In the United States, I am against the death penalty. There are other options.
There can be circumstances under which the death penalty makes sense. We can dream up scenarios where there is no way to imprison someone, no way to be safe from that someone. Then it turns into self defense.
But in the extant US? No.
Which isn’t capital punishment and thus is irrelevant.
Capital punishment is not morally equivalent to self defense. The government has the option, if a captured murderer represents that serious a threat, of simply locking them in a cell and sliding their food under the door.
Capital punishment is immoral and unbefitting a civilized nation.
That’s because dead men don’t get trials, so it’s likely there is nothing you’d accept as being “demonstrated.” For instance, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of murder based on evidence a panel of experts later concluded proved nothing and was based on nonsense; but you can’t retry him, because he was executed. There’s no case to reopen. It’s perfect for death penalty advocates; once the guy’s executed, there’s nobody to make an appeal.
That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that nobody investigates the convictions of people who have already been executed, could it? Nah.
And, of course, your years of prison time make you an expert on the subject, right?
Absolutely not.
IIRC, Shodan doesn’t mind the innocent being executed on occasion, so even if it were demonstrated it wouldn’t change anything.
I’m not opposed to it in principle, but in practice, I don’t trust any justice system to be able to determine guilt with absolute certainty.
I would be fine with capital punishment if the standard was changed from ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to ‘absolutely ironclad proof’.
1 innocent man being put to death is far, far, far, far too many, and any doubt whatsoever is too much when you’re playing with a mans life.
Couple that with the fact that its cheaper in this day and age to imprison them for life, and I’m pretty much 100% against capital punishment.
If it were cheaper and there was incontrovertible proof of guilt and motive, I’d have no issues with it for certain heinous crimes.
I am in favor for the death penalty for violent crimes. Not just murder
If you are against it, you are just lucky enough not to have met the wrong people yet.
Seconding Skald’s succinct summary.
And locking someone away out of sight, out of mind, to spend the rest of their existence in a 3x3 cell is the definition of civilized?
Were I the condemned, I’d probably want to be put to death, quickly and painlessly, rather than know I had another 50 years of concrete ahead of me.
I’d have no problem allowing a prisoner to commit suicide if they want to.
You can also read Life Without Parole by Victor Hassine, who wrote the book while in prison (doing life, obviously). It’s usually used as a college text book but it was interesting reading. He has since died, either by murder or suicide, depending on who you ask. Either way, what a fun experience prison must have been. And he was a lot better off than most inmates, for reasons he goes into in the book.
And no, criminals don’t just “con their way into parole” in most cases. That’s impossible in states such as Washington where there IS no parole, and many states have, and are moving more toward, determine sentencing.
You can let them out if you find out they’re innocent. You can’t raise the dead.
Yes. Enthusiastically. Use it early, use it often.
With apologies to Ron White: “Put in an express lane.”
I suspect you’d change your mind if you found yourself or someone you care about about the be executed for something you or they didn’t do. The same with Argent Towers and the other get-tuff, execute people faster crowd; they are people who don’t think that they personally will be railroaded to their death. And they don’t care if someone else innocent dies.
I’m against the death penalty for moral reasons. I find the whole business repugnant. The only situation in which I could support executing people is if there is no other alternative in order to maintain order. Maybe in a war zone, or another very chaotic situation.
Despite this, being executed by firing squad is the way I’d want to die. Go figure.
I am completely opposed to the death penalty in all cases. You ask why? Look at this list of countries that use the death penalty and countries that don’t. Virtually all good countries have outlawed the death penalty; virtually all bad countries still use it. What more needs to be said?
<mod>
Sorry, folks, I’ve been out on a job and just got back.
Yes, this is Great Debates material.
Belatedly moved.
IMHO > GD
</mod>
For, in a limited manner: murderers who have killed muliple people, and those who have tortured their victims.
I am totally for it. AS for the “government can’t kill to prove killing is wrong”…I don’t get the argument. Gov’t is killing GUILTY people…the guilty people killed INNOCENT people…it’s apples and oranges.
I think we should retroactivel kill 50-100K people, gang bangers, multiple killers, remorseless wastes of time. We’d obviously have to do away with the huge appeals process and yes, occassionally an innocent person will be fried.
30K spend on keeping a murderer alive is 30K not devoted to “child care” or some other such liberal bugaboo…think of it that way. You’re taking food out of the mouths of children! Don’t you care about the children?
Shoot 100K of them, that’ll free up the prison space that is always in such short supply.
It’s like in the movie Goodfellas “whacking people was the only way to keep people in line. Get out of line you get whacked.” It’s the only thing these animals understand.