Same here. I try not to view opinions as absolutes (me right, everyone else wrong).
You miss the point. Zebra’s is correct in that, his argument, the moral one, is the only one that is unassailable. Any other argument is condiditonal. So, if those conditions chnage, your point is lost. For instance, take cost. If I can show you a world where the death penalty is cost effective, then your argument against it is gone.
The same is true for the other positions. Now, it does help to have a bunch of “supposed” reasons, in that it is difficult and unlikely that all “reasons” will be overcome. But this is just noise and , in my opinion, confuses the issue. As you seem to admit, this is merely a tactic:
Zebra’s position is a correct an honorable one, in that he lays his reason on the table for dissection. So someone can attempt to change his moral position, and if successful, Zebra would (I think) alter his position.
In debates like this, and others, I think it incumbent upon each person to argure the position that actually causes the disagreement. If it is cost effectiveness, fine, argue that. But if it is ideological, arguing anything else is just a waste of your time and mine. I think that people who do this are more concerned with “winniing”, thatn winning for the right reason. If I hold a moral position on an issue, yet argue points other than that, my true position will never have to be disected and weighed on its merits. Very convenenient. But not very honorable. Of course, YMMV.
Ok, I think I see what you are saying.
Maybe my argument against it may seem slippery to some, ie, “The death penalty is unethical, period. Therefore it should be abolished” but then countering a proponents arguments by adding that’s it’s not cost effective, doesn’t deter crime, etc. However, those are just asides. In my imaginary debate with someone for the DP, I would have an argument based on facts. But what it boils down to is, in my opinion, the DP is unethical. If cost, crime deterance, etc, were not in the equation, I would still be arguing that’s it’s unethical.
That’s the bottom line.
If someone wants to throw falsehoods about the death penalty at me, then damn right I’m going to challenge them on those points. How could I not?
You are correct.
Proponenst of the death penalty will say things like:
It deters crime.
This new method is not barbaric.
There was a fair trial.
and it is right to ‘knock down’ these arguements one at a time, time and time again, but I think, and feel, that the moral arguement that it is wrong to kill should be brought back into the discussion on the oppose side. The proponents frequently will say that the reason we must have the death penalty is that it is wrong to kill. They sometimes then ‘quote the bible’ with “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But the fact is that Jesus said “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was the law of the land. But I give unto you a new law. Love the Lord God above all otheres and love thy neighbor as thyself.” (IIRC)
Even though I don’t consider myself a huge Christian, when it comes to the Death Penalty I frequently think, WWJD?
It is even better than that; states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those without the death penalty:
Deterrence is simply not debatable.
When it comes down simply to ethics, I disagree with the absolute position that the DP is morally wrong. It is wrong for other reasons, and if those reasons could be resolved (not likely), I would not have an ethical argument against it.
I believe there is a small subset of human beings whom the rest of the race would be better off without them breathing. Defining where that line is would be very difficult, but people like David Berkowitz, Charles Manson, and Dennis Rader would not cause me to have a second of angst or second guessing were they to be executed…provided all the other shortcomings of the DP system were solved.
Of course, one can argue anything one wants, but I think that a stronger position is to defeat your opponents strongest argument, not their weaker ones. I am still of the opinion that a stronger response to an advesary who brings up cost, deterence, etc, is to simply say “It doesn’t matter. It is wrong for (place moral argument here).” Otherwise you cede the moral stance and venture into the ephemeral realm of “practicality”, which is where your opponents want the debate. Again, YMMV.
I must say, I disagree with this assertion. It is called a “justice” system not a “crime reduction” system. I think crime reduction is a desired side-effect, but is clearly not the only purpose. Inherently, as the word “justice” also implies, it is primarily to set things right (to paraphrase the definition on m-w.com). A murderer is punished, not to deter future murders (although it may), but because there is an injustice that needs to be corrected; this is not the same as revenge.
In the case of the the death penalty, I see it as equitable in most cases, and almost mandatory in others (eg, Timothy McVey, the DC Sniper, etc.).
I have to ask, if the justice system is only to reduce crime, how exactly does that work? Is it the sort of “keeping honest people honest” idea? For the sake of example, say the maximum penalty for murder were reduced substantially, how much do you expect murder rates would increase? For instance, the fact that murder is illegal has nothing to do with why I do not murder, and even if there were no penalty, I never would do it. Similarly, I think many punishment only acts as deterent for relatively small, less serious offenses. That is, if there were a death penalty or lengthy jailterm for shop lifting, jaywalking, or speeding, you would probably see a massive reduction in those rates (precisely because the punishment would be so unfairly harsh), but I imagine a death penalty for murder, armed robbery, and rape would have a significantly less noticeable impact.
