I don't believe that the death penalty is inherently immoral or anything like that ... I can't because I believe force (military, police, law etc.) is an essential component of society. Without someone to maintain the peace, someone to stand the watch none of us would have the freedoms, the perceived "rights" we have. Also, if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that someone actually was genuinely guilty of a crime abhorrent enough to merit death, I'd be fine with it ... that's not entirely true as will become clear .
The reasons I have issues with the death penalty are simple enough ...
Firstly, certainty: Nothing is that certain: I've been a juror twice and I don't suppose anyone will be too surprised if I say I was the gobby one and I was elected to be foreman on both occasions, LOL. Jurors are not the upstanding citizens twelve men good & true, they are reputed to be ... they are just people, people with their own expectations, hopes, fears, biases, prejudices and narrow minded stupidities. Were I "the accused" finding a juror of my peers would be near impossible, that most jurors have made their minds up before the trial starts, certainly before it ends, are more concerned with their own problems than they are with those of the person on trial and don't want to be there anyway. Jeremy Clarkson was right when he wrote about the jury's being scarier than the criminals and now I recognise a number of things ... that most jurors should not be allowed to evaluate the fate of a banana let alone a human, indeed anyone who reads "The Sun", "The Sport", "The Mirror" or "The Daily Heil" should be denied the right to vote. My experience of the law from (from both sides) has been rather negative and I finally realise that the law is about anything but truth, it's simply about winning.
Second, justice: The law is inherently unjust ... it's based on the concept of gladiatorial combat (both accused and accuser have champions who fight their case for them) and, whilst it may well find the truth on a number of occasions, it is not about truth but about winning.
Thirdly, truth: If the law it's not about finding the truth, then mistakes will get made and if later evidence reveals that the wrong person was convicted then it is not possible to rectify the mistake. Quite apart from being fairly unpleasant for the victim of the wrongful dispense of "justice" it isn't "justice". On the basis of innocent unless proven guilty I would rather 10, 20 or a million guilty people go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted ... it is important that "justice" is seen to be "just". It's for this reason that I feel it is important to continue to fight against police corruption (I know this exists but I feel, no proof, that the majority of police are basically good people ... I might be wrong) and other forms of governmental corruption etc.
Fourth, retribution: I have issues with the idea that if someone kills someone we kill them as a punishment (revenge?) ... does that not mean we are lowering ourselves to their level? Though it does not change the final effect I feel that it would be far more acceptable to say that someone was too dangerous to society to be allowed to live within it ... exile is impractical, life imprisonment costly & pointless so death is the only other option I guess.
Fifth, execution method: I realise that killers often kill in horrendous ways but again I feel it lowers us to kill them in a horrible fashion ... if death penalty were to again become part of the legal system I would have to favour a painless & humans method.
Finally, the statistics don't support the claims that the death penalty works.
So, no, I'm not specifically anti-DP (certainly not for moral reasons), I simply don't see it as a viable or just option.
Kyu
The reasons I have issues with the death penalty are simple enough ...
Firstly, certainty: Nothing is that certain: I've been a juror twice and I don't suppose anyone will be too surprised if I say I was the gobby one and I was elected to be foreman on both occasions, LOL. Jurors are not the upstanding citizens twelve men good & true, they are reputed to be ... they are just people, people with their own expectations, hopes, fears, biases, prejudices and narrow minded stupidities. Were I "the accused" finding a juror of my peers would be near impossible, that most jurors have made their minds up before the trial starts, certainly before it ends, are more concerned with their own problems than they are with those of the person on trial and don't want to be there anyway. Jeremy Clarkson was right when he wrote about the jury's being scarier than the criminals and now I recognise a number of things ... that most jurors should not be allowed to evaluate the fate of a banana let alone a human, indeed anyone who reads "The Sun", "The Sport", "The Mirror" or "The Daily Heil" should be denied the right to vote. My experience of the law from (from both sides) has been rather negative and I finally realise that the law is about anything but truth, it's simply about winning.
Second, justice: The law is inherently unjust ... it's based on the concept of gladiatorial combat (both accused and accuser have champions who fight their case for them) and, whilst it may well find the truth on a number of occasions, it is not about truth but about winning.
Thirdly, truth: If the law it's not about finding the truth, then mistakes will get made and if later evidence reveals that the wrong person was convicted then it is not possible to rectify the mistake. Quite apart from being fairly unpleasant for the victim of the wrongful dispense of "justice" it isn't "justice". On the basis of innocent unless proven guilty I would rather 10, 20 or a million guilty people go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted ... it is important that "justice" is seen to be "just". It's for this reason that I feel it is important to continue to fight against police corruption (I know this exists but I feel, no proof, that the majority of police are basically good people ... I might be wrong) and other forms of governmental corruption etc.
Fourth, retribution: I have issues with the idea that if someone kills someone we kill them as a punishment (revenge?) ... does that not mean we are lowering ourselves to their level? Though it does not change the final effect I feel that it would be far more acceptable to say that someone was too dangerous to society to be allowed to live within it ... exile is impractical, life imprisonment costly & pointless so death is the only other option I guess.
Fifth, execution method: I realise that killers often kill in horrendous ways but again I feel it lowers us to kill them in a horrible fashion ... if death penalty were to again become part of the legal system I would have to favour a painless & humans method.
Finally, the statistics don't support the claims that the death penalty works.
So, no, I'm not specifically anti-DP (certainly not for moral reasons), I simply don't see it as a viable or just option.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
