PopeInTheWoods

I'm not philosophically or morally opposed to the death penalty, but I'm against it practically, especially as currently practiced in the USA. My main reason is the irrevocability of the punishment. We know that innocent people are occasionally convicted, and killing them precludes any remedy to their circumstances. Factor in the inconsistent application across geography, race, and income, and the political motivations of some authorities and prosecutors, and the system becomes a crap shoot.

Andy

theyeti

I find the pro-life / pro-death penalty people to be far less consistent than the pro-choice / anti-death penalty people. It has to do with what each respective group bases their beliefs on (or at least what they claim to base them on). The pro-lifers claim the sanctity of human life as the reason to ban abortion, but the pro-choicers see it as a matter of the right of a woman to have control over her own body. Very few pro-choicers actually advocate abortion; they simply think that outlawing it would be an affront to reproductive freedom and would additionally have terrible practical consequences. Yet it would be fine by me (who is pro-choice) if abortion was never practiced.

It's really hard to square a "sanctity of life" belief with respect to abortion with advocacy of the death penalty. If human life (and we'll assume for now that a fetus qualifies as such) is really precious to the point that it can't be taken away no matter what, then there's simply no way to maintain that it's okay to kill an adult, no matter how horrible they might be. Unless one believes that a criminal gives up being human when he committs murder, I can see no way to reconcile the two. Which leads me to believe that the "sanctity of life" is not why many anti-abortionists are against abortion. I think it has more to do with their attitude towards casual sex, and their view that the burden of a child is just punishment for what they perceive as a moral transgression.

There are some death penalty foes who feel that the sanctity of human life is the most important reason to end the death penalty. Whether this can be reconciled with a pro-choice stance depends on whether they believe that a fetus is a "human life" or a person whose moral consideration equals or appoaches that of an adult. Since I doubt that very few pro-choicers believe this (I certainly don't), these two positions are not necessarily impossible or even that difficult to reconcile. However, most death penalty opponents have reasons for their position that have nothing to do with the supposed sanctity of human life. There is the belief that the death penalty is unnecessarily cruel for example, that it appears barbaric, and that it feeds a culture of violence whose attitude is that klling is an acceptable method for dealing with one's problems. And most importantly there are the pragmatic issues -- the fact that the death penalty has no known beneficial impact on crime rates, that it's more expensive than life imprisonment, and that there is an alarmingly high probability of wrongful execution. Since these issues go well beyond the "sanctity of life" argument, they can be easily reconciled with a pro-choice stance. If it could be shown for example that the death penalty really did lower crime rates, then I would probably be in favor of it. So the "sanctity of life" bit doesn't even apply to me.

theyeti

Jat

I'm against the death penalty. Any nation which still executes it's own citizens can not truly call itself civilized.

Optional

Eh, so-so here. I'm not against the death penalty per se, just against the way it is applied. IMV, the death penalty should NEVER be applied as a 'punishment' for anything... It should only be applied when an individual has proven by their actions that they are too dangerous to EVER be let free in society again - their continued existence on this planet represents a constant threat to the lives of other citizens.

This would mean the death penalty would be veryveryveryvery rare. Probably only applied to the most dangerous form of the criminally insane.

-me

John Hancock

Rather than life without parole I'd prefer the death penalty so the choice should be offered to convicts.

Martin Buber

Jat

The death penalty has never been an effective deterant to murder.

Optional

I don't mean it to be a deterrent in the sense of convincing prospective murderers that it would be a bad idea to do it. I mean it to be specifically preventing an individual murderer from murdering again if it can be proven that he WOULD do so if ever he got loose, by fair means or foul.

It should be EXTREMELY difficult to prove that someone WOULD do so. As I said, very rare indeed.

-me

beyelzu

I am certainly in favor of the death penalty if it were applied to serial killers, because they are likely to kill again. however, I am not a fan of the current death penalty in the US

Because I agree with Amnesty International when they say the incredibly lengthy stays on deathrow are inhumane, and it should not cost society more to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life, I am opposed to our current system.

I would like to see a streamlined appeals process for death penalty cases and a higher standard of evidence for a guilty verdict.

yguy

On the contrary, it's easy as pie. It is not life that is sacred, but innocent life - which obviously doesn't include murderers.

elwoodblues

Locking someone up against their will for the rest of their life isn't so much more 'civilized' than a lethal injection. I'd call it crueler, myself.