I do not thiink is the case. Take rape. If the penalty for rape (the violent strain) was castration (which I am in favor of), and the law was quickly an surely enforced so that people asociated violent rape with castration on a 1-to-1 basis, I’d bet that the incidence of rape would go way down.
I stipulate “violent” rape, only to focus the debate on a clearly heinous act. Their is often ambiguity in date rape and statutory rape where, a 19-year-old having consensuaql sex with a 16-year-old can result in the 19-year-old going to jail.
Blaster Master,
How exactly is the death penalty an acceptable form of “justice” while “life in prison” is just not enough?
(Bolding mine) Exactly how is the wrong of murder “corrected” by committing a second murder?
And I disagree with you about it not being the same as revenge. It is the same as revenge. It’s an eye for an eye.
How is society better served if Manson were killed by lethal injection tomorrow rather than rotting in prison, which he is going to do until the day he dies naturally? How is society served better if any murderer is put to death.
There was just an execution about a week and a half ago in Ohio. I don’t feel safer, I don’t feel avenged. I don’t feel like any sort of justice was served at all.
Rape may not have been the best example on my part; I was primarily trying to point out cases where the punishment is the same but, compared to the infraction, is significantly less harsh.
FWIW, I agree that castration, or something similar, is likely an equitable punishment for rape and the death penalty is not, unless the victim was also murdered.
I disagree with castration for rape also. What if the guy was really innocent? The false imprisonment is quite enough thank you. Now you’ve got a guy who served time and had his balls chopped off? It’s the sort of “eye for an eye” mentality I am strongly in opposition to.
What about women who rape? Yes, it does happen. What do we do there? Chop off her tits, give her a clitorectomy? Will that stop her from ever doing it again? Not likely. Just as castration will not deter a man from raping a woman or a child, or another man for that matter.
What if he rapes someone with a broom handle? Do we just take the broom away?
In most cases I, myself, am comfortable with this; however, I would argue that it is not necessarily equitable, even if I am comfortable with it. For instance, a victim of murder is forever bereft of life, unable to experience any aspect of it, and so is that victim’s family. However, if that murderer is allowed to live, even if it is in prison, he is still able to visit family, read books, learn, laugh. This hardly seems equitable to me; the only way it is truly fair is if this murderer is also denied the very same things he denied his victim.
It is eye for an eye, but I believe you are incorrect to assert that it is necessarily revenge. If a thief steals $10,000 from me, is it revenge to have him pay me $10,000 (possibly plus interest), or is it correcting an injustice? Of course, these sorts of punishments are not always reasonable or easy to determine an “equal” response (what is an equal response for assault, stalking, etc.?), hence why we have jail terms (similarly to money versus bartering). I see murder as a similar case to stealing, where the “equal” punishment is quite obvious, and it is all but impossible to have an equitable punishment for it. I think asking how many years in jail is a murder is worth is just as difficult to answer as how much of a fine (in lieu of jail time) a murder is worth. How do you put a price in years or in money on someone’s life? I think the only thing that is potentially of equitable value is that individual’s life.
Of course, the family is likely to be seeking revenge instead of justice, and this is also exactly the reason that we try to have as impartial of a judicial system as possible that is motivated by justice and not by revenge.
I do not argue that the death penalty, or any form of justice, necessarily serves society directly (though, it may). The purpose is simply to right an injustice. As a society, justice (like morality and ethics) is a value that we, as a people, hold to be of utmost importance to the integrity of civilization and we should uphold it whether it serves us directly, indirectly, or not at all.
To draw it all together, personally, it makes no difference to me whether a murderer is in jail instead of being executed. Either way, the fact that he is “off the streets” serves that function of protecting the public. However, in this case, I don’t see that justice was served (as, in my view, a life sentence is not equitable for murder) and, as one who has a strong believe in law, rights, and justice, would argue that, though it serves no further benefit to society, he should still be executed to fully correct the injustice.
The fact is, we will always have people found guilty incorrectly. We, as a people, should strive to make the trial as fair as possible, but it will never be perfect. Either way, this does not pertain to the equity of the death penalty. This is an issue with the quality of the system we have in place for determining guilt, NOT the equity of the punishments once guilt is established.
