Death Penalty: Moral or Immoral?

[WinePusher]

In the United States justice system, a person who violates a traffic law doesn't get life in prison, and a person who murders 5 people doesn't get fined $100. Thats because the punishment generally should fit the crime.

Some proponents of the death penalty suggest that, if a murderer kills another person, than the murderer, in turn, should recieve that death penalty because it would be an appropriate punishment for the crime. You take someone else's life, in turn, your life gets taken.

Opponents say that people can change over time and everybody deserves a second chance. Christians say that even though the accused committed a horrific crime, their life still has value.

1) Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is a successful deterrent?

2) Can people change over time?

3) Is the judge who issued the death penalty sentence, a murderer?

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

[gabbeTroop]

I would rather get killed [in a humane way] rather than spending the rest of my life in prison with no opportunities. Here in norway, we are even keepin Mullah krekar [ever heard of him] in a house, without acces to weapons of course, as a "prison" and the governemnt won`t send him back to iraq or any other country because they will execute him. Even Denmark or Sweden, our fellow neighbours will kill him at once. Afterall, hes a terrorist, i think we should execute him right away, some have tried, all failed, noone got cought tho.

[chris_brown207]

I agree - the punishment should fit the crime... in a perfect system.

However, when you look at the number of people who have been exonerated, or removed from death row due to errors in their cases, DNA proof, or outright overzealous DAs, then question then becomes what should the punishment be.

An eye for an eye may sound nice - but in reality the finality of such a punishment does not fit the accuracy to which it has historically been applied to the people who actually committed the crime.

And if you look at it demographically, the one most common link between those that sit on death row are that they were poor and under-educated at the time of their sentencing. Sure, it is easy to find those that were rich and well educated - but these would be the exception, not the rule.

Now of course if the poor and un-educated were the only ones committing murder - then no problem. However, studies have shown that the number of them that end up on death row are much greater then they should be if every demographic that comes before a judge in a homicide case were given equal judgement.

And finally, there is not one un-biased study out there that conclusively shows that capital punishment does anything to reduce said crime... so really this is about vengeance. You would think those who wanted vengeance would want the person deserving of such vengeance to be the one receiving it.

[ChaosBorders]

1) Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is a successful deterrent?

I have heard pretty regularly that the research shows it is not a successful deterrent, but can be useful during the plea bargaining process.

2) Can people change over time?

Yes, but it is very difficult for most people and is usually a very long process.

3) Is the judge who issued the death penalty sentence, a murderer?

I think generally the death penalty sentence is issued by a jury. And legally they are not murderers, but morally it depends on how you define 'murder'.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

I oppose it. Were it cheaper in this country than a life sentence, my Christian beliefs and my utilitarian beliefs would have a serious fight on their hands, but because it not cheaper than sentencing the person to life in prison (thanks to the expense of our appeals process) there seems little logical reason to keep the death penalty around and I think it would be preferable to avoid any moral issues it concerns entirely (particularly the issue of non-Christians seeing Christians supporting it and going 'well the Christians are a bunch of bloodthirsty killers!')

[Cephus]

1) Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is a successful deterrent?

No, but it's not intended to be a deterrent. If it was, it would be called the "death deterrent". It is a punishment for people who have committed crimes so heinous that they can never again breathe the same air as decent people. It is a penalty, not a deterrent. Let's be honest, there's no such thing as a deterrent in criminal justice. Prison isn't a deterrent either, if it was we wouldn't have to keep building new prisons to put more and more people into. We wouldn't have the absurd recidivism rates we do. Even tickets and fines don't stop people from breaking the law, people who do it will keep doing it and will keep paying the fines. The idea that the DP is supposed to deter murders, but none of the other faulty deterrent penalties are ever mentioned, is absurd. In fact, the DP is an absolute deterrent for those people legally put to death. I guarantee that no one who is ever executed will ever, under any circumstances, commit another crime again. Show me any other penalty that can make the same promise.

2) Can people change over time?

Sure, but that's entirely irrelevant. Just because a person changes doesn't erase the crime. If you kill someone in cold blood, but later on change, that doesn't bring your victim back to life. Like it or not, there are some things that, once done, can never be undone. People are punished for how they act, not how they come to feel about their actions.

3) Is the judge who issued the death penalty sentence, a murderer?

Obviously not. Murder is defined as killing not sanctioned by law. A judge, first of all, never actually executes anyone so could never be considered a murderer. Secondly, what they do is entirely legal. This is just another emotional time bomb that people on the anti-DP side throw around, even though it's blatantly dishonest.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

Absolutely support, we don't use it nearly enough.

[Cephus]

Bah, really hate it when DC&R times out over and over and over, but still posts things.

[chris_brown207]

Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is a successful deterrent?

Definitely not a successful deterrent. There are no studies which show that states which have the DP show a lower murder rate.

Likewise, the United States as a nation is one of a few free, democratic nations which uses the DP - and yet we have the highest murder rate of any free democratic nation. We rank 24 in the world, right behind a bunch of third world nations. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

2) Can people change over time?

Sure, people can change over time. However, there are such things as crimes that are so heinous as to surrender your right to a free life outside of prison.

