For the OP, good point, and I agree. I’m somewhat on the fence over the death penalty, myself. But that rhetorical ploy, or the equally annoying, “I hope he gets gang raped in general population,” bother me a lot.
This attitude really, really, really bothers me. What it comes down to, in my mind, is that you’re saying you want to torment the really bad people.
Every time I hear this arguement against the death penalty it reinforces my support of the death penalty.
There are a number of excellent moral and pragamtic reasons to oppose the death penalty. This is not one of them. I’d rather have a government that’s been given the power to execute people whom it deems irredeemable, and a continuing danger, than to have the same government keeping those same people alive because they’ll suffer more.
If they can’t be rehabilitated, what’s the point to punishment or suffering, other than to give you, or society as a whole, a charge out of knowing that they’re suffering? No, thank you. If that’s your best reason to oppose the Death Penalty, you’ve just made it the more moral option, IMNSHO.
On preview: Guinastasia, I know neither you, nor kaylasdad99 are advocating active torment. But, look at what you’re saying: you’ve accepted prima facie that loss of liberty is a powerfully affecting condition, all by itself. If your only purpose in keeping these irredeemable felons alive is to make sure they continue to experience that loss of liberty it is a torture.
What Bryan Ekers and Ludovic said. I have no problems with the death penalty morally, but major problems with how it is administered. Otherwise, good OP.
I hate to interrupt this circle jerk, but things might not be so simple.
It’s possible to be for the death penalty in principle, assuming that we had certain knowledge of guilt, but be against it in practice, since our legal system is sometimes screwed up (especially in Texas.) I don’t shed any tears for some moron blown away by cops in the middle of a rampage (except to hope it isn’t too hard on the cops) but I am against frying some poor mentally challenged person with a lawyer who naps during the trial. (Support of cops does not extend to blowing away 80 year old ladies, of course.) So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to be against the death penalty as it exists in most of the US, while being happy that someone for whom there is a close to 100% chance of guilt gets zapped.
To add to Voyager’s post, in many of these “outrage” cases we don’t necessarily know who did the crime, so the anger is directed to the individual who actually committed it. If a 2 year old is raped and murdered, I can be 100% sure that it wasn’t self inflicted or an accident, so wishing death on the person does not involve any uncertainty as to guilt. There are also other cases where the certainty of guilt is extremely high.
I’m against the death penalty in practice, because when you apply it to many cases, you’re going to get dead innocents. I’m not against it in principle, because some people deserve it.
Actually I’m probably one of the offenders as I am against the death penalty in most cases but for it (or at least do not oppose it) in others. The main beef I have with DP isn’t ethical so much as its practice: it’s way more likely to be applied to a {socioeconomically} poor black guy than to a middle-class white guy or a poor black woman. It’s WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more likely to be applied to somebody who had to use a public defender than somebody able to hire a private attorney. By some accounts it’s even more likely to be applied in states where judges are elected than in states where they are appointed. It’s too indiscriminate.
The other problem I have is that I think the standards of proving guilt should be WAY more strict when the DP is to be considered. Damien Echols of The West Memphis Three comes to mind: there’s no way in hell you could say his guilt was established “beyond a reasonable doubt”- there was no believable motive, no weapon was found, no significant physical evidence was produced, lots of contradictory or flat out wrong testimony (some later recanted by the witnesses), a blood covered obviously psychotic suspect was ignored and blood evidence lost by the cops, a “cult expert” with a mail order doctorate who pointed to Metallica CDs and Stephen King books as evidence of Satanism was admitted to testify against him while… well, that’s another thread. I’m not 100% convinced of his innocence but I’m a lot closer than I am convinced of his guilt.
However, if the same crime (the murder/mutilation of 3 boys) was PROVEN through some combination of things: DNA evidence, reliable eye witnesses, reliable confession, clear motive, murder weapon placed in defendant’s hand, etc., and there was absolutely NO doubt he was the killer, then yes, I see no point in keeping the guy alive. I saw no point in Timothy McVeigh remaining alive. Had Manson/Watson/Atkins/etc. been executed 30 years ago I doubt there’d be a fraction of the interest or anti-icon status for Tate’s murderers as there is today and the world would be no worse off. I’m for the death penalty in these cases.
