Someone (can’t recall who) once pointed out that opponents of the death penalty often use two arguments. One is highly effective, the other is highly ineffective.
The *effective *argument points out that innocent people have been executed before for crimes they didn’t commit. This argument is usually very persuasive - nobody wants to see innocent people wrongfully put to death. This appeal typically results in lessened support for capital punishment.
The *ineffective *argument bemoans the physical pain that condemned murderers experience during the execution process. This argument almost invariably leads society to retort, “Well, what about the suffering of the murderer’s victims?” If anything, this argument tends to backfire, and *increase *support for the death penalty. Arguing that the death penalty should be abolished because it makes convicted murderers feel physical pain is an argument typically met with disdain.
This scenario is common across a range of political debates, actually. People develop arguments that are amenable to themselves and their side, not to the people they try to persuade.
An even more effective conservative case for abolishing the death penalty would be how the high cost necessitates higher taxes.
Another is that it’s more expensive than life in prison.
Another is that it’s a barbaric practice, an eighteenth and nineteenth century throwback. (Appeals more to those within the abolitionist movement than those outside.)
It’s a violation of fundamental human rights. (Some traction (snob appeal?), but limited.)
The way it’s implemented in Country X is an incompetent disgrace. (China has been easing up on executions for this reason, as has the US.)
I have a slightly different take on the Velocity’s last argument. It’s hardly clear that most killers choose torture as a method of execution. And subjecting a convict to pharmaceutically enabled locked in syndrome sounds cruel and unusual to me. And not incidentally the policy of a coward. Of course the solution to this is straightforward: switch to the guillotine or firing squad. DP opponents might argue that the bloodbath will lessen public support for the DP. I disagree frankly: a similar argument was made during the 1970s regarding public responses to a massive uptick in executions. The public didn’t care. At any rate and IMHO, if you can’t stomach the mess, you probably shouldn’t be lackadaisically sentencing people to death.
There’s the fact that it’s morally wrong, always and everywhere, but I don’t really regard that as an argument, per se; more of a reason to stop bickering about it and just ban it already.
The most common response to that is to argue for limiting appeals, streamlining the process, and executing felons quickly and cheaply, so then it won’t cost so much.
(It is not at all uncommon to hear people say, “The total cost should be a few cents for one round of pistol ammunition.”)
However, even among supporters of capital punishment, it is very widely accepted that the practice should not be painful. Again, this prompts them to suggest that the methods be refined, not abandoned, but they do, by and large, accept that pain should be removed from the practice of execution.
Even arguments that do not persuade people to oppose capital punishment can have the effect of persuading them to reform it.
I think people are missing the point of this thread. It isn’t, “Is the death penalty right or wrong?”
It’s, *"What is a convincing argument to persuade the general public (**not *merely preaching to the choir?)"
Unfortunately, for most who are pro-DP I don’t think there is any argument that can be made to change their minds. However, in the spirit of contributing to the discussion, you could add:
Limitation on government power - The government should not be executing their own citizens since they also have the power to decide what is illegal and the penalties for breaking the law. To make it more appealing maybe it could be phrased as a “bulwark against Fascism”.
I have to say that it is very saddening that “It is morally wrong” isn’t a compelling argument for the general public.
It would be saddening, if people universally agreed that it is morally wrong and still insisted on keeping it. But that is not the case. People in favor of the death penalty usually argue that it is morally justifiable, perhaps even mandatory. So if you want to make a convincing case to them in the sense that Velocity has asked for in the OP, you need to do more than just state that you perceive it as immoral.
I have no objection to the death penalty in principle, but find the U.S. justice system too flawed to allow it.
If the justice system were “perfect” the decision whether to have death penalty should depend more on the survivors rather than the executees: what message does society want to send?
“Crime doesn’t pay”? Or “Life is sacred”?
Which message is more useful will depend on the society.
Then maybe you can help us out here. Upthread Velocity and Measure have listed a number of arguments that are frequently heard from those who oppose the death penalty. Clearly these arguments do not convince you. Can you tell us why that is? What is it that makes you support the death penalty?
(FWIW: Personally I am against the DP. However, I do not agree that it is *obviously *morally wrong. I find the whole issue to be quite tricky, which is why I am always interested to hear a well-founded opinion.)
Yes, we, though not everyone, typically lose a desire for people not to suffer when we think they deserve it. Just see how some people treat children, saying nothing of convicted murderers.
Other persuasive arguments from a rational perspective that I have heard also include the fact that the death penalty simply doesn’t work as a deterrent and costs much more money and time than a life sentence after factoring in the mandatory appeals. That said, our species tends to respond better to emotional arguments than rational ones, so the innocent people being put to death who were later exonerated is indeed pretty persuasive comparatively.
You bring up an interesting point. Though people usually claim that they want to find humane ways to kill people so as not to torture them or add unnecessary suffering to their punishment, or some variation thereof, a hidden reason may simply be not being able to stomach a “messy” death. And if this is the case, then it is simply an attempt by society to distance itself from the consequences of supporting a death penalty.
If I remember correctly, the death penalty tended to change around the times where people were not dying from the procedure in significant numbers. When people survived hanging, the electric chair, firing squad, etc., only then did the public at large tended to start talking about such and such a punishment being “cruel and unusual.”
But will you ever get a majority of the public of a state or the country to agree to that and follow-through with voting to ban it if it is immoral? Even when people think an act is immoral, they will sometimes find reasons to justify doing it anyway.
This touches on another ineffective argument against the DP, which is that LWOP is worse than death and therefore a more severe punishment. So we should impose a sentence that involves more suffering rather than less.
It would be, but one would have to come with actual examples of people who were [LIST=A]
[li]actually executed, and [*]later exonerated.[/li][/LIST]Since there aren’t any clear cut examples of cases fulfilling both conditions, it is not a very effective argument.
There are indeed people who are against painless capital punishment. They point to the pain of the killer’s victims, as if that justifies barbarism on the part of society. Such people cannot be reasoned with.