3) Is the judge who issued the death penalty sentence, a murderer?

No, the Death Penalty is rendered legally, and thus not murder. It is a dichotomy though, that in our quest to prevent or punish the taking of a life, we take one ourselves. It is the only crime in which an "eye for an eye" is used. Example: if you steal a car from someone, the punishment is not to have your car stolen in return.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

I oppose it. It is not applied equally, for the same crime. If you look at studies of the dispensation of the DP, you will find the disparity in application to be very great - biased more towards minorities and the poor. http://social.jrank.org/pages/1344/Pris ... ssues.html

No matter whether used as a punishment, used as a deterrent, or just in the name of justice - there is nothing just about applying a punishment to a certain group of murderers more frequently than others simply because of their race.

Add in other factors - the increased cost compared with life imprisonment, the rate of the wrongly accused compared with the finality of the DP -and the end result is that (no matter how good it might make a victim's family feel) the DP is an idea with good intentions gone bad and in need of discontinuation or at the very least suspension until reforms are enacted

[dudleysharp]

1) Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is a successful deterrent?

It is a deterrent. Any deterrence is a benefit.

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02 ... acock.aspx

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/d ... rates.html

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05 ... cents.aspx


2) Can people change over time?

Of course, but in only 3 ways. Here are the known realities of all murderers and other violent offenders. They can morally/criminally/spiritually:

(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to sainthood;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.

3) Is the judge who issued the death penalty sentence, a murderer?

Of course not.

"Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01 ... exico.aspx

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

Guess.

[perfessor]

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

Guess.

That's, um, a rather impressive set of self-promotion there, dudley. But I'm curious about something. You see, my main objection to the death penalty is that on occasion, someone who actually is innocent of the crime, is sent to death row. On occasion, they are actually executed. I find this intolerable, and prefer non-lethal methods for protecting society, which I understand you find less effective.

What level of error do you consider acceptable? How many fatal mistakes are you willing to tolerate?

[Sir Rhetor]

Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is a successful deterrent?

Definitely not a successful deterrent. There are no studies which show that states which have the DP show a lower murder rate.

Likewise, the United States as a nation is one of a few free, democratic nations which uses the DP - and yet we have the highest murder rate of any free democratic nation. We rank 24 in the world, right behind a bunch of third world nations. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

Correlation does not imply causation. Although we do know from the data that the DP does not cause lower murder rates, we do not know whether it raises them. There are three options:

1) The DP causes higher murder rates, which is interesting. Maybe it stems from the devaluing of human life?
2) Higher murder rates cause the DP. But . . . many states have had the DP for many years, so is there no change?
3) The DP and high murder rates are caused independent from each other. Perhaps the politicians who want to appear "tough on criminals" don't value education enough, creating more criminals. Or, the two could be caused by two different forces. This option, however, predicts that they would change independently of one another.

3) Is the judge who issued the death penalty sentence, a murderer?

Of course not, as my predecessors have already mentioned. I would like to add, though, that they are not murderers in the same way that abortion doctors are not murderers. Assuming the law is what society has decided, real murderers are a bad thing, a detriment to the society; evil. Those who remove that evil are benefiting the society. They are doing good. Labeling judges as murderers removes any meaning from the word.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

I oppose it, because of the possibility anyone could be wrongfully executed. This is bad for society in two ways:

1) You have removed a possibly beneficial member of society from the equation. Right there is evil.
2) Once the person is executed, society wipes the blood from it's hands and moves on. The execution is seen as closure and justice, while in reality it is neither. Additionally, the fact that the person already is dead means the state will not look further for a real killer. This would be an admission of guilt, and bad news for politicians.

In reality, the world is not perfect. We have a list of suspects, and usually a mob of very angry people looking for state-funded retribution on whomever the cops say is most guilty.

I think that real murderers can be removed from society in non-permanent ways. Prisoners rarely escape prisons in America, and certainly not maximum security ones. Am I wrong?

[Guest]

In the United States justice system, a person who violates a traffic law doesn't get life in prison, and a person who murders 5 people doesn't get fined $100. Thats because the punishment generally should fit the crime.

Some proponents of the death penalty suggest that, if a murderer kills another person, than the murderer, in turn, should recieve that death penalty because it would be an appropriate punishment for the crime. You take someone else's life, in turn, your life gets taken.

Opponents say that people can change over time and everybody deserves a second chance. Christians say that even though the accused committed a horrific crime, their life still has value.



1) Do you agree or disagree that the death penalty is a successful deterrent?

It is 100% effective. Anyone who has gotten the death penalty has never commited another crime.

2) Can people change over time?

Yes. But "time" is not the factor that creates change.

3) Is the judge who issued the death penalty sentence, a murderer?

Not if he is making a judgment on the crime committed. It could be argued that if he is simply weighing the "legal" arguments of attorneys and making a "this was the best" argument type of a judgment, then he might be. The death penalty as a judgment requires a system of justice. America does not have much of a justice system. We have a very large and bureaucratic "legal system" in which it usually boils down to "whoever has the most money--wins."

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

Yes. But, only under a system of justice.