There are alternative methods, of course.
The system of administering lethal injections in the United States has come under fire, with Florida halting executions as California ruled that its methods risked causing pain to death-row inmates.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush ordered Friday a suspension of all executions while a review of how lethal injections are carried out takes place following the agonising 34-minute death of an inmate earlier this week.
The decision came as a judge in California ruled that the state’s system for carrying out lethal injections — the most widely used method of execution in the US — was unconstitutional.
A significant chunk of the industrial West has disallowed capital punishment. The American electorate wavers forth-and-back from decade to decade. Is it time for solid judicial leadership?
#32…actually Ariane China is the largest county in the world with the death penalty.
#32
> Is it a deterrent? Nope.
Ok. It probably has some effect but certainly not enough to be a driving force.
> Is it cost effective? Nope.
Agreed because of an incredibly inefficient court system.
> Is it for Justice? Nope.
Are you saying that if the penal system does not contain an equal balance of race and/or gender as that of main stream society that it is not just? In other words, if the prison population does not contain an equal percentage of men and woman as society it is unjust? I would bet that if we look at the arrest ratio of men and women, we’d find far more men are arrested of crimes than women. Biochemistry is a bitch. Men and women are wired differently and it is not unusual for there to be more men committing crimes than women.
Arguing that the court and law enforcement system makes mistakes is unquestioned, although, keep in mind that “exonerated” usually means exonerated for a technicality and not because of outright innocence.
> Is it moral? Nope.
This argument only works if you think that life imprisonment is moral. Is sentencing someone to life at something like Guantanamo moral? Is a life of torture more moral than a comparatively quick execution? Do a little research on “supermax” prisons like Pelican Bay and then tell me how “moral” your alternative is to execution. Execution is as moral as the current life imprisonment alternatives. There are other reasons, some that you have mentioned, for doing away with capital punishment but the argument that it is not “moral” is complete nonsense. The Pope also thinks that masturbation, condoms and premarital sex are immoral. This is not the person from which we should derive moral guidance.
If you believe that capital punishment *and* life imprisonment are both equally immoral, then you have an ethically consistent argument.
#5 I don’t think it’s a matter of revenge, but of justice. Someone who deprives others of their lives should have their life deprived of them. The punishment should fit the crime.
And by the by, here’s what Jesus might have to say about it…
Matt 26:52 – “…Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword…”
How can you say that something is not a deterrent when not one executed murderer has ever murdered again? Also just because you are found innocent after the fact does not mean you did not commit the crime. “OJ”
#5 I don’t think it’s a matter of revenge, but of justice. Someone who deprives others of their lives should have their life deprived of them. The punishment should fit the crime. They shouldn’t spend their days trading cigarettes for TVs and using the ACLU to fight for extra privileges for them. I wonder if your outlook might change if a heinous crime hit close to home.
And by the by, here’s what Jesus might have to say about it…
Matt 26:52 – “…Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword…”
a good warning for violent criminals
#32 Just because a certain race might have a higher percentage of its population on death row, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the system is unjust. If they are committing crimes punishable by death at a higher rate, then it is just for them to have a higher rate of inmates on death row. However, I do agree that it is unjust for the system to be quicker to enforce a certain penalty on men as opposed to women. A just system punishes a certain type of crime the same way across the board. By your line of reasoning we should enforce a quota system on death row, making sure that its demographics match that of the population at large. Now that would be unjust.
It’s ironic that our society continues to find ways to justify disposing of “undesirables” (unwanted pregnancies, unborn children with birth defects, terminally ill, etc.) yet at the same time is moving in the other direction regarding murderers, child molestors and rapists. They are the true undesirables.
I think the Soviets had a fast way to execute. And they billed the families for the bullets they used. I think we are the only country that is worried that we are not killing people the right way. I’m sure a subcommittee can sort it all out for us.
A wonderfully flawed argument, #35! Or perhaps ignorant is the proper term for it? Hell, both descriptions work!
Ignoring the logical fallacy in your statement about the now dead killers being deterred from killing again, the statement is a moot point at best. Obviously the killer wasn’t deterred by the death penalty in the first place, else he wouldn’t have been on death row in the first place… Additionally, studies have shown that enacting capital punishment has not had any effect on homicide rates.
And yes, I suppose executed persons who have had DNA evidence
exonerate(oh wait, I better use simpler language for someone who has such excellent argumentative skills as demonstrated above) prove their innocence after the fact, I suppose they still could have committed the crime. [/sarcasm off]From #34… “keep in mind that ‘exonerated’ usually means exonerated for a technicality and not because of outright innocence.”
