Capital Punishment

[King_S]

[ QUOTE ]

Igor Primoratz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the Hebrew University, promotes the death penalty due to its retributive justification. He defends capital punishment categorically and indefatigably. His retributive rationale for the death penalty rests upon the offense, i.e. murder, against the state and the state’s duty to punish the violator. He firmly rejects the view that the death penalty violates the convicted murderer’s right to life. His argument is bolstered by the fact that no discrepancy exists between the execution of a murderer and the outlaw of murder in the criminal law system. Abolitions of the death penalty contend that the punishment entails disproportionate punishment. Primoratz refutes this claim, stating that life-time imprisonment proves an inadequate penalty. The consideration that the terminally incarcerated prisoner can still enjoy values, regardless of the low extent. Detractors of capital punishment argue that the death penalty ought to be annulled because of the chance of killing an innocent person. Primoratz eviscerates this argument by showing that the requirement of human infallibility for judgment is truly impossible. Finally Primoratz deflates the argument the abolitionists’ claim that capital punishment should be abandoned due to its uneven application to the poor, uneducated and black. Primoratz thoughtful response to each of these contentions should convince the reader that the death penalty is indeed a just institution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reaction?

I support the death penalty.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Abolitions of the death penalty contend that the punishment entails disproportionate punishment. Primoratz refutes this claim, stating that life-time imprisonment proves an inadequate penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda subjective no? And awfully final for an inperfect system, but wait...

[ QUOTE ]
Detractors of capital punishment argue that the death penalty ought to be annulled because of the chance of killing an innocent person. Primoratz eviscerates this argument by showing that the requirement of human infallibility for judgment is truly impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well damn, I guess that's pretty air tight. Prison isn't enough we need to kill them even if they may be innocent. After all, better 1000 innocent men get the chair then one guilty man rots in prison.

Cody

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Detractors of capital punishment argue that the death penalty ought to be annulled because of the chance of killing an innocent person. Primoratz eviscerates this argument by showing that the requirement of human infallibility for judgment is truly impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is he saying "We can never be 100% sure that the guy is guilty. Therefore it's ok to kill him"?

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Detractors of capital punishment argue that the death penalty ought to be annulled because of the chance of killing an innocent person. Primoratz eviscerates this argument by showing that the requirement of human infallibility for judgment is truly impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is he saying "We can never be 100% sure that the guy is guilty. Therefore it's ok to kill him"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, seriously how does this eviscerate the argument?

[Taciturn]

I tend to prefer deterrence as justification for criminal punishment more than retribution as justification. Though, I guess they aren't mutually exclusive.

There are some good points in the quote, such as how the death penalty wouldn't be disproportionate when used on a murderer, and that the murderer doesn't necessarily have a right to life after he committed the crime.

But: "Primoratz eviscerates this argument by showing that the requirement of human infallibility for judgment is truly impossible." He eviscerated it by agreeing with it?

I don't know - I've gone back and forth on the death penalty. In the end, it doesn't deter... There is a remote possibility of executing innocent people, and its expensive with mandatory appeals and all of that. I guess I'm against it, even though I think it would be fair in some murder cases.

[Taso]

Are the appeals more costly than the costs of food, clothing, housing, etc, that must be provided to the future inmate? (I am not trying to make a point here, I'm just curious)

[Taciturn]

[ QUOTE ]
Are the appeals more costly than the costs of food, clothing, housing, etc, that must be provided to the future inmate? (I am not trying to make a point here, I'm just curious)

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't know either. Common sense tells me no, assuming a young healthy convict - but I have frequently read that the average cost of an execution is much higher than long incarceration... perhaps those sources were biased.

[LooseCaller]

my initial reaction is that this person is an idiot. research has shown that the death penalty isnt an effective deterrent against crime. any infintesimal chance that an innocent person is killed seems a pretty significant argument against a punishment that is no more effective at reducing the incentive to commit a crime than life imprisonment. furthermore, the idea that the state has the ability to kill someone is an unsettling concept that we all should feel generally uneasy about accepting.

also, i vaguely remember reading a study that claimed that the death penalty wasnt even that much cheaper than life imprisonment. hopefully someone can back me up on this (or refute me, that's fine as well).

[Taso]

What about giving closure to the victim's family?

Again, not trying to make a point, just curious. I don't know enough about this topic to have an opinion yet, best way to learn (in my opinion) is to point out possible flaws in the argument and see where it leads.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
What about giving closure to the victim's family?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does the death penalty provide closure? Even if it did, the government doesn't owe the victim's family anything.

I don't see what the death penalty accomplishes that jail time doesn't.