Death Penalty -- Putting aside practical considerations

[Rococo]

El D's post on wrongful convictions caused me to think about another question.

For those of you that oppose the death penalty, would your position remain the same if practical considerations relating to whether the penalty can be administered fairly were completely removed from the equation? In other words, assume the following:

1) We only convict people who are factually guilty.

2) We impose penalties on guilty people free from socioeconomic or racial bias. Put another way, you are not more likely to receive the death penalty because you are black, poor, etc.

3) You can limit the class of persons receiving the death penalty in whatever way you wish (e.g. serial killers, contract killers, racially motivated killings, treason, whatever).

How many of you remain opposed and what is the theoretical underpinning? Please provide more of an explanation than "I think that it is wrong to kill people for any reason," as that just begs the question of why.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I am opposed to death penalty. I don't need any reason. Why should I need a reason, I am not proposing an action? It is those who propose to conduct the action (in this instance killing a criminal) that need a reason and justify it. I don't need to provide a reason for not flying to Spain tomorrow or for not agreeing that a new stadium should built or whatever, the burden on reasoning is on the one suggesting action.

If there is any positive effects of death penalty, let me know, I haven't heard any. I also haven't heard about any country that has death penalty and low crime rates.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is any positive effects of death penalty, let me know, I haven't heard any.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorta playing devil's advocate here, but:

Revenge and closure for friends and family of the victims.

Let's say the Virginia Tech guy didn't kill himself, for example. You think he should be allowed to live?

[Mr. Mojo31]

Death is too easy.

Convicted felons, those who have committed the most heinous of crimes – murder, child molestation etc. etc. , should be made to toil 12 hours a day in ditches ala Cool hand Luke. Once their physical ability to work hard-labor has expired they should be locked in solitary confinement with zero opportunity to see the sky, or breathe fresh air, or to feel a breeze across the cheek. [censored] them; they earned it.

The net result of hard labor will be radically shorter life-spans of those inmates and thus less time on the state's (i.e. our) dime after their labor contribution to society has expired.

AND – the irony of Arnfinn Madsen taking the time to post in order to point out that he doesn’t have to defend a position is just too delcious not to note it.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

Revenge and closure for friends and family of the victims.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a positive benefit, I admit. I don't look at this mainly from that angle, but I get the point. I think it is still a way to dramatic action related to that benefit though.

[El Diablo]

R,

Maybe we could phrase the question slightly differently: Are there any situations in which you would consider putting the person to death to be an appropriate response? If not, why?

[Mr. Mojo31]

El D -

Thanks for offering the clarity.

I can see certain instances where vigilante justice is condonable. For example if someone kills and/or rapes your child, ending the perpetrators life is the solemn right and duty of the victim’s family. I’m not comfortable with the government killing its citizens.

At the end of the day, all of the pro-death penalty proponents need to ask themselves this; Am I willing to drive down to the prison and flip the switch on the chair, or inject the needle into the prisoner’s arm? If you’re not willing to do it, even though you know the man is guilty, then you know, however deep down, that it’s wrong.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
R,

Maybe we could phrase the question slightly differently: Are there any situations in which you would consider putting the person to death to be an appropriate response? If not, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, that's essentially the question. I just didn't want to get hung up on the practical concerns which I believe are very real and good enough, standing alone, for me not to support the death penalty.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]

At the end of the day, all of the pro-death penalty proponents need to ask themselves this; Am I willing to drive down to the prison and flip the switch on the chair, or inject the needle into the prisoner’s arm? If you’re not willing to do it, even though you know the man is guilty, then you know, however deep down, that it’s wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's an unfair test. I might support assisted suicide for the terminally ill, even if I couldn't bring myself to personally assist in someone else's death.

[CharlieDontSurf]

I no longer care about issues like this. I used to have strong views with most of these issues but after 4 years as a poli sci major and about 10 years of following politics etc I simply no longer give a [censored]