Death Penalty: Seeking Justice In An Imperfect System

[Arikel]

Yo, I'm going to pull a Liquid Blue here...

I have a 5 page position paper to write, and I decided to write it on the death penalty (since there is a lot of factual/statistical info that I can pull off of the 'net). I would appreciate if you told me whether or not you support the death penalty, but most importantly WHY YOU FEEL THAT WAY.

My thesis is going to be something like: "The death penalty is unethical because it delivers an irreversible punishment within an imperfect system of justice."

My main argument against the death penalty is that since the justice system has been proven to be flawed (more than 100 people have been exhonerated from Death Row since the introduction of DNA evidence), it is immoral to utilize a system of punishment that has possibly executed innocent people. The system of justice is designed to protect the innocent, deter future criminals, and to punish those who have committed crimes. The accidental execution of the innocent is the ultimate antithesis of what justice stands for.

I figure most people in here are against the death penalty anyway, but regardless, I need some mental stimulation, because I'm having a hard time starting my paper.

You have lots of arguments that you can use to support your point of view...
Personally i'm against the death penalty because i think that by condemning someone to death society is losing and not focusing on what a penalty should be, a penalty should be above everything a way to rehabilitate someone with inadequate social behaviours... or what is deemed by that society as an unnacceptable behaviour... more on that in a few lines... anyway if you are condemning someone to death you revocating the primary reason for condeming someone wich is rehabilitation and the integration of the person in society so that it gets a second chance...
The other argument against death penalty is the fact that society sould not be able to take someone's people life, even if that person belongs to that society or not, according to the human rights no person or group of people should be able to take the life of other. If it's wrongh for someone to take the life of another "NO MATTER THE REASON" then it's also wrongh for a group of people, or the representants of a group of people, or society in general, to be able to take it. Society should not abide by a policy of eye for an eye teeth for a teeth, if society as a whole do not condone that behaviour it should perform in such a way, society's actions should be ruled by the same rules that it's members are ruled for, a sort of commanding by example. You could also use the argument that the human being is always able to be redeemed and always capable of rehabilitation and since society is "in the case of the US" ruled in the christain tradition, "either you like it or not most of our rules have a religious bases...", and so all human beings have the right to redemption and we should never kill someone, once again no matter the reason... You should also point that it's not society's job to provide a "revenge" to any of it's members, condoning that behaviour would just create a spiral of violence and hate, so death penalty should never be used "AS A WAY TO MAKE JUSTICE" because it doesnt make JUSTICE... it makes REVENGE.
You could also point the fact that we never know the true intentions behind someone's murder or other similar act, and we are also never 100% certain about somoene's fault in it... so condemning someone to death on that basis even if it's a very very small % should never be done.
I think that the stronghest argument against death penalty is an ethical one... i don't even think that any other arguent should ever be posed... if some country abolishes death penalty i would like to know that the cause for it was an ethical one "essentially the one that says that society should never be able to comdemn a person to death..." any other reason might be valid bu i think they lack the most important and central issue.

[Liquid Blue]

I support the death penalty, to a degree. Although it's being used way too often for my tastes, I believe that the death penalty is useful for people that have commited crimes that I find grossly inhumane (i.e raping children, torturing people, chopping them up and putting them in your freezer, going on killing sprees, etc etc). I know it's a biased and skewed opinion since I'm not aware of all the facts surrounding lethal injections and the requirements for a death sentence, but it's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Why do I feel that the death penalty is needed for those type of criminals, and not for others? Because I do not think that the people that commit those type of crimes can be rehabilitated, and I do not think it serves any point to let them sit in jail until they die. I've heard some vague cost figures before but I still think that it's more of a waste to keep them in jail than it is to kill them. Not 100% sure why, but I just feel that way. Actually, you know what, I feel that it's a crime to the memory of their victims, to let those pyscho's live for however long it takes them to die in jail. That's a bit idealistic, but just now as I was thinking about it, that's really the first strong reason that popped into me so I think that's why I think it's a waste to keep them in jail.

Alot of people in this topic had some good ideas for your speech, so the only thing I could add is the feedback you're seeing here into your paper, if possible. Mention the different views shown to you through this topic, the reasons some people lean more way than the other, that sort of thing.

[Vykromond]

Well I totally disagree

That's your prerogative.

and I think anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with more "important issues" in society. Abortion?

Sure! Legislative decisions upon abortion directly affect an enormous segment of the American populace, whereas decisions upon the death penalty directly affect a comparatively insignificant portion.

Gay marriage?

Toss-up.

Campaign finance reform?

No, the death penalty is probably a little more important than this. Campaign finance abuse is just an artefact of the American political system, and some sort of reform either will or won't happen... neither outcome will change the political clime very much.