Thomas, we shouldn’t blur the lines between overturning a conviction on a legal technicality and true exoneration. For instance, in some of those cases where death row convicts were exonerated, the primary (or even sole) basis of their conviction was a confession obtained through abuse bordering on torture by police, and credible evidence was later discovered to support the falseness of the confession so obtained.
In one case, evidence used to convict the defendant was shown to have been planted, and in another case the true perpetrator was found by students in a college journalism class studying the case, with the help of a private investigator. In yet another case, a clothing stain that the convicting jury believed was blood was known by the police and prosecutors to be paint. The jury believed it was blood because that’s what the coerced confession said it was, and the prosecution remained silent that it knew this aspect of the confession to be blatantly false. And yes, it also sounds like there may have been a less-than-vigorous defense by his own attorney.
Most of these were much more than just legal technicalities where evidence may have been ruled inadmissible, ruining an otherwise good case. These were bad cases, including instances of coerced testimony, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct. Here’s a list of Illinois exonerations containing further links to case details. In one instance (Gauger), the conviction was initially overturned on the sort of technicality you referred to, but the very next year the true murderer was apprehended, fully exonerating the man originally sentenced to die for that crime.
It’s cases like these that make me most uneasy about the death penalty. Without certainty of guilt, I can’t feel justified in executing anyone, whether the motive is simple revenge or the carefully calculated economic advantages of execution over lifetime incarceration. The thing about a lifetime prison sentence is that it can be reversed, unlike death.
I know where this one came from:
“…And the executioner’s face is always well-hidden…” – Bob Dylan
36,
So if you are proven innocent after being convicted of a crime by DNA evidence or the confession of the true culprit, you still could have committed the crime? Your argument makes no sense. Think before you post. Not everyone proven innocent is OJ.
#35
Matt 26:52 – “…Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword…”
You read THAT as saying that we should kill killers? Even taken out of context it doesn’t imply that Jesus would be pro-capital punishment. Jesus was NOT pro revenge:
HERE is what he said on the matter:
Matthew 5:38-39 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Romans 12:19 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
#34, Arguing that the court and law enforcement system makes mistakes is unquestioned, although, keep in mind that “exonerated” usually means exonerated for a technicality and not because of outright innocence.
Exonerated means it has been shown the person didn’t commit the crime. Don’t confuse that with the “technicalities” where the person didn’t receive a fair trial. The first is an admission that the system convicted the wrong person. The second is an admission that the system didn’t allow the accused to present a fair defense.
Just to get back to the topic of human executions, I don’t understand why a person can go in for a simple surgery and never wake up after the anesthesia (i.e., die) but we can’t seem to find a painless method of execution. What’s up with that?
Just for the record, I’m against the death penalty. And abortion.
#40
“It’s cases like these that make me most uneasy about the death penalty. Without certainty of guilt, I can’t feel justified in executing anyone, whether the motive is simple revenge or the carefully calculated economic advantages of execution over lifetime incarceration.”
And there’s the main reason for my objection to the death penalty. If I know positively that someone is guilty of a heinous crime, give me a knife, a blow torch and some salt and I will kill them myself. But I don’t think any sane person would trust anyones life to the inaccuracies and uncertainties of the U.S. justice system.
Steve
#43 – You misunderstand. The quote I used simply states that those who live violently will suffer the consequences.
Speaking of taking things out of context, who was Jesus’ audience in the Matthew passage you quoted? It was a multitude of disciples who had gathered to hear him teach. He was telling his followers to turn the other cheek, he wasn’t preaching at governments. If all governments turned the other cheek we’d have utter chaos. That wasn’t his point.
And technically, that Romans passage isn’t want Jesus had to say, it’s what Paul had to say/quote.
All arguments for/against the death penalty aside…. I think it’s kind of funny that two states are looking at removing the death penalty, and this last election my home state of Wisconsin passed a referendum saying they wanted to BRING BACK the death penalty! That’s right, Wisconsin is so cutting-edge and progressive that we not only abolished our death penalty, but now we’re bringing it back! Do I smell the next hit Timberlake single? LethalInjectionBack? Oh, I think so.
#47.
Isn’t it ironic that Christians would be pro death penalty? Isn’t the execution of Jesus enough to show that states should not have the power to execute because they might just get it wrong sometimes (forgive them lord for they know not what they do).
