No nation has ever come up with a process that guarantees that innocent people won’t be executed. With all of the legal protections we provide to defendants, and with an appeals process that sometimes seems endless, we’re *still *discovering people on death row who have been proven innocent by new evidence, or by applying new ways of examining old evidence.
I’m forced to conclude that a perfect process is simply impossible. Because the consequences of making a mistake are so dire, and so utterly irreversible, the death penalty can’t be supported.
Because people with a need for righteous revenge and bloodlust already think the death penalty process takes too long, and costs too much. I have no confidence that the system can be retooled to eliminate the chance that a innocent person can be executed, when the forces in favor of sending more convicts to death row, and killing them faster are so strident.
Neither do I like sending a man to prison for 22 years, only to discover that he was innocent all along; but at least that grievous error can be undone in some fashion by letting him out of prison. When you come up with a way to unkill the wrongfully executed, I will listen to your argument. The execution of a single innocent person is too many.
The “in my name” is the exact reason it will never be a justifiable option to me. If you’re killing someone for any reason other than because they are an immediate threat, then I consider it a morally repugnant act. I don’t want the state carrying out an act such as this in my name.
2 convicted murderers, both serving life without parole just walked out of a prison in Arkansas and remain at large. This debate thread ought to get real interesting if they kill someone before they are apprehended again.
](http://www.kait8.com/global/story.asp?s=10448975[/quote) Pardon me, but this is less an argument in favor of the death penalty, as it is an argument for better prison security. If murderers can walk out, so can rapists and muggers; should they be executed to prevent recidivism? How about drug dealers? Tax evaders?
While I share the sentiment that some people deserve to die for their crimes, this isn’t a valid reason to give the state the power to kill without need.
Once we give the state that power, it will be used – and it might be used against us not just them. And given the facts, no one and nothing can guarantee its rightful usage. When it comes to my freedoms and rights, I want the state to have as little power over me as possible, especially when the consequences of its use are irreversible and abuse not out of the question.
I’m glad that the German constitution leaves no wiggle room for the introduction of the death penalty: it is banned and not even the parliament in its entirety could change that. In fact, Europehas almost totally abolished capital punishment and yet, somehow, we manage to not be overrun by hardened criminals who feel much more inclined to commit the most heinous crimes on our territories, in contrast to, say, the USA or China.
Seriously, I’d really like to see evidence of a direct link between the death penalty and a reduction of murder or other crimes that lead to its implementation.
If someone can show such a connection I’ll admit that it might at least act as a deterrent. Otherwise, I see no reason to take that point seriously.
Exactly. And it doesn’t even take that much. Solitary confinement, with shackles, and proper safeguards during any activity requiring the removal of said shackels, should be sufficient.
I’m glad you agree that killing them is not necessary
In what way was anything I said “argumentum ad hominem”? I simply focused the argument where it really is: Annie-Xmas wants to kill certain murderers not for the avoidance of recidivism (which we have just agreed doesn’t take killing them to ensure), but rather to relieve her desire for some sort of “justice” to occur. As she has stated in later posts, she doesn’t just want them executed, she wants them to suffer in measure according to how they made others suffer as they killed.
That’s nothing more than a desire for revenge. A visceral response to the crime that was committed. It’s a natural response, and frankly, as I pointed out in my first post here, it’s part of what the criminal justice system considers when setting a punishment for a given crime.
The problem that I, and many others world wide have with this particular punishment is that it ends a life. Therefore, it is morally no different than the behavior it seeks to punish. And unlike imprisoning someone, which isn’t exactly friendly behavior either, on the part of the state, killing someone ends their life. That’s something that I find quite troubling, and I am not alone in this. Indeed, it is saddening to me that, just as our country dragged its feet on the issue of slavery, we seem to be dragging our feet on the issue of capital punishment.
My reason for supporting the death penalty is not revenge. It is fear. Fear that some psycho killer will escape prison and kill again.
When you can absolutely, positively guarantee that no serial killer or mass murderer will ever escape from priosn or kill again by keeping them totally isolated from human contact in a 100% secure prison, I will gladly stop being afraid and drop my opposition to life without parole.
When you can absolutely, positively guarantee that no innocent person will be executed, I will reconsider my opposition to the death penalty. For me, that’s dispositive - no other aspect of the argument is even worth considering.
There’s a distinct difference between someone that is “broken” and murders innocent people and someone that may be mentally challenged, have Down’s Syndrome, etc, etc that doesn’t murder innocent people.
This might have been true for tribal societies, still close to the hunter-gatherer-life style, but once we started to build cities, imprisonment stopped to be “impracticable”. You could still argue that such a society failed to have the resources to incarcerate larger groups of people but that rather points to a society in general disarray. When the prisons of a society are starting to overflow, something is terribly wrong with the state of the society.
I do understand this sentiment, quite often I feel the same, especially when I hear about a crime that is even more sickening than the ones we are used to; this point of view does, however, focus solely on the relationship between victim and offender and ignores any deeper context.
It seems to me that here is one of the areas, where American and European attitudes are more at odds than usual: while we agree (in the majority) that an individual is also a product of his societal surroundings, Americans tend to focus on the idea that an individual is always able to decide what is right or wrong; his actions are his responsibility and his alone.
Both points of views are wrong when you totally ignore the other; in a murder case, the background might or might not provide us with an insight concerning the why of the crime, but we should, at least, ask the question. Because then we accumulate the data necessary to see if we are dealing with certain patterns beyond the psychological.
Once you accept the idea, that something might be wrong in a society when certain crimes happen far more often than in other societies or are on a steep rise in contrast to earlier times, you are one step closer to solve the underlying problem – if there is one, of course.
We can simply accept that Colombia has more murders than the USA and the USA more than the European countries .. or we try to find out the reasons within each society and work to minimize them as much as possible.
Could you provide a study that shows that “a sense of justice” is only or in the vast majority experienced when the offender is killed? There are relatives of murder victims who seem to think differently, like the somewhat known Anne Coleman. I can’t say how typical her perspective is but without any further knowledge, I’m not willing to call it outlandish.
This is a strange risk assessment. You do realize that you are surrounded by dangers 24/7? There is no 100% positive guarantee, that you won’t die in your car while driving to work, no guarantee that you get out of a hospital alive, no guarantee that your meal isn’t crawling with highly resistant salmonella, no guarantee that you don’t break your neck in your house, etc.
If serial killers escaped from prisons on a daily basis, I could see your point; but in reality, the likelihood for you to die by their hands is far smaller than any other danger I’ve listed.
I do understand that you didn’t say your fear was rational .. but an irrational - and absurdly overblown - fear isn’t exactly a good reason to kill a person.
Good post overall, but i’d just add to your analysis a bit:
it’s not just that imprisonment has to become practicable, it’s the fact that the rule of law has to be respected and permeate all levels of society. In short, people have to believe that the justice system has a monopoly on punishment (of the incarceration variety), that it is used objectively and justly, and that it actually serves the needs it seeks to address.
This level of confidence in a justice system is a relatively recent one - within the past 100 years or so.