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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

When I got divorced I seriously thought about killing the ex-wife there. What's really sad about that is I'd be getting out now

I don't think we can ever really pin down just how successful a deterrent the death penalty is, but it'd be goofy to think it hasn't deterred at least one murder.

2) Can people change over time?

Of course, but having committed a murder and then changing is often "too little, too late".

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

I'd say only if that judge actively violated the law regarding the trial or punishment phase.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

I support it, with proper conditions in place, which I won't detail here.

[Cephus]

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

You start from a false premise. The death penalty isn't 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've lost the right to breathe the same air as decent people.

2) Can people change over time?

Certainly they can, but changing doesn't make an action go away. No matter how much the murderer changes, the person or people they killed don't come back to life. Some actions, when done, cannot be undone and must be atoned for.

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

Clearly not for lots of reasons. First off, murder, by definition, refers to killing which is not sanctioned by law. Since the death penalty is legal, it cannot be murder. Secondly, unless the judge is executing people on the spot, they aren't actually killing anyone.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

100% support it, we don't use it nearly enough.

[perfessor]

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, inturn, your life gets taken.

In a perfect justice system, this is quite logical. I wish we had such a system, but we are human after all.

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.

Although not a Christian, I agree that a life may have value. I'm content with the murderer finding value in confinement.

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

Probably not a deterrent. I don't think murderers plan on being caught.

2) Can people change over time?

Yes, but while I might admire a murderer who gets his college degree in prison, I don't really want him released.

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

No, unless he knows it to be false.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

Oppose. Here in Illinois, more than a dozen death-row inmates have had their sentences vacated due to new evidence, such as DNA analysis, proving them to be innocent of the crime. I am sure innocent people have been executed. There really is no need for it.

[sickles]

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?

1. no. serial killers are a rare breed, and they dont care about the death penalty. Otherwise murder is usually a crime of passion, and when people are that passionate they arent thinking that far in the future. civil punishment doesnt make good citizens.

2. yes.

3. yes.

4. oppose. If they are mentally ill, then they need treatment. If they are not, they can be understood and reasoned with. maybe a few lashes with a whip. pain is a good deterrant .

[McCulloch]

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

Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.

2) Can people change over time?

Yes, they can. But sometimes they don't. With our current understanding of human neurology, you just cannot tell.

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

No, if he acts within the laws of his state.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

There are some criminals where clearly human society would be significantly better off if they were irrevocably removed. Yes.

[micatala]

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?

I believe the data is much more consistent with the claim that the death penalty does not deter crime in general or murder in particular.

I would agree with the claim some make that "summary judgment death penalty" would be a deterrent. If criminals knew that they would be surely executed the day after they were caught, then that would be a deterrent.

However, such a situation is unlikely to be realized in a civilized society.

2) Can people change over time?

Yes. What this means for their release is a different matter.

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

No, unless he dispenses his or her rulings and sentences in an egregiously unjust manner. After all, the judges in Nazi Germany who issued death sentences for violations of racial purity laws were eventually deemed guilty of murder.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

I oppose the death penalty. It is certainly not a deterrent.

It might be considered a just punishment for certain crimes. The question for me is, do we want to be a society that implements a system including death penalties? I believe we should not, even if such penalties can be considered just. I do not believe the overall effect on society, either on those sentenced or those who are law-abiding, of having a death penalty is beneficial.

[Classicus]

I oppose the death penalty.
There are cases where I, too, doubt if the death penalty would be a good solution, but generally speaking I certainly oppose it.

I live in Belgium and I'm glad my government doesn't kill people, even if they are serious criminals.

[MagusYanam]

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

Disagree. I agree with micatala; I don't think that the death penalty as we use it in this country has been proven an effective deterrent.

2) Can people change over time?

Can and do, all the time.

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

By definition, no. The judge presiding over a capital case is acting well within her rights according to the rule of law, even if the particular law being enforced is unjust. The system, not the judge as a subject, would be at fault.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

I oppose it. The strongest reason I can think of to oppose it, however, is because it creates its own prejudices within our justice system and renders our system demonstrably less effective in punishing the guilty and exonerating the innocent.

If you haven't seen the documentary The Thin Blue Line by Errol Morris, it is an experience I highly recommend. (It's an amazing piece of film work in and of itself; Morris does practically no narration, but allows all of the players involved to speak for themselves.) The subject matter is very grave and disturbing; it deals with the trial and conviction of Randall Dale Adams for a capital murder he did not commit, based on the testimony of the actual murderer which (if the investigation had been done thoroughly enough) would not have held water. As it was, the reason the justice system was prejudiced toward the murderer in this case was because the murderer was a juvenile and therefore could not be executed for the crime. The justice system, in essence, was looking for someone to execute for the crime and cared more about administering the punishment than whether or not the investigation and trial procedures produced a manifestly guilty man.

[Abraxas]

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

Evidence suggests it is not.

2) Can people change over time?

Sure.

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

Murder has a specific legal definition the judge does not fall into.

4) Do your support or oppose the death penalty?

If we lived in a universe where we could ever be 100% certain the people we catch and convict of murder were guilty, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, in this world, the real world, people are convicted, sentenced, and punished for crimes they did not commit on a daily basis. Of those punishments, only one need be permanent. If we find evidence someone was wrongfully imprisoned, we can set them free and pay them back. If someone is wrongfully fined, we can return their money. If someone is wrongfully executed we... what? Can't bring back the dead.

Life in prison gets them off the streets and punishes the guilty sufficiently, and it doesn't risk the death of innocent people to do it.