In my English class we read two essays one for the death penalty and one aganist. My problem is that the evidence in the one aganist it was presented in a way that it sounded like speculation. Their argument was that innocent people were being executed but they didn’t have any actual evidence of it happening. While on the other side all they talked about was how wrong the other side was. I didn’t get how the death penalty is a good thing. So with what I readed in these essays and what I already know I’m still conflicted.
What are you’re opinions on the subject? Are you for the death penalty or are you aganist it?
Although self defence is a fairly ambiguous thing… I think that’s why they have court for justifiable homicide and involuntary manslaughter and things like that.
I’m sure there are cases of people being exonerated after being executed, though non spring to mind.
Consider the consequentialist argument that once you’ve executed someone it’s assumed (widely) that they’ve got the person who did it (usually a man in such crimes). But if there remains the possibility of that person being exonerated then presumably the real killer (or whatever) is still loose…
We’ve got the justice system to the point where it would be very hard to convict someone who is innocent and have them fail their 3 appeals with all the evidence, who was convicting AND sentenced to the death penalty. With all the modern marvels, it would be hard to catch the wrong person.
Now, I know it’s still very possible, but not nearly as likely as it used to be. We can still probably witch trail with the best of them if some people set their minds to it, but overall with all the forensic evidence and new crime scene investigatory abilities, we’re pretty good at the people who could have a death sentence imposed against them.
I’ve yet to read a completely well-phrased and non-religious position against the death penalty. Mostly it consists of “Killing is wrong!” Now, that can be a good argument when backed up, but I’ve yet to hear it backed up well.
1b. This is a false argument with absolutely
no proof of any kind. For centuries, being a pickpocket
was a death penalty crime. And for centuries, pickpockets would
work the hanging of a fellow pickpocket, why? because that is
where people would go congregate and it was easy pickings.
Case for death penalty.
People who commit murder deserve “punishment”
case against death penalty
2b. If punishment is your goal, I say hay, let us really punish them.
Have street side punishment centers, where people are forced to
see “punishment” at first hand. You can even have children have
field trips to one of these punishment centers where they can have
a hand in say “torturing” someone who needs punishment.
Case for
People who get the death penalty “deserve it”
case against
3b. In Illinois for instance, so many capital punishment cases
were found to be so flawed that Illinois had to end capital punishment
cases until the cases already decided could be reviewed.
Rather a dozen guilty men go free then one innocent man
executed. By the way, bush and gonzales when in Texas,
forced a death penalty case even thou they had strong
evidence on bush’s desk showing the man was probably innocent.
case for
It brings about “closure”
case against
4b. For some perhaps, for many it doesn’t.
I myself have never faced this situation, so I can’t say for sure,
but for myself I can’t see how a death of another brings about
“closure” for a loved one lost. But anger does strang things to people.
There’ll be people wrongly convicted from time to time regardless what the punishment is. Almost undoubtedly hundreds, if thousands, of men have served life sentences and died behind bars for crimes they didn’t commit. That’s obviously a shitty deal, but how’s that different from the chance that you’ve executed innocent men?
I’m in favor of the death penalty philosophically, but opposed to the way it’s currently being implemented.
So, Peter are you for or against it. I can imagine from the fact that your against statements are much more descriptive and definitely longer that you’re against it. But I could be wrong.
But, to go down the list.
It is not a deterrant for crime.
Previously, pickpocketing was a profession. It was a way of life. Just because it was a hangable offense meant very little. It was all you had. It’s not like the job opportunities we have now. You were mostly stuck where you were. I’d agree that its not the deterrant that it should be. But I’m sure it does factor into some things, but not nearly as much as it probably should.
Real punishment, street side centers…
I think this falls under the clause of cruel and unusual. I’m not wholly against it, but I don’t think it would fly. If public humiliation and recognition factored into the equation, there might be more people who would actually think before committing some crimes. This might be a better deterrant but I don’t think it could ever happen.
Number of wrong convictions
It is true that many people who have gone before were wrongly committed. But, the technology we have now makes it much more unlikely that someone could be convicted of a crime AND issued the death sentence for a crime they didn’t commit. Not impossible, just less likely.
Closure or not closure, that is the question.
Well, as for this, I can’t say directly either. I can be one vindictive b****, that’s for sure. So I couldn’t really say. Seeing them die might make me feel better. I know that for one friend though where it was mentioned, she did not want the people who wronged her family to suffer. So I can see it both ways.
It is not a deterrant for crime.
It really isn’t a deterrant. For a deterrant to work the punishment must be swift and decisive. If someone convicted of serial rape was taken out in the street and shot right after the trial it would be a deterrent. But as the system is five to ten years of appeals and waiting? By the time the prisoner is executed no one knows why he was sent to die in the first place.
