If killing is considered immoral, and those convicted of it will be punished, then why the death penalty?

El Guapo

Agreed.

I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it. In the end, several factors changed my mind:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 30 years in the U.S., over 100 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty â€œbeyond a reasonable doubt.â€ Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people to oppose it. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting & defending a DP case, and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida â€“ the most active execution state at the time â€“ to carry out his final murder spree). It could be that the high cost (see #2) drains resources from police departments, education, and other government programs that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it has to do with your point about the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murderâ€¦by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, â€˜do as I say, not as I do.â€™

4. Thereâ€™s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DONâ€™T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, â€œI wish you had killed me.â€ Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time."

5. Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects â€œan eye for an eyeâ€ (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Casey(keriafu)

An eye for an eye. Those who kill for fun don't deserve the holy gift of life.

Susan S

Good question. As the number of people wrongfully convicted yet sentenced to death increases, more and more Americans are taking a fresh look at the system itself.
Realizing that any system devised by human beings is bound to have errors, they are questioning the morality of the death penalty itself.

When you look at the death penalty system in action, you see that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge, it is seriously (and intrinsically) flawed in application and that there is a serious and continuing risk of executing innocent people. And, it costs much more than life in prison.
It is critical to get out the facts.

130 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, canâ€™t guarantee we wonâ€™t execute innocent people. If someone is convicted and later found innocent you can release him from prison, but not from the grave.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that donâ€™t.

Life without parole, on the books in 48 states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is not a picnic. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. (upfront=before and during the initial trial)

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

Families of murder victims are not unanimous about the death penalty. However, even families who have supported the death penalty in principal have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

Sources:

Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members.

FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html

The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pdf page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive

http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-survivor.html for statements of victimsâ€™ families

Kierno764

You're absolutley right. If the capital punishment is enforced, then the people who enforce it are no better than the convicted themselves. There are no loop holes round 'thou shalt not kill'!!

Mercer Devil

We'll let them out if you really want. Just tell us where you live, and we'll let them know where they can move to.

Edit:
Riddle me this, law student: If an officer of the law kills a criminal, say in a hostage situation, would the law officer have to go to jail for a period of time for commiting the immoral act of killing?

John de Witt

It only seems hypocritical if you're incapable of complex thought. Murder is indeed immoral, but all killing isn't. Indeed, self-defense even to the point of killing your assailant is something of a moral imperative. The state also is not a person and will not have the motives of the individual. There's also a very low recidivism rate in those executed.
I'm guessing you're young and don't have extensive life experience. You'll find there are people who aren't amenable to rehabilitation. There is, for instance, no effective treatment for psychopathy.
It is indeed a complex subject, but then the law takes that into account: there are various degrees of murder and manslaughter, and judges and juries have some discretion.
I personally am opposed to the death penalty on practical grounds, but I've never seen any moral contradictions.

Fire Lizard and Free Holder

The way I look at it is that certain people have lost their right to continue to exist.No hypocrisy in my mind. It is some what analogous to someone who embezzles money is fined. In other words he steals and we take his money away. Not much different than a cop killing someone to save a life.

Robert P.

A life sentence does not mean until you die of old age. And regardless what the non death penalty sentence is it is always possible to be let out.

But to directly answer your question, the biggest reason for the death penalty is a deterrent to others who might be thinking about it. Of course, thanks to the news it appears that it is totally worthless as a deterrent. But history shows us otherwise. As an example, even back in the wild west it was very rare for anyone to be killed during a robbery(except for those committed by a few) because they knew that if no one died they couldn't get the death penalty.

but I have never seen a law written that says anything like "because it is immoral to kill we will make it illegal and give the death penalty to those who commit".

The simple fact is killing is very legal. Murder however is a different story altogether.

Since the simplest and probably most accurate definition of murder is killing without a legally acceptable reason, then it can be argued that giving the death penalty is perfectly acceptable. It would depend on your definition of what a good reason is.

PÉ™nny Proud

I agree. I think the death penalty is a waste of life. Those persons should be donated to science, so that perhaps a cure could be found for their morbid minds, depending on the case, of course.

Some people kill for selfish reasons, like for pleasure or theft, etc (should be donated to science). Some for personal reasons, like vengeance, for example: catching their wife in bed with another (should be locked up for life in solitary).

enigmatic smile

The death penalty is suppose to scare you into not committing the crime ... the problem is that it doesn't work as a deterrent

a life sentence is only 25 years in some states

here is the good (and the bad) news, if you don't like the laws you can change them

Edge/Lita Own

So your telling me that you would rather have someone who lets say has raped 10+ people and killed over 15+ people just for the pleasure of it should be allowed to live.

Girl you have some bad thinking

Emoly

Well the whole thing against people murdering people is the part where the victim may not have deserved to be killed.

When execution arises, it has been generally accepted that the person in question deserves to be killed.

I disagree with this practice, mainly because so many people recently have proven their innocence with new DNA-identifying technologies.

On the other hand- it costs a great deal to house/feed/provide healthcare to these people who are criminals. I'm a hard working, mostly law-biding person, and I get crappier treatment from the government than a murderer or rapist. That's a hard thought for me to swallow.

I don't really see any misuse of the death penalty, it's not like people get sentenced for theft or usually even the murder of a single person. So, my only issue is whether they're truly guilty- which is much easier to prove nowadays thanks to more modern technology.

In short, I say FRY 'EM! =D

molly

They choose to take some innocent persons life so they forfeit their right to live or maybe they should given the choice between death or spending the rest of their natural life in jail.

Love!

One reason may be so that the killers are not able to kill again, to protect the innocent sometimes we have to do things that are unpleasant?

Our laws state that killing an innocent person is wrong. Killing in self-defense is acceptable if you are in danger, look at king of the castle laws. Thank the Lord they enacted them in my state. If someone tries to bust into my house, they sure as Hell are not leaving it except in a bodybag.

Captain Falcon

To deny them the chance of killing again. A person who lives by the sword dies by the sword its a very old and true saying.

*sigh* to be young and naive such as you I remember those days. Don't worry in a few years you will see how ugly and unfair the world can get then a lot of things will make sense to you.

Malcolm Equis

I doubt you'd be a good lawyer if you care about morals this much.

True morality in our justice system has nothing to do with the presence or absence of hypocrisy. The only thing that matters is what the executioner is willing to inflict for a crime.

Yes, it may be hypocritical to kill to punish killing, since both are really the same--the ending of a life.

The difference is that murder is wrong because we are willing to punish it; and the death penalty is right because we are willing to let that killing go without punishment.

Human morality cannot be bothered with things like hypocrisy.

VidaLoca Libertarian

The death penalty is used to remove from this earth those that have chosen to perpetrate very heinous crimes. God gives authority to governments to enact laws to protect its citizens. Killing a man or woman who has chosen to do a serious crime is 2 fold. It is a message to those that would do the same thing, and exercising a God-given authority and obligation to enforce the law of the land. It is not immoral to kill in certain instances, even in the Bible;

Exodus 21:14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: