William Saleton is one of my favorite writers because his articles for Slate make me think really hard about what I believe. His latest gives me real pause to think about my take on the death penalty. I’ve been devoutly opposed to capital punishment since my early 20s, largely because of an empathy problem I just can’t explain. I cannot imagine what a living hell it would be to be condemned to death for a crime one did not commit. In some ways, my opposition is irrational and emotional, but I do honestly believe that capital punishment is a symptom of a civilization not fully realized – a sort of retarded civilization, if you will.
Having touched my lips to the cold foreheads of both my mother and my father-in-law on a hospital gurney, however, I’ve had to come face to face with my own mortality in a way we all do, eventually. And that has caused me to reconsider my take on capital punishment – I know, it’s a long, strange journey, but that’s where I’ve ended up.
Rather than jus throw open the thread to a rehash of the death penalty, I have a specific question concerning the fact that we humans are, one an all, doomed from the day we are born; and a great deal of energy, technology and social resources could be expended in making damn sure that we execute only those who deserve it. I know, we come back to the old conundrum, “Is it better to let 100 murderers live so we don’t kill one innocent man?”
The question I pose: Should we outlaw capital punishment once and for all to avoid executing innocent people, or should we accept philosophically that some people are going to die unfairly in the name of social order?
The former. I see no evidence that capital punishment is necessary for “social order”, or even all that useful; countries without it are if anything less crime ridden. Yes, yes, there are other factors involved, but if it was anywhere near necessary you’d think the lack of a death penalty would cause major problems. As well, capital punishment is grossly unfair; it’s not what you do but who you are and who your alleged victim was that matters.
And I seem no reason to sacrifice innocent people on the altar on an unnecessary death penalty.
We should discontinue it’s use (not ‘outlaw’ it) due to economic issues IMHO. I don’t think it’s necessary to execute people when you can lock them away essentially forever if their crime is bad enough. And that way if it turns out they ARE innocent…well it’s rather difficult to redress an injustice if the person in question is dead. But the primary reason to discontinue it’s use is that I don’t think it’s effective…and it’s VERY costly.
I was under the impression that in pure money terms, a prisoner with a life sentence costs more dough than one on death row, at least in the U.S… Do you know if there’s stats anywhere?
As for the OP’s question, i’m against it. Like Der Trihs says, I don’t think it does or would contribute enough to social order to outweigh the problems. If having the death penalty was a highly significant deterrent, I could change my mind, but as far as i’ve seen it isn’t.
Why does it have to be costly? I keep reading this, that it costs fifty billion dollars to execute one prisoner, etc. How is this possible? How is it more expensive than paying for him to eat and live in prison for the rest of his life?
Would you do away with nuclear power given a very small risk of massive death and destruction, or would you hang on to it while trying to mitigate the risks? Certainly, greater measures should be taken to avoid executing the innocent (a higher standard of evidence would serve best here IMO), but the possibility is a poor basis for ceasing capital punishment altogether.
The fear of executing an innocent person is my only reservation when it comes to the death penalty. While I don’t actively campaign against the DP I won’t fight against it either.
No, CP should be outlawed because it is wrong. The State cannot both prohibit people from committing murder, and commit murder itself, and have any moral authority on the subject. You cannot and do not correct a wrong by committing the same wrong.
Making the choice on economic grounds is, if anything, even more immoral. People’s lives are at stake here, and that’s where economic considerations must take second place.
I doubt it takes 50 billion. But it does take multiple court cases as the case gets dragged again and again to court; people targeted for death are seldom going to give up and hope for time off for good behavior, after all. And as a rule, the original trial makes it harder because they tend to be shoddy, with second or third rate public defenders barely trying ( like the ones that show up drunk ) or not at all ( in the case of ones that do things like sleep through the trial ). And in a death penalty case the police are more likely to be using their “reliable” crime labs; in other words, the ones that produce the desired outcome regardless of the evidence. That sort of thing makes for bad trials, with lots of points for later courts to fight over.
And there’s no way to make it much better, since the death penalty is all about class and race and gender, not crime.
It’s not a good analogy. Nuclear power is, if anything, less dangerous and destructive than any likely alternatives, and we need SOMETHING as an energy source. Capital punishment has safe alternatives, and is simply unnecessary.
Nuclear energy produces a clear, obvious benefit; energy. Capital punishment doesn’t.
Well, fuck it, I say if they’re not going to execute the prisoner, they shouldn’t just let him sit in a cell all day either. They should have hard-labor prison camps for the people who would have been on Death Row - and I mean hard labor, with no luxuries whatsoever, the minimum amount of food and water, and well-armed guards all around. Prisoners who worked hard and demonstrated exemplary behavior - like, Jesus Christ-level - might be able to have better food and a few luxuries like extra books or a radio or something. Everyone else would basically be a slave, and be worked like one.
If someone turns out to be innocent - he can go free, and be compensated monetarily for all of his labor as a bonus.
A friend once put this argument to me, and my response was - are you willing to be the one person who is accidentally killed? My answer to that is no. I can’t imagine every being ok with that. The inevitable problem with these debates is that they always come down to the individual level.
Well, I don’t think people who commit cold-blooded murder should be able to spend the rest of their lives eating and shitting on the taxpayer’s dime. I know that this attitude isn’t progressive and enlightened and everything. So be it.
I’m not going to get into the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, but this argument is just silly. The state does all kinds of things that are wrong or even criminal for individuals to do. It’s illegal for any person to grab another off the street and keep him in a room where he can’t get out, but we do that to criminals. It’s not kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment when it’s within the legal system.
Taking people’s money because you need it for a project of your own is illegal, but we all are required to pay for the state’s projects, by way of taxes.
Capital punishment is not murder. You can argue the morality of it, but this one doesn’t fly. And saying it’s the equivalent of criminal murder is just simply incorrect. Murder doesn’t go through any legal system. Capital punishment may not be right for other reasons, but it is not murder, and saying the state cannot therefore prohibit what it does itself is ludicrous.
I think America’s defacto position on the death penalty is that we are okay with a certain amount of error in the system as long as the victims of that error come from certain pre-defined groups.
No, what you mean is that you don’t want poor people to do so. Or dark skinned people. Because those are the sort of people the death penalty applies to.