|
Discussions | Useful Links | Essays | |
| The Death Penalty Essay | Index |
| This is the third page recording responses to the essay The Death Penalty - A Balanced Debate and general comment and debate on the death penalty. | ||
| To view the essay; click here | ||
| To view links on this subject; click here | ||
Section 1: Latest comments
Section 2: Response to a response
Section 3: Responses to Timothy McVeigh's execution
Section 4: Previous commentsSection 4: Previous comments
see the deterrence section). There certainly are documented cases. I believe the new president George Bush was sent a letter from a man who when confronted by a man with a gun, warned him that in their state of Texas, he would be sent to the chair for murder, which was enough to put him off the idea. How can you dismiss such clear cases of the death penalty saving life?
- I think you've been too dismissive of the individual deterrent effect (
Response: As I said, this is a very difficult argument for abolitionists to counter, but it is very dangerous to extrapolate from the individual to the general. I find that the absolute denial that "the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides” by some of the leading criminologists in the U.S. very convincing. Also, with regard to the fifth question in the conclusion, even if the death penalty did have a deterrent effect, it must be sufficient to outweigh any additional deterrent that could be created by using the money spent in pursuing the death penalty to increase the probability of capture and subsequent conviction.
Response: There are attempts being carried out at the moment to try and prove the innocence of already executed people. However, even if DNA tests do prove an innocent person has been executed this would not be a complete argument against the death penalty by any means (see risk of executing the innocence section). In fact, the improvements in DNA could be used to support the death penalty by claiming that it is now less likely that innocent people will be executed.
- Since DNA technology checks have been introduced there have been many innocent people released from prison. I believe that there have been many put to death that were innocent.
Response: Why is it wrong to take a murderer's life? Do you think that someone's life can ever be forfeited or taken away through no fault of their own? E.g. Self-defense or the bombings of Iraq and Kosovo.
- It is wrong for someone to take a life even if they have proof that they did it. What would happen if they killed an innocent person? Would the same happen to them? They say a life for a life but if the one person goes to the electric chair shouldn't we kill be able to kill the person/people who sentenced him to that chair?
Response: I don't know where the above figures come from and neither can I name one person who has been proved innocent after being executed. However, it is certain that no justice system is or ever will be perfect and that the death penalty, in itself, is not inherently more unjust than any other punishment. (see risk of executing the innocent section)
- Research has shown that over the last 100 years of executions, only 0.3% of executed people were found to be innocent after their death. So 99.7% of executions are correct. There are bound to be some mistakes. People aren't perfect.
Response: This is a very dangerous argument to use for retentionists as it is often brought up by abolitionists as exactly what we don't do. If I poke someone's eye out mine is not removed, I am put in jail. If I rape someone, my punishment is not to be raped, but a jail term. Abolitionists would ask why should murder be treated any differently? (see the sanctity of life section)
- An eye for an eye...
Response: The deterrent effect of the death penalty is debatable but, presumably, any effect would be increased by reducing the time between the giving and carrying out of a sentence. With executed criminals spending an average of over 10 years on Death Row the question of a "cruel and unusual punishment" can also be raised. However, with quicker executions and lowered costs as suggested in the final sentence worries about full justice being done can surface. Everyone is entitled to a competent lawyer and a proper defense. A point worthy of remembrance for those that would have fast track executions; In the last 27 years, over 65 people who have been declared innocent would have been executed. (see risk of executing the innocent section)
- The death penalty will only be seen as a deterrence if it is seen to be carried out. When it can take 15+ years to carry out a sentence criminals will always have a hope and therefore the deterrent effect loses its power. A restructuring of the appeals process with defined time limits, after which time the sentence would be carried out would bring back the power contained within the death sentence. Costs also need to be lowered.
Response: Firstly, I do not believe you can support anything that you believe to be inhumane. Inhumane treatment is uncivilized and immoral. I also fail to see how the threat of public humiliation is anything above the threat of execution and therefore how it could be an effective deterrent. Secondly, how can you be sure that the threat of execution would have lowered murder rates? The experts aren't (see the deterrence section). Thirdly, is you feeling a little bit safer worth someone else's death? Perhaps the money that would have had to be spent on securing Brady's death would have meant cut backs on policeman on the street and thus make you feel even less safe.
- I live in Britain where the death penalty was abolished for all crimes except treason and piracy in the 1960s, and wholly abolished after the European Human Rights Act in 1998. You may have heard of Ian Brady and Myra Hindly. I live about eight miles from the prison where Brady is and I would feel safer if he had been hanged. More recently Doctor Harold Shipman was convicted of killing sixteen of his elderly patients, and it is alleged he has killed over 300. He will never be released and will die in prison. I personally think that for very severe crimes, such as murder, grand deception and theft (Biggs), treason, piracy and others; we should bring back capital punishment. The treason laws should be reviewed - up until 1998 you could theoretically be hanged for stopping a postman. A benefit of hanging over electrocution or lethal injections the public humiliation of it all. It may be inhuman, but had the threat of execution been around I am certain that thousands of Britons would have been saved from massacre.
Response: What are you actually suggesting here? People are sentenced to death by juries who are probably acting in good faith. They cannot be held responsible for being misled by lawyers or unclear evidence. Besides, execution is generally reserved for pre-meditated murder; I think the strongest you could ever sentence a jury with is manslaughter. 0.3% error would mean that some innocent people have been killed, but innocent people are killed in all wars and that does not mean the war is morally wrong. If a few innocent deaths could save thousands of lives through the deterrent effect then morally, but possibly not practically, the death penalty could be defended. (see risk of executing the innocent section)
- As a response to the comment 4: "Research has shown that over the last 100 years of executions, only 0.3% of executed people were found to be innocent after their death…People aren't perfect. " ONLY 0.3%? ONLY?! Excuse me, but those people did have a right to live. False accusations led to the death of one person and that can lead to the death of another and another and another. But the poor excuse of "people aren't perfect" is the dumbest thing I’ve heard because then you'd have to also say that the offender isn’t perfect and should therefore be excused. Just because only a small percentage of innocent people were killed wrongfully, doesn’t make the death penalty accurate or correct. Should those who persecuted the wrongfully executed be executed too? I think so.
Response: What exactly does killing a person accomplish? Some people would say that it saves lives. Your comment also raises two questions about mitigating factors. Should the punishment of the convicted be affected by what family members they have or how remorseful they are. The former, I believe, is not considered whereas remorsefulness weighs heavily in the convicted's favor. (see the purpose of punishment section)
- In no way is murder right, but what exactly does killing another person accomplish? The bad certainly outweighs the good. Why punish more people like the relatives of the condemned? And whose decision is it to sentence someone to die? If you want to quote the bible [eye for and eye, comment 5] then why don't we quote "he who is without sin cast the first stone"? I know there are certain exceptions like Timothy McVeigh, seeing as how he doesn't feel any remorse whatsoever and has committed a terrible crime, so why shouldn't he die a terrible death? Probably the equivalent of one-billionth the pain everyone else has suffered? When it comes to the death penalty there is no absolute answer to whether it is right or wrong.
There may be no "absolute" answer to the correctness of the death penalty but in this day and age where people's opinions do count, everyone should have one.
Section 1: Latest comments
Section 2: Response to a response
Section 3: Responses to Timothy McVeigh's execution
| To read The Ravens Paradox - The Full Solution; click here | ||
| To read Animals and the Right to Life; click here |
| } |
Discussions | Useful Links | Essays | Please send all comments to WebMaster@IntellectualLoafing.com |
| The Death Penalty Essay | Index |