The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[martin02]

But then an innocent person is not killed by the state.

That makes a difference how?

I'm taking it as as comment, but back to my argument; we can be wrong with absolute state of the art impunity. An appeal to getting it right doesn't go to the fallibility of the justice system, and invoking this argument begs the question of it being a double edged sword. Opponents of the death penalty have to accept the certainty of releasing the guiltiest imaginable party as much as supporters have to accept killing the wrong people. For this reason I don't think fallibility should constitute the heart of either side's argument.

Ignoring fallibility momentarily, let's take an example already cited; Timothy Evans, now accepted to have been hung for one of his neighbor John Christie's murders. Christie murdered at least four more times (not including Evans himself) before he was caught. Regarding this as a result of the penalty rater than prosecution, how do support feel about the state becoming Christie's accessory? With Evans alive in jail there was at least some possibility of his evidence leading to further investigation. For opponents, those four more murders Christie got off? Even if he'd been imprisoned, he could have killed again.

[Napoléon]

I'm taking it as as comment, but back to my argument; we can be wrong with absolute state of the art impunity. An appeal to getting it right doesn't go to the fallibility of the justice system, and invoking this argument begs the question of it being a double edged sword. Opponents of the death penalty have to accept the certainty of releasing the guiltiest imaginable party as much as supporters have to accept killing the wrong people. For this reason I don't think fallibility should constitute the heart of either side's argument.

Ignoring fallibility momentarily, let's take an example already cited; Timothy Evans, now accepted to have been hung for one of his neighbor John Christie's murders. Christie murdered at least four more times (not including Evans himself) before he was caught. Regarding this as a result of the penalty rater than prosecution, how do support feel about the state becoming Christie's accessory? With Evans alive in jail there was at least some possibility of his evidence leading to further investigation. For opponents, those four more murders Christie got off? Even if he'd been imprisoned, he could have killed again.

Mart you bring up a good point. I think to both sides of the argument there are good reasons as to why we should have the death penalty and why we shouldn't.
At the end of the day it all comes down to what the individual's own ideas of morality are. Some will say you shouldn't reward murder with murder, others won't see the problem.
Humans will likely argue about this till the end of time. So I think if it is to be legal or illegal, let the people of the country vote, and go with the majority. I personally don't have too many gripes with the death penalty, but I could understand if everyone else disagrees and decided not to have it. The way it is now, I don't think is a problem for me at all, it's just I would have it differently if I could. But again, it's nothing more than personal preference.

[Violet]

Ignoring fallibility momentarily, let's take an example already cited; Timothy Evans, now accepted to have been hung for one of his neighbor John Christie's murders. Christie murdered at least four more times (not including Evans himself) before he was caught. Regarding this as a result of the penalty rater than prosecution, how do support feel about the state becoming Christie's accessory? With Evans alive in jail there was at least some possibility of his evidence leading to further investigation. For opponents, those four more murders Christie got off? Even if he'd been imprisoned, he could have killed again.

How much was Timothy Evans worth?

If he wasn't in any sort of position of power: it is highly unlikely that his death made an impact on the nation. Even if he was of a particularly high value: most people can be replaced.

Murderers typically do less damage than assassins... whom are to be hired so as to make use of their talents. Typically, more important than their murder is the reason they murdered. Assuming there was a reason...

[bozo]

But then an innocent person is not killed by the state.

That makes a difference how?

I'm taking it as as comment, but back to my argument; we can be wrong with absolute state of the art impunity. An appeal to getting it right doesn't go to the fallibility of the justice system, and invoking this argument begs the question of it being a double edged sword. Opponents of the death penalty have to accept the certainty of releasing the guiltiest imaginable party as much as supporters have to accept killing the wrong people. For this reason I don't think fallibility should constitute the heart of either side's argument.

Ignoring fallibility momentarily, let's take an example already cited; Timothy Evans, now accepted to have been hung for one of his neighbor John Christie's murders. Christie murdered at least four more times (not including Evans himself) before he was caught. Regarding this as a result of the penalty rater than prosecution, how do support feel about the state becoming Christie's accessory? With Evans alive in jail there was at least some possibility of his evidence leading to further investigation. For opponents, those four more murders Christie got off? Even if he'd been imprisoned, he could have killed again.