In depth discussion about rape was something I was attempting to avoid, as it is off topic. Obviously, you cannot castrate a woman. Perhaps a more equitable solution would be removal of all sex organs? I don’t have a good answer for what an “equal” punishment would be; HOWEVER, as with my above post, this is something for which a “fair” punishment can be agreed upon int terms of a jail sentence; that is, it is certainly a finite amount of time.
Again, I never argued that the punishment is to prevent the same crime from happening again, it is solely to right an injustice. As an aside, this is clearly not an issue with the death penalty 
This is getting a little silly here. Do you want me to come up with what I think is an equitable punishment for every conceivable act under the sun?
My argument is simple: It is not equitable to value the life of the murderer more than the life of the victim AND no finite sum of a jail term and/or fine is an equitable trade for another life. Thus, the only equitable punishment for murder is to execute the murderer.
Thus, the only equitable
It seems to me that the issue at hand is not the death penalty, but the fact that a single crooked cop can victimize someone so heinously and nearly get away with it. Would we be any less outraged if this guy had “merely” spent his life in prison because he was framed?
How many other people are serving prison sentences because of falsified confessions? They’ve been victimized just as badly, death penalty or no.
Nitpick, here: Castration for rapists, such as it has been done recently - is not surgical. It’s through drugs.
Blaster, I must say, I’ve never heard some distinguish between “revenge” and “eye for an eye” before, and convince me; however, your statements convince me it’s possible. I don’t think that’s what usually happens; I think juries and victims’ families and so on want revenge. But I do agree it’s possible.
DNA testing showed that we were doing a worse job of finding murderers than we thought before. There’s nothing to indicate we’re doing it correctly now, we’re just sometimes springing a guy who’s lucky enough to have been convicted of killing someone where the real murderer left DNA. So for that reason, I’m convinced we’re still convicting innocent people. Maybe at a high rate. Given the system’s track record, I can’t support the death penalty.
Honestly, given how I hope we are viewed by future generations, I can’t support it either. As we see the ancients as barbaric, so I think we will be seen.
What purpose is served by keeping someone like him alive, provided we overcome any and all inaccurate convictions and can apply the punishment equitably across all racial and socio-economic spectrums?
Hypothetical: How about if we raised the threshold for puttiing someone to death to the point where we were certain that he was guilty? How about: DNA evidence, conviction, confession, eye witness accounts, and a video tape of the crime?
Still opposed? If so why?
Heres a question for anti-DP folks: Would you support an unequivcal life sentence? That is, a life sentence with no chance of parole, no chance of retrying the case, no consideration of any new evidence or testimony etc.
It just seems to me that there is only a short moral leap from a life sentence to this unequivocal live sentence and just another short leap from this to the death sentence and I don’t see how one can claim to be morally for a life sentence yet absolutely certain that a death sentence is immoral.
There is very little joy or comfort in the life of an inmate. It’s miserably hot in the summers, conditions are crowded, and you aren’t exactly living with the nicest folks.
Their food is adequate, but bland. There is no privacy-- all bodily functions and hygiene activites are out in the open. They have a library, but it tends to legal tomes and Dean Koontz novels. (A bibliophile like me would go utterly insane.) They may be able to see their family, but it’s restricted to a certain number of visits at certain times, and many inmates have families which don’t have reliable transportation. They are not allowed to touch.
I’m not saying that never being allowed to hug your child or order a pizza is as bad as being murdered. But I don’t think it’s accurate to portray most prisoners as happy or content with life. Yes, many adapt because that’s human nature, but prison is not a nice place to be. The sheer impersonal monotony is maddening for some. Many inmates prefer death-- suicide is a major issue in prisons today.
How can we have moral superiority in this case? I think it’s hypocritical to say that murder is wrong, and then turn around and do it ourselves, albeit in a comfortably ceremonial fashion.
Unfortunately, emotion is often a driving force in whether the death penalty is applied, or seemingly even sought by the prosecution. If murder is worthy of death, then it should not matter whether the victim was a violent felon selling drugs or a cute white kid, the same penalty should apply, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. If that is what the penalty should be, it should not be requested only for crimes which particularly inflame our emotions or outrage.
But this is impossible. The only way to truly right the situation would be to go back in time and stop the crime from happening.
The example earlier of the thief illustrates this point to me. If someone stole $10,000 from you, you could seize the amount back from his assets, but you’ll never make him feel as bad as you did when you were a victim of crime. The sense of violation wouldn’t be present.
An inmate being executed is not going to feel the sense of terror and pain his victim felt. (He can ask for sedatives if he wants them.)
Lastly, an execution creates another grieving family, another widow or fatherless child. Where does their solace lie?