penalty. I don't want to repeat what I posted in the long dialogue between myself & another user, (my friend), but I'm convinced by facts & attitude that the U.S. is basically pro-death, pro-violence--anything but wisdom. There is still the blood lust that led to hangings in the town square, bringing picnics. There cannot be joy in killing, & no reason to justify it. Ever.

Answer 8

Well, since the object of the death penalty has more to do with a since of justice than just killing someone, I think whats most important is that we look at whether or not it actually deters crime. I don't know the exactness of it (I have a friend in law school that does), but most all studies have shown the death penalty does not work when it comes to deterring crime.

personally, I think there is no such thing as a humane way of killing someone.

Also, I think life in solitary is much worse than having to die.

A Note to Doug:
It cost upwards of ten times as much to keep someone on death row than to "keep them in a cage". Death row inmates are allowed a lot of appeals, and who do you think pays for these appeals? being wards of the state, the tax payers pay for the appeals. It is MUCH cheaper to let them rot in a cell for the rest of their lives.

Answer 9

People think that the Death Penalty justifies a hideous crime, but IT DOES NOT.
People think it’s the most cruel punishment one can get for his merciless killing, raping or murdering, but IS NOT.

Whether a criminal is sat on an electric chair, hanged, or given doses of lethal chemical, nothing justifies his most gruesome act. Through All these, his suffering is just in a fraction of minutes and then it’s over. He won’t even know what death is...in the same way he's made it fully incomprehensible to his victim's loved ones.

I say letting him LIVE is the best punishment he can have. Let him walk corner to corner of his grim cell ALONE, in the dark…Where he can experience that certain fear of not knowing what or who surrounds him…Where he can have his endless moments of playback and replay of the crime he has committed…Where he can hear his own screams of nightmares in his sleep…if sleep doesn’t elude him…Where he can by chance feel the suffering and grief he has left in the lives of his victim’s family and friends when he has snatched away that life which perhaps is much depended on. Let him weep in remorse or shriek in lunacy or even learn to beg for his Creator’s mercy to end his useless life.
For what he has done has impaired the lives of those left behind…and their loss will be felt for as long as they live.

I say allow him to live; for he deserves a lengthy, soul-tearing punishment, NOT A QUICK ONE that only lasts him a moment. Only a lifetime of useless, empty, and agonizing half existence can somehow reflect a balance of justice for the life he has crashed in his cruel hands.

Answer 10

I'm from Australia & we don't have the Death Penalty here, but I agree with it 100%. If a person is found 100% guilty of Murder-Rape- Child Molestering with the intent on doing it again, you have no other option but to get rid of them, I know it sounds mean, but here they just rot in jail, what right do they have to live when the victims & their families are suffering, getting 3 meals a day for the rest of their lives & being looked after in case another inmate attacks them ????. 1 case over here a Pedophile/child killer has been released from jail about 6 months ago, he gets moved from safe house to safe house, when the public find out where he is, & I reckon he wishes he was dead, the man will never live a peaceful life as long as he lives. In the end I say an Eye for an Eye, let them live for so many years in jail, then get rid of them, It's sad that the innocent victims & their families have to suffer whilst the VERMON sit behind bars & think of what they have done for the rest of their lives...... Bring back Capital Punishment in Australia I say !!!!

Answer 11

There is no humane way to implement something that in itself is not humane. Putting aside morality & humanity, as essential as they are, (or should be), there is no logic to murdering someone because they have murdered someone. Especially a "legal" system that is so lacking in accountability. To my knowledge, we (U.S.) are the only "civilized" country that hasn't abolished this barbaric ritual. I've gotten in late on this question, & admire the wisdom of many answers above me.
I feel compelled to comment on freebird. Citing ONE case cannot make a point. Additionally, the fantasy that prisioners are "coddled" is a serious misnomer. Only those who have no firsthand knowledge (guards, research, touring a prison) would make such an erroneous statement.
It is a pathetic place where revenge, hatred & injustice so blatantly represent man's inhumanity to man, & without conscience, consider it a solution.