The DEATH Penalty

[FlyingNarwhal]

1. The case can be (and I think, has been) made that it is a moral imperative for a private citizen to stop a crime if it is in his power to do so. An individual may legally restrain a wrong-doer, for example. But for an individual to exact the ultimate penalty is generally termed 'vigilante justice.'

Yes it is legal to restrain a criminal, but I am talking about actual imprisonment. You are saying that it immoral for the state to kill someone because it would be immoral for a person to do so. But by that same logic it should be immoral for the state to imprison someone for 3 years for robbery because it would be immoral for an individual to imprison that robber for the same amount of time.

2. I'm unconvinced that even in the face of overwhelming evidence (such as multiple corroborative witness or a confession) that the death penalty is a good idea. As for the Aurora shooter, the case can be made that the mentally ill are not normally put to death for their actions.

Well I do believe that more than just eyewitnesses or a confession should determine if someone should be placed on death row. I think there should be a healthy combination of video evidence, DNA evidence, and eyewitnesses. I think the video evidence should be necessary to place someone on death row. Essentially what I am supporting is a much more limited death penalty, until crime scene technology catches up to a point where it can be used more liberally.

3. I agree that prison sentences, even hefty ones, are no more a deterrent to crime than is the death penalty. I was simply answering a point often brought up by death-penalty supporters. And, honestly, how much of a burden are life-time inmates to the taxpayers? Isn't it worth the little bit it costs to keep them locked up and away from other people, especially when the very real alternative is executing an innocent person?

It doesn't cost a little bit though, prisons are expensive to maintain. I don't think it is worth it to keep them locked away rather than killed, however as I mentioned previously there should be more stringent rules in place to prevent innocents from being executed.

4. Same answer, with the caveat that you can't exonerate a dead man.

Again why I believe in a limited death penalty for the time being. We should only be killing prisoners where the state has met a standard (separate from a guilty verdict) necessary to allow the death penalty.

5. I suppose I'm simply not as willing as you are to put a price on human life.

Human life unfortunately does have a price however.

6. I think of imprisonment as segregation rather than vengeance. I speak of someone who was falsely imprisoned for a number of months.

I disagree. It should be about segregation but I don't believe that is how most people view it and why it exists.