That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think anyone is actually actively “pro”-crime (except, of course, for actual criminals). But I do think there is some inconsistency in their moral position.
They are, essentially, okay with a society in which it’s acknowledged that some totally innocent people will be murdered. I’m not saying they like this situation, but they accept it. They don’t go around saying, “there is something fundamentally wrong with our society that innocent people are killed.” They just accept it and figure it’s a risk of a free society and there’s nothing you can really do about it.
So let me ask you, are you willing to be that one person wrongly executed? :dubious:
(And it’s a lot more than one)
“Tis better to let ten guilty men go free than to execute one innocent man.”
See, I figured someone was going to ask me that. So I thought about what my answer would be even as I was writing my post.
It seems like a profound question, but it’s really not. Of course I’m not “willing” to be that one person wrongly executed. Nobody would. But even if I said that I was willing to be that person, it would be meaningless because I’m not on death row.
In the same way, I’m not “willing” to be the victim of a murder. But if I get murdered, there’s not a damn thing I can do about it. I’ll be gone, that will be that, and there will be another number added to the number of innocent people murdered each year in Indiana and in the country.
I, personally, can never decide if I’m for or against the death penalty. I’m always changing my mind whenever I think about the question. But I do always want to question the motivations of the people who say they oppose it.
Fair enough. I personally am I against it because I feel that it’s not a deterrant, that the chances of executing someone who’s innocent isn’t worth it. (And it’s far, far more than one out of 1000), and I feel it’s more about revenge than justice. But with some, I don’t exactly feel all that bad when they get the death penalty. I would have voted differently, but, oh well.
A couple years ago Illinois had the embarrassing revelation that there were more innocent people on their Death Row than guilty ones, leading first to a moratorium on the death penalty, then the abolishing of that penalty.
Things like that, that’s what makes people distrust the legal system.
I am ethically opposed to the death penalty, so I vote “none”.
Some of us believe the only justification for taking a human life is self-defense. If a murderer (or other person you think deserves death) can be safely separated from society there is no justification for killing him or her.
Heck, go 20 miles east of here you’ll find people who believe there is NO justification for any form of violence against another, much less death, even in self-defense.
Since there have been far more innocent people killed as the result of having murderers turned loose back upon society than there have been innocent victims of execution, I favor the method that results in the fewest innocent deaths, and that would be the death penalty by far. I especially favor it in the case where there is absolutely no doubt. I would not object to strenuously however if we were to institute a policy of executing murderers whose guilt is beyond all doubt, and assign life with no possibility of parole to those whose murder convictions have been determined only to the standard of reasonable doubt.
As far as what crimes I would I think deserve the death penalty, that would be mainly murder and crimes such as treason, espionage and desertion, which cause harm that can result in the death of American military personel and/or that of our allies.
I hate to admit it, but if we could be 100% the person charged was guilty, I’d support the death penalty. But because that’s not always true, and it ends up being so expensive just to kill an alleged murderer/rapist/etc I don’t think any crimes should be.
Rather the guilty should be left a life sentence of perpetual indignity and inconvenience. A lifetime of clogged toilets, reruns of some TV show you loathe, a roomate that always decides to noisily jerk off when you are trying to sleep, and that milk carton left in the fridge with but a scant film of milk left behind at the bottom.
@OP: none, because I believe that ethics apply to states-as-agents, and I believe in a merciful ethic. Heck, I wish we had a maximum prison term like Norway.
I’m not defending these people, and I know what you mean, but your last sentence doesn’t follow. How do you know they don’t care about the murder victims? I mean, it’s not as if executing the murderer will make the victim any more well off. They’re dead!
It’s funny, because when I first skimmed the above, I thought you were talking about pro-death-penalty folks.
Can you cite even one instance of where someone who didn’t get a life sentence without parole would have gotten the death penalty had one been available?
Having a death penalty will not solve the problem you are trying to solve.
Either these released murderers were convicted in states without a death penalty or they were convicted in states with one but they were not sentenced to death.
If they were convicted in a state with a death penalty but weren’t sentenced to death, the death penalty obviously didn’t do any good. Having one or not having one wouldn’t have mattered.
If they were convicted in a state without a death penalty (16 as of this writing), whatever crime they were convicted of wasn’t severe enough to warrant a life sentence without parole.
If the sentence wasn’t severe enough to warrant a life sentence without parole, do you really believe it would have risen to be a death penalty sentence had that state had a death penalty?
How would a life sentence with no chance of parole make the streets any less safe than the death penalty? It would seem you can accomplish your goal with better sentencing and imprisonment.
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over the state killing a brutal murderer. But not only do you risk killing an innocent person, you pay more for it and don’t accomplish anything a life sentence wouldn’t accomplish.
This thread isn’t asking whether life without parole is better than the death penalty, it’s asking which crimes should be punishable by death. My opinion is that if a person deliberately and illegally takes the life of someone else, and thereby deprives that person and his family and loved ones of his life, then he deserves to lose his life. Period! It’s keeps the karmic scales in balance, provides an important element of closure for the victims’ loved ones, and is fair, appropriate and just. Given that in my opinion he loses his right to be drawing breath the moment he deprives someone else of their life, I give one tiny little hoot about his rehabilitation. He doesn’t deserve to be rehabilitated for one thing; and for another I don’t think this country is so short on productive citizens that whatever teensy benefit society would gain by his becoming one would come close to outweighing the injustice and grief that his still being alive causes.
Another problem with life without parole is that it’s just a liberal Supreme Court decision away from being overturned. Liberals are all about “rehabilitation” and early release and I recall reading, in the days before conservatives managed to get life without parole passed as a means of actually keeping killers in prison, that because of this approach the average term served for murder in this country had shrunk to 14 years. Fourteen frickin’ years! Imagine for a moment that someone had raped and killed your mother, wife or daugher, and fifteen years later, while you’re still grieving deeply, he was walking the streets free and happy and no longer paying any price for all he had deprived her of and everything he had deprived you of by taking her away.
So I favor the death penalty in cases of absolutely no doubt for two reasons: 1) justice; and 2) to make sure that a liberal Supreme Court in the future doesn’t rule that actually making a killer serve a life term in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Sure it is. Allowing murderers to keep drawing breath is what is unjust, and giving them a free pass after a relatively short time in prison…which used to be the norm and still is in the case of convictions with the possibility of parole…is the greatest injustice of all.