China?

Yeah, probably.

Western assumptions of hegemony?

Bit vague, isn't it?

I don't think there's an argument to be made that any one of those is intrinsically more important that another

I think you can argue them pretty reasonably on utilitarian grounds, as I did above with abortion, for instance.

the death penalty is the only one directly dealing with an important fundamental issue of life, death.

I think that depends on what your take on abortion is :wassat:. But I think you missed my initial point. Compare what you said here:

the death penalty... directly deal[s] with an important fundamental issue

with what I said in my original post:

[the death penalty] touches upon fundamental conceptions of society that are important.

Remarkably similar, eh? That's because I was making the point that from a utilitarian perspective, the death penalty doesn't matter that much- there aren't that many people on Death Row, and most of the states in the Union avoid the death penalty as a manner of principle and/or state-level law. In this regard, yes, things like abortion and China are more important. But you are absolutely correct in stating that the philosophical thrust behind the death penalty issue is very interesting. I never said anything to the contrary.

[Sumpson]

Deathpenalty is an easy way out for the prisoner, should make them pay instead if you want the justice. If you want to be really crule torture them for life, but death penalty seems kinda stupid since its a short punishment.

edit:

for example, take a terrorist, you caught them then kill them? they would have killed their self anyway.

[Subjugation]

Why do I feel that the death penalty is needed for those type of criminals, and not for others? Because I do not think that the people that commit those type of crimes can be rehabilitated, and I do not think it serves any point to let them sit in jail until they die. I've heard some vague cost figures before but I still think that it's more of a waste to keep them in jail than it is to kill them. Not 100% sure why, but I just feel that way. Actually, you know what, I feel that it's a crime to the memory of their victims, to let those pyscho's live for however long it takes them to die in jail. That's a bit idealistic, but just now as I was thinking about it, that's really the first strong reason that popped into me so I think that's why I think it's a waste to keep them in jail.

Good, thanks. I was hoping to get some pro arguments also, so I could have some back-and-forth in the paper. Ty.

To put it frankly, revenge is a totally understandable reason in support of the death penalty, and one that has an evolutionary explanation for.

[genocidal]

Anything.

Well now you're bringing up an entirely new issue - utilitarianism vs. ontology/morality. I think the death penalty is a way more important issue than abortion and probably most people would agree with me there regardless of what paradigm you're judging importance in. Still, the death penalty has the potential to affect (especially minorities) any number of people in the country and has a lasting effect on us all - you can't just include people executed you must include family, victims, victims of family, etc. By your own paradigm, the death penalty is still an extremely important issue but that's not even the point I was trying to make. The point was that your original comment was entirely useless in the context of j=t's paper.

China/Westernism (I used an all-inclusive term to refer to Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia/ex-Soviet states, and anywhere else America feels like forward deploying her troops) probably is the most important issue internationally because of how many people that affects but our domestic treatment of crime and other issues has a large spillover effect into foreign policy. Still, comparing foreign to domestic policy is pretty useless anyway - I was just trying to figure out why you said that.

[Vykromond]

[bla bla bla...] The point was that your original comment was entirely useless in the context of j=t's paper.

No. J=T could have gone one of two ways, which you just mentioned: he could approach the issue from moral/ethical grounds (the death penalty is wrong for these reasons, values, et al vs. the death penalty is right for these reasons, values, et al) or from practical grounds (ex: death penalty is an overly expensive way of dealing with prisoners). My comment was intended to (perhaps overly obliquely?) point out that the latter of these two is the wrong way of approaching the problem, because the death penalty is a problem that practically speaking is small in scope for reasons I already discussed.

I think the death penalty is a way more important issue than abortion and probably most people would agree with me there regardless of what paradigm you're judging importance in.

Oh? Prove it.

[ZeUs!!]

Go chug ten cans of red bull, I dare you

I went paintballing with someone who drank 18 cans of red bull once, he was like a machine

[Theif of Time]

what if the person was mentally ill and hadn't been getting the treatment they needed.

If thats the case, their lawyers usually plead insanity.

[genocidal]

Alright, I better understand you now. I still disagree that the death penalty doesn't affect that many peoples' lives, though.

PS: Poll: What is more important:
A.) Killing babies.
B.) Killing minorities.

[Suh]

social-economic factors.

fav blag word

[Zerzera]

If thats the case, their lawyers usually plead insanity.

But some lawyers suck, especially the ones these poor minorities get. I read in a Dutch paper not so long ago; about a person --who might be innocent-- was going to be put to death while her/his lawyer was no longer allowed to defend people who could get the death penalty because he sucked so much. I can't recall the name of the person, I think it was a black woman.