Now, you put up the argument that, of course it is not OK for an INDIVIDUAL to take retribution but that it is OK for governments. Fine, but Jesus never really spoke to how governments should conduct their affairs. A non-biblical argument is therefore needed. At least those who say “kill the bastards” are honest. Those who try to base their bloodlust on biblical principles are grasping at straws to find justification in the bible for a belief they already hold. They will find no such justification in the N.T.
43. So in your post you said Jesus was not pro revenge, and then go on to quote him saying vengeance is mine, so which is it? The Bible seemingly contradicts itself, or maybe people just make it up or adjust it to suit, as time goes on.
#49 al, you’re quite right that “Jesus never really spoke to how governments should conduct their affairs.” His teachings concerning government and even more so, the Apostle Paul’s teachings, were from the standpoint of a subjugated people, living under the boot of the Roman empire. The Bible doesn’t seem to foresee Christians in the role of the ruling class before the second coming, and thus no advice on how to govern is given — only advice on how to be governed.
Perhaps a more recent prophet has come with further instructions, and we simply didn’t pay attention… No, I’m sure Dr. Falwell would have told us.
#50. You caught me, good eye. The bible doesn’t just seem to contradict itself. It does, over and over. It’s just fun to use those contradictions in debates with Christians so that they can never win if they insist on basing their argument on the bible.
If you are interested, the general strategy is to force them to say that the bible has nothing conclusive to say on the matter and that we must look to other paradigms to sort out the issue. Using this approach, the secular viewpoint will win every time because the bible is contradictory on every possible issue.
52. I think that we both agree that the Bible is just a collection of stories written by commen men, well intentioned, but not really “inspired” by God, and that various interpretations have done nothing but muddy the waters. How many different versions of the Bible are there? And who decides which one is true? I’ve read where some versions have claimed reincarnation as fact, and was removed by a Pope because it didnt fit in with his view.
I have mixed opinions about the death penalty. In a case like Ted Bundy, they should have had EMTs present to do CPR so they could electrocute Bundy again.
This poor devil was tortured before his execution. The proof is 12-inch chemical burns on his arms.
The only thing an execution guarantees is that the person executed won’t kill again.
On the flip side, how often is the government correct in assessing the evidence? The jurors hear and see only what goes on in court.
Do you trust the government to make good decisions in a matter of life and death?
At least with life in prison and it is determined the guy is innocent, you can let him out. Try digging up someone who has been executed and sending them home.
The biggest argument in favor of abolishing the death penalty is our own democratic system. We elect the Judges and prosecutors. Their interest is not always in doing the right thing. Too often, re-election rears its ugly head and they cater to the sensationalist crowd for the conviction and sentence.
While there are many Judges and Prosecutors with principles, there are too many without. Their qualification for the office is they won the primary and then the election. Hardly an endorsement of justice.
#46 – The “justice” system is long dead, survived by the LEGAL SYSTEM.
#40
> The thing about a lifetime prison sentence is that it
> can be reversed, unlike death.
Not true. If a person spends 20 years in a supermax prison only to be set free, the change effected on them can never be reversed. Just because a person is exonerated, for whatever reason, don’t think that just patting them on the back and saying ‘Sorry, our bad” makes it all better or even makes up for the mistake made.
#44
> Exonerated means it has been shown the person didn’t commit the crime
No, exonerated can mean “having enough evidence to overturn the conviction.” That is not the same thing as innocent. However, it is true that there are many other reasons a person’s conviction is overturned including technicalities in appeal.
#55
The problem with the logic of “well we can overturn the conviction if we *only* sentence a person to life imprisonment” is that we still sentence the person to a goodly amount of pain and suffering under the auspices of accepting that we can’t get it right. Why don’t we consider fixing our court system so that we have a higher level of confidence in convictions? If we have so little confidence in our court system, why even sentence criminals to life at all? Why not cap all sentences at 10 years?
Deterrent, punishment or rehabilitation?
Jail time and/or execution doesn’t seem to deter anybody. Of course, how do you count potential crimes? We’re not living in the Minority Report after all.
As for punishment, well, execution certainly is that.
Rehabilitation? I honestly don’t believe it’s possible in every case, no matter what the crime.
Do I support the death penalty? Yes, and no. Not for a *single* murder, mind you, regardless of who the victim was. But for mass murder, or serial murders, yes. But the accused should be convicted for each and every crime.