My first instinct in this question is always to err slightly on the side of the 'yes' vote, and in cases where there is absolute proof of a person's guilt I may still be tempted to do so. The death penalty can minimise the cost of penalising someone, saving on manpower and money (although the cost of execution and its preceding appeals is very high), it exacts very clear retribution and it guarantees that the criminal will not reoffend. A very clear signal is sent out to potential future criminals.
The first thing that makes me think twice if the criminals family; they may be the finest of people who have played no part in their relative's demise into criminality, who cannot help caring and hoping that he or she can be eventually rehabilitated, and I'm not convinced that inflicting the same grief and misery on them s is already imposed upon the victim's family is entirely the thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Lung
...I also think that the familys of the people who have been murdered should be able to at least beat the shit out of the murderer. I would be against the death penalty but the number of people who get out jail after a few years and then go do the same evil shit should be killed.
|
Whuist I sympathise entirely with the anger expressed practice, this would be a most heinous policy in practice: I cannot concieve that it would be right for society to train and employ someone for the purpose of torture. What kind of person would truly be willing to do the job? What kind of person would he or she become by doing the job? Who on earth would trust the authorities to handle the proper rsponsibility of torture without malpractice?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bastian
But I don't think that the death penalty is justified to punish "normal" murderers or rapists, for a lot of reasons. One being justice can be (and often is) wrong. You just can't revive a dead person after you found out he was innocent.
|
This is the premium objection, in my mind. We are told that innocent people have nothing to worry about from government, but to believe that means never to have read a newspaper or listened to a broadcast; there are many many cases of the state and its agents gaining a conviction against an innocent individual by both accidental and deliberate means. It is not safe to kill people for the horrible and very real possibility of a false conviction - absolute honesty and accountability from government and police would be neccessary before the instigation of capital punishment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor
...Another way to look at the death penalty......if it were you about to be raped or murdered and you had a gun that you could use to shoot and kill your attacker......would you use deadly force? If you would kill your attacker to protect yourself from being raped or murdered, then don't you agree with the death penalty?...
|
I agree, but I think there has to be a distinction made between the two types of action. Even in the UK, where the death penalty is abolished, we have the long-standing principle that one may commit a crime if it prevents the commission of an equal or greater crime.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jon boy
...what happens if the person who has been molested does something similar to someone else? a very high proportion of people who commit crimes like that were victims of them at one point.
|
I agree. We need to look more strongly at how people have been failed and left vulnerable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Prisstina
...Spending the remainder of their life in jail, however, is painful emotionally and mentally (and sometimes physically) and is much more appropriate.
|
For me at least, if the potential for wrongful conviction is the strongest argument, the point Prisstina makes is the clinching one; the thought of being held in a cell with no rights and no freedom for the rest of my life is far scarier than the thought of a quick death.
So I vote against capital punishment: imprisonment, in my view, means that: we safeguard against wrongful conviction; we have the potential, however distant, to rehabilitate; we do not take away a loved one; we are seen to be morally superior ie above the criminal element.