English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Claim your case. What are the pros and cons of this statement? This will be alot of help for me. Do you think Immanuel Kant will be against the thought of utilitarianism? What does utilitarianism really mean? Is it the good for many? What is redistributive justice?

2007-10-14 03:21:21 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

10 answers

I was pro-death penalty 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. In the U.S., over 100 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence in the last 30 years. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, a JUST 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."

2007-10-16 11:44:59 · answer #1 · answered by El Guapo 7 · 0 0

How can a just society implement a punishment of dubious value in preventing or reducing crime, while risking the execution of innocent people. Even is a just society people make mistakes.

Is this just? 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. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

Is this just? 124 people shown to have been wrongfully convicted were been sentenced to death. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Edit: At least one answerer doesn't realize that the death penalty costs much more than life in prison (becasue of costs of the legal process, which is supposed to prevent the execution of innocent people.) Life in prison is available in 48 states and means exactly what it says.

2007-10-14 12:44:00 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 1 0

John Stuart Mill coined Utilitarianism, when he was wrestling with the definition of "good". He decided that the highest form of good was as much good for as many people as possible.

Pro- some people are so evil that the ultimate sanction a society can provide is justified.

Con- as a general deterrent, capital punishment doesn't work.

2007-10-14 03:32:26 · answer #3 · answered by neil k 3 · 0 0

There are 2 advantages from it: It stops risky human beings from being risky. this might besides the shown fact that still be executed by employing sentencing them to existence in penal complex. In doing so as a replace you in addition to might removes a number of the undesirable outcomes that i will point out under. that's pronounced that it has a deterrent consequence on different doubtlessly risky persons. There are quite a few significant risks of the dying penalty: It has occurred quite a few circumstances that harmless persons have been sentenced to dying and additionally been executed. between the main impressive circumstances have been the execution of Timothy Evans in great Britain in 1950. interior the U. S. extra advantageous than a hundred thirty persons have been exonerated from dying Row in the previous they have been executed. what share harmless persons that has no longer been discovered yet nonetheless are on dying Row or has been executed we don't comprehend. The dying penalty has been shown to no longer have a deterrent consequence. opposite to the declare above the dying penalty has in hassle-free terms a minor, if any, deterrent consequence on the crime value. The dying Penalty is expensive. the completed fee for a dying penalty trial, next time on dying row and execution is plenty larger than the fee of in simple terms sentencing someone to existence in penal complex. there is not any foolproof thank you to kill someone. there is often a danger of a botched execution which will reason unacceptable suffering for the guy to be executed, besides as for the persons that carry out the execution. from time to time it occurs that the execution fails thoroughly and that the condemned person survives. The final time someone survived an execution attempt interior america improve into final year while the deadly injection of Romell Broom had to be aborted through fact the execution team did no longer insert the needles for the injection. regardless of if there could be capital punishment relies upon finally on how plenty one values the existence of harmless people. If the linked fee of persons potential no longer something or little to you, capital punishment is obviously a optimum determination. If, on the different hand, you think of that that's unacceptable to treat harmless persons as sacrificial animals that in simple terms exist for the earnings of others, then capital punishment must be abolished. remember the words of Gandalf in "The Lord of the rings": many who stay deserve dying. and a few that die deserve existence. are you able to provide it to them? Then don't be too desirous to deal out dying in judgement.

2016-10-22 08:59:45 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Yes. There are some really bad folks out there, and we coddle them too much. Many in our society are under the mistaken notion that they can be assimilated back into society. Why do we want that so bad? Some people don't deserve that chance. What we need to see is the ability to put some criminals out of our misery without spending a fortune on litigation about it.

2007-10-14 03:31:41 · answer #5 · answered by ready4sea 4 · 1 1

Various studies have been done in prisons. IMO the death penalty has two positive attributes.

Felons do not fear the cops. They know the cops have a set of rules they must follow and all the felon has to do is drop his gun and put up his hands and all the cops do is arrest him.

Felons do not fear the justice system. They know with a lawyer they can play the system sometimes for years. They often can plea bargain down from something serious to something less, getting them less time in prison. If they do go to trial, they know they might get off.

Felons do not fear the prison system. For many, it is like old home week, meeting up with old friends. For others, it is like being sent back to school to learn the "profession" better and when they come out, they are either more violent or more capable of carrying out their crimes without getting caught.

Felons do not fear the death penalty. They know juries are reluctant to impose it and they do so only for the worst of murders. They know they can appeal over and over and often can get their sentence changed to life in prison. And that is not so bad for them. Room, board, free medical care, free education and get to hang out with their buddies and not have to work.

So benefit #1, those repeat offenders who keep committing crimes over and over who finally do get the death penalty carried out, we have ONE less felon to deal with. One less guy who is going to get out and continue his criminal ways.

However, those who are not felons, those who are first timers or those who are thinking of murder to get rid of a spouse or business partner ARE put off by the death penalty. They know it is there and it is used. That may be just enough to deter them from committing murder.

Benefit #2. Even if the death penalty deters even one person from killing another, it is worth it.

The disadvantage of the death penalty is the ACLU and other liberals who are more concerned about the felons than the law abiding citizens have made it so expensive to carry out the sentence it IS actually cheaper to keep them for life.

As an aside, what felons (career criminals) fear is an armed victim. They are willing to risk 5-20 years in prison for armed robbery as the chances of getting caught, convicted and sent to prison are actually pretty low. But they hate the idea of an armed victim who can give them the death penalty right then and there. As an example, car jacking is much more common in states where concealed weapons permits (CWPs) are greatly restricted and thus armed victims are rare. In states where CWPs are easily gotten by any law abiding citizen, car jackings are seen by the felons as a high risk, low benefit thing to do thus car jackings are rare. As are armed robbery, hot burgleries and rape.

2007-10-14 08:19:06 · answer #6 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0 1

No, the death penalty is not to punish. It is to hold a person responsible for a crime so hannis, that we as a society feel they must pay with their life.

2007-10-14 03:36:06 · answer #7 · answered by schneider2294@sbcglobal.net 6 · 1 0

I guess it depends on your definition of "just". Do we go by take "an eye for an eye", or just support those who have taken a life and support them until they die?

2007-10-14 03:27:55 · answer #8 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 0 0

Yes they should if they are certain they have the right person.


Pros- a dead man can not kill again.

2007-10-14 03:26:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

No, death penalty is wrong and needs to be abolished.

2007-10-14 03:28:27 · answer #10 · answered by Sdsd S 1 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers