pug846

I’m against the death penalty, but don’t find most of the moral arguments one way or another particularly convincing. Language like “disgusting,” “disturbing,” brutal,” and “barbaric” doesn’t really move me. I also believe that killing can be justifiable. (Then again, I'm sure we all do even if hyperbole gets in the way now and again.l)

The death penalty is an enormous waste of taxpayer money and I don’t see the social utility of executing murders being all that great given the cost society has to pay. I’d just as soon give that money back to tax payers.

I never understood how someone could tell me they think the death penalty deters crime. The statistics of course say otherwise, but intuitively, it doesn’t make any sense anyway. Why would someone commit murder if he or she knew he or she was only going to spend life in prison, but balk at the same murder because they were afraid of getting executed?

Pet peeve: When the Government executes someone, it’s not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. The Government is not unlawfully killing someone when it executes a person because it has authority to do so.

Doubting Didymus said:

I think anyone who has spent 30 years in jail would disagree that it’s a short sentence. Here in Texas, life in prison means 40 years, but I’ve been told by people who would know that no one has ever served more than 35 years. A tiny minority is executed, others die in jail, and some are released. A large number simply don’t live out their sentences.

LadyShea said:

But you’ve implicitly created a false dilemma: it’s not execute them or not eliminate them from society. Locking someone up is effectively eliminating them from society since the chances of someone escaping from a life sentence has to be close to nil.

Mageth

I’ve been told by people who would know that no one has ever served more than 35 years.

Several years ago, I read in a discussion about life sentences and the death penalty in Texas that the answer to the question, "How many inmates currently in the Texas prison system have been incarcerated for more than 25 years?" was eight. I don't have a source for that, so I won't swear to its accuracy.

Silent Acorns

I voted no for the following reasons (in order of importance):

1) I don't think anyone should have the power to decide who lives and who dies

While I agree that there are some people who derserve to die, I can't see anyway to come up with a clear standard to make the decision.

2) the possible (inevitable?) execution of innocents

The death penalty is irreversible (unlike a life sentence) and since I'm an atheist it's not like I can say "if he was innocent then God will lake care of him".

3) it doesn't deter murder

Studies have shown this over and over again. Most law-abiding people don't appreciate the fact that criminals almost never consider "what if I get caught?" before they commit a crime.

4) capital cases are far more expensive than "normal" murder cases

The reason capital cases are so expensive is that there are so many chances for appeal (because the system only wants to kill those who supposedly deserve it). If we streamline the process then the number of innocents killed will only increase.


The only compelling argument I've ever heard for the death penalty was made by a district attourney from Colorado. He was talking about a case where a man, who had been convicted of rape in the past and served his sentance, kidnapped and raped another woman sometime after he was released. The DA said that by committing such an act the criminal had guarenteed himself a life sentance. As such, any further crime he committed (such as killing the woman to keep her from IDing him) would be 'free' unless there was a death penalty. This really got me thinking for a while, but in the end I decided that it couldn't outweigh the above reasons and the DA's argument suffered from two flaws: criminals rarely think this way and the same logic will always apply once a person has committed a maximum offence (the DP only adds one more layer).

Walross

I vote no for many of the reasons people have listed above. I've often had people argue that they would rather see the occasional inncocent person get executed if it meant all the murderers were as well. What they never seem to realize is that, for every innocent executed, a murderer walks free! If an innocent is mistakenly sentenced to life in prison, at least there's a better chance that the case will be kept alive longer via appeals and even private action on the part of the accused and his/her family.

I think at a more fundamental level, though, I am opposed to it for the simple fact that it seems (IMHO) to promote a "culture of death" where life is cheapened. As someone who suspects that one life is all we get, I have a strong interest in promoting the value of human life and I believe state mandated killing runs directly counter to that, no matter how heinous the individual. Regards,

Walross

viscousmemories

Well, too bad I'm just now stumbling in to this discussion. I'm just all talked out on this topic after all the comments I posted in the "garbage people" thread.

FWIW, Luna, I think the poll should have allowed for those of us who would support the death penalty more readily if it were administered differently. I don't think there are many rational arguments in favor of keeping it in place as it works today.

With that in mind, I didn't vote.

Hedwig

I voted no for the same reasons people listed above. I'm a vocal abolitionist too. I consider the death penalty to be completely barbaric. I used to be on the fence on this issue but when I learned the facts and figures about it I became firmly anti-death penalty.

Strawberry, I'm surprised you had the energy to post such a thorough rant so soon after watching that movie. It sucked out my desire to live for almost a week. Didn't have the energy to even turn on the computer.

Robert G. Ingersoll

(This is one anti-DP argument I hadn't thought of, and it's a good one.)

I was already another convert, fairly recently, from pro to anti-death penalty. I began to realize that the only reasons I supported the D.P. were emotional.

E.g., I would always emphasize that my main support for the D.P. was to see to it that people like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber guy, etc. were eliminated permanently, so they could never have a chance to escape and murder again.
I now realize this just isn't a good argument.

What we really need is criminal justice reform to require a life sentence to be at least forty years in all cases - and life with no chance of parol for the egregious cases like Bundy.

The execution of innocent people is what makes the death penalty utterly irrational. It's been pointed out that you can't bring back a dead person after execution, once you discover he was actully innocent. And THAT'S the main point.

If there were some way to determine guilt in an absolute way, I would be in favor of the D.P. But there is no way. (God knows for sure who is guilty, but god doesn't exist, as far as I can see). The D.P. is an ABSOLUTE punishment for a crime we can never be ABSOLUTELY sure who is responsible. It might be argued that guilt is OVERWHELMINGLY apparent in some cases, but so what - it's not in the majority - and there's no way to distinguish between the two in the real world.

Other minor points are:

Because of our type of justice system, appeals will always be allowed and the D.P. will always be cost inefficent, i.e., a wast of taxpayers money. Aren't we in a nation-wide budget crunch. Why waste millions of dollars - who like to have their tax money wasted?

There is no deterrent effect - that's ridiculous on the face of it. As has been stated, what crimminal stops to think " I will only get 30 years in prison if I off this convenience store clerk, so what the heck? If it were the D.P. for killing him, why, heck, I'd be reasonable and let him live." Sure, that could happen.

The argument made by many 'liberals' that the D.P. is barbaric, degrading to the human spirit, that it cheapens life, that it discriminates against the poor and/or racial minorities, that the U.S. is the only first world country to retain the D.P. - I prsonally find these arguments far less compelling. I wish organised D.P. opponents would drop these arguments and emphasize the aforementioned arguments I find compelling - I think they would be the most effective ones for everyone in the long run (since I'm not so special or different from other people in my ability to reason).

viscousmemories

I'm not inspired to respond to this whole post just at this moment, but I want to answer this point because the question has been raised before and I think it's a good one.

My response to this is, why is it acceptable to take someone's life away (by way of lifetime imprisonment) on evidence that is not absolute, but not okay to take their life away (by way of death) with the same evidence?

Celsus

This has already been discussed plenty. If the state made a mistake, it can at least make some ammends since the innocent man may be released and given due compensation. Dead men don't get this privelege.

Joel

livius drusus

Because it allows for the possibility of error reversal. Should new evidence come to light, the lifetime of imprisonment can be interrupted and the falsely convincted released.

Edited to add: Mmmmm, cross-posted with Joel...