I don't accept your argument about this issue being a double-edged sword. The mental state of a murderer found not guilty after trial will be somewhat different to an innocent person found guilty of murder. Can you imagine how bad it must be to be punished for something you didn't do, especially so if it means execution? I can't.
A murderer found not guilty will be so found because the prosecution case was too weak to convince the jury of guilt. That murderer is very lucky, I doubt he/she would be so lucky if facing trial for another murder.
Many of the innocent people who suffered execution were vulnerable and some forced into confessions of guilt because they couldn't withstand the pressure of interrogation.
I maintain that the most significant reason to oppose it is that innocent people die through a miscarriage of justice.
If you don't agree, do tell what you think is the strongest argument against.

---

people wouldn't die if they weren't put to death. I doubt they worry about how it came to be.

[martin02]

How much was Timothy Evans worth?

Well, quite. Evans was described as of very low intelligence, and even if he was merely notable for being executed he'd still be someone we probably wouldn't be discussing. He's not famous for himself, or even for his trial and death, but as a cause celebre, via Ludovic Kennedy's book 10 Rillington Place and his place in the campaign to end the death penalty in the UK.

---

I don't accept your argument about this issue being a double-edged sword. The mental state of a murderer found not guilty after trial will be somewhat different to an innocent person found guilty of murder. Can you imagine how bad it must be to be punished for something you didn't do, especially so if it means execution? I can't.
A murderer found not guilty will be so found because the prosecution case was too weak to convince the jury of guilt. That murderer is very lucky, I doubt he/she would be so lucky if facing trial for another murder.
Many of the innocent people who suffered execution were vulnerable and some forced into confessions of guilt because they couldn't withstand the pressure of interrogation.
I maintain that the most significant reason to oppose it is that innocent people die through a miscarriage of justice.
If you don't agree, do tell what you think is the strongest argument against.

I think it's self defeating; judicial fallibility both condemns and frees, and will kill the innocent with or without the death penalty. There are plenty of cases where people have been on trial for murder, only to end up back in the dock on subsequent offenses; Ted Bundy escaped twice from custody, and killed at least three more times. It's not just weak prosecution cases which free the guilty.

I find the argument from prevention far more convincing; if you arbitrarily killed everyone suspected of being a serial killer you'd probably end up saving innocent lives, but not by a significant margin. It leaves something to be desired ...

I also find the argument from austerity to be better than fallibility. But you'd have to convince me the condemned's needs are explicitly too high to meet; and in a first world country that's not going to happen. Perhaps on Mercury ...

As I've said, the best argument is not related to the guilty but to society itself; it lessens all of us when we kill. For a civilization to be considered civilized, this should be an important benchmark. How it treats its worst.

[Aura]

I oppose the death penalty. Anything can become corrupted, and if that sentence is lawful it can be too. Corruption aside, there are instances where people have served 20+ years in jail only for some evidence to come up years later that proves their innocence. If those people were tried in a state with the death penalty, they would have been put to death. I don't like murders living off tax dollars as much as the next guy, but it's worth it if it means innocent people can be spared.

[Napoléon]

Surely innocents will be killed if a serial killer is in prison, and escapes to go out and kill other people? I'm pretty sure that's happened before...

Innocents can be killed in both scenarios, with or without the death penalty.

[Autumnlicious]

Surely innocents will be killed if a serial killer is in prison, and escapes to go out and kill other people? I'm pretty sure that's happened before...

Innocents can be killed in both scenarios, with or without the death penalty.

Except that one is uncontrollable and the other is quite controllable by us.

Didn't your mother teach you two wrongs don't make a right?

[Napoléon]

Surely innocents will be killed if a serial killer is in prison, and escapes to go out and kill other people? I'm pretty sure that's happened before...

Innocents can be killed in both scenarios, with or without the death penalty.

Except that one is uncontrollable and the other is quite controllable by us.

Didn't your mother teach you two wrongs don't make a right?

How is one controllable and not the other?

[Epimethean]

If, in treating its worst, society uses massive taxes to support an unsustainable population of persons who are incarcerated for life based on the severity of their crimes and their likelihood to reoffend, I believe that euthanasia is the fiscally responsible course of action.