BUT, I’m not in cases where there is even a glimmer of doubt as to the guilt, where the person didn’t have valid representation or a defense budget, where the weapon was never placed in their hand or even clear motive established or all witnesses were not absolutely reliable. That’s why I couldn’t in good conscience vote to keep the DP legal, but I could in good conscience vote the DP as a juror if I felt there was not doubt whatever to the person’s guilt and the crime was appropriately heinous.
It may be contradictory, but I can honestly say "I’m against the death penalty (with heavy qualifications) but I’d support it in the case of this guy (with heavy qualifications and a sorbet).
Well, there are two basic objections to the death penalty, and they do not both apply to the OP. I think the OP was talking about people who object to the death penalty on principle, NOT because they believe it will be unfairly administered. I don’t have a problem with someone saying that they generally believe that our justice system is too flawed to justify administering the death penalty, but that if a case is truly beyond a shadow of a doubt, they would support it. The OP’s point is that if you object to it on moral or philosophical grounds, then there shouldn’t be exceptions.
Bolding mine; I agree completely. I’m firmly against the death penalty because of the way it works in the real world; in the Land of Perfect Justice I’d support executing any number of people. In the real world ? No; in the real world, there is corruption and prejudice and malice and classism and just plain incompetence.
I feel the same way. Just letting someone get a shot and fall asleep feels like letting them off the hook to me. It’s no punishment at all except for maybe the family members of the one being executed.
So wait, can you be against the death penaltyfor certain crimes and for it for others? Would the OP be placated if people said, I am aginst the death penaltyin 99.9% of the cases, but not this one." Would that classify someone as not being againsst the DP. Isn’t this just semantics, then?
Is that a fair calculation, though? What’s the cost in resources of a death-penalty case and the subsequent appeals? Its this cost that makes me balk, when otherwise I’d be perfectly happy to have these people removed from Earth.
A while back, I gave some thought to a possible streamlining of the system, starting with a strict limit of death-penalty prosecutions a state/province can bring in one year to, say, one per ten million of population (giving California three or four and most states/provinces only one). With these limits, a state/province’s attorney general would be forced to choose only the most egregious cases where guilt is the most obvious and evidence the strongest. These few cases can be fast-tracked through an appeals process set up for this specifically, they can be individually publicized as a sop for the “deterrent” crowd (something else whose value I’d question) and some really bad people can be kicked out of the human race.
At the very least, it’d make the post of state/provincial attorney general more exciting.
Actually, IIRC the stuff they use is pretty agonizing; they administer a paralytic at the same time because they don’t want him writhing and screaming on the table.
And made it without the sneering contempt for the folks who agree with the OP, no less.
I actually think that vengeance is one of the few defensible arguments in FAVOR of the death penalty. I reject it as an motive that decreases our chances of becoming a more humane society, but at least it’s not contradicted by facts. If someone is against the death penalty for reasons of vengeance, I also reject that: vengeance should never be the motive of the state. (Note that I’ll distinguish between vengeance and deterrance).
I’m largely ignorant of the costs involved; I just gather that there are some people who eventually end up in the condition that they are predictably going to be in prison for the rest of their lives. Such people in my opinion can be removed from the cost equation by a swift execution. This is largely an abstract notion that would apply to anyone who ends up sentenced to a stay in prison longer than their feasable lifespan, regardless of their crime (though one presumes that you have to do something naughty to be imprisoned for life).
This is also more of an abstract thought process than anything else; I don’t vote or anything based on these opinions.
Eh, yes and no. I admit, I do think some form of punishment is in order. BUT, I also think that keeping them from harming others should be top priority.
I can dig up the figures if somebody wants me to, but it breaks down to “the death penalty costs more than life in prison does.” Mainly due to the expense of all the mandatory appeals. It’s cheaper to the state to just incarcerate them for the rest of their lives.