Real punishment, street side centers…
I think we should punish these high class White Collar criminals as harshy as street criminals. I would love for a middle class imbezzling banker to face the death penalty, or those Enron pricks! Lets see you evade taxes now assholes!!!
Number of wrong convictions
This is the other side of the argument for the deterrent issue. We are so afraid of killing an innocent (not that I’m saying this is bad) that the process for execution takes too long for it to be a deterrent at all.
Closure or not closure, that is the question.
I think to discuss the death penalty the point needs to be brought up “what’s the point?” Is it a deterrent, a primal need for revenge, or is a piece of old society that we no longer need? The question is not easy and I’m not sure I have totally decided. But I don’t think the institution of the death penalty (as it exists currently in America) is effective.
I could only really think of those 4 arguments for the
death penalty. The death penalty seems to me to
be a barbaric action to commit and it doesn’t
achieve its goals, (the 4 arguments). In the end, what
has the death penalty achieved anyway? Nothing.
Is this state sanction of death, really in any way, shape, or form
compensation for another death? I don’t see how.
I see a greater deterrent for those who think about killing with
life in prison without the possibility of parole. I think that
accomplishes the goal of deterrent and punishment far better
then the death penalty.
Capital punishment.
Taking life as punishment for taking life.
That fails the common sense test.
I don’t quite see how it fails a “common sense test”. It could be argued to be one of the oldest punishments. Hammurabi’s code would be along the same lines. An eye for eye, a life for a life. It’s a measure of safety vs. morality. You have committed such a heinous act in such a grievous way that to protect society, we will remove you from it permanently. It’s not suspending a kid for ditching, that doesn’t make sense.
I think, although those 4 arguments are some points, that the death penalty is the ultimate safety measure. What we are trying to do is protect not only society, but the prisoners, some of whom may not have committed such disgusting crimes, from someone who is obviously not a candidate for rehabilitation. A life sentence won’t change who they are and only serves as a threat to other prisoners. Sure, they’ll be put in max security with other prisoners who probably aren’t going to be rehab’d by the system either, but we honor that there is a chance. We don’t want to risk that.
It’s a hard line to call on. That’s why I’m not fully convinced that it should be kept, but at this point I’m still in favor of it. My only real complaint is that the system doesn’t work faster. Again, the ones already in may not have had the forensic opportunities of now, so let them stay under the old rules, but any further death sentences I think should be carried out more swiftly.
I am mostly against the death penalty. Killing somebody when they are already bound or locked in a little box seems above and beyond to me- they aren’t going to hurt anybody, and in general, killing is too big of a wrong to be justified by the usual explanations of economics or justice.
The exception I can think of is high treason during war time. If someone has information that can hurt the country severely, and they have demonstrated a desire to give away or sell that information, then the only alternatives are locking them away where they never communicate with the outside world ever again, or killing them. In that case, the death penalty is actually more humane, I think.
Why is taking life not a suitable punishment for taking life? Let me ask you- if I abducted you and locked you up for years in a cell, what do you think my punishment should be? Wouldn’t it be crazy to imprison me for imprisoning you? What message would that send people?
It's not that people who kill don't deserve to die- they do. It's that the very concept of 'punishment' is not reason enough to take a life. It's not preventing anything, or fixing anything, it's just a vague idea that this person deserves some harm. Not strong enough for me, not nearly compelling as 'self defense' or other such things. Simply put, taking life IS suitable punishment for taking life, and yet, that fact does not justify anybody in performing the killing.
I didn't get your second comment at all. If it's crazy to imprison you for imprisoning me, why is it sensible to kill you for killing me?
Not sarcasm- logic, and not really directed at you. The old argument goes like this: how do you show people that killing is wrong by killing murderers? I that’s so, then logically it’s equally meaningless and illogical to demonstrated to people that imprisoning people is wrong by imprisoning those who do it. See what I’m getting at? It’s not so much about rubbing a dogs’ nose in it’s poop to associate the act with the consequences, humans are more intelligent than that. It’s more about punishment.
I’m not crazy about the way the death penalty is implemented in America. Actually, the entire judicial system of this country is frelled, IMO. But setting aside the mechanics and minutae, philosophically I think that for some crimes no lesser penalty will suffice. Is it justice or revenge? Perhaps ultimately there’s no difference. It’s not even necessarily about deterrance, although it’s unlikely an executed criminal will ever re-offend.
My 2 cents…
In principle, I am all for the death penalty.
In practice, it costs more to go through the process of appeals and procedure that leads to an execution than it does to keep 2 inmates in solitary confinement for life.
It is a good idea but too much beurocracy involved.