Arguments for and against the death penalty

[Schiff for Senate]

The death penalty is a fairly warm-to-hot-button issue; I favour it though I think it should be used in limited cirumstances. However, I've heard good arguments for banning the death penalty, as well as arguments in favour of the death penalty. Do you support or oppose the death penalty, and why? (I didn't make this a poll because that encourages simply voting 'Yes' or 'No' without elaboration or explanation.)

[Damocles]

The death penalty is the ultimate infringement of the state upon individual rights and freedoms. This is true for de jure death penalties enforced through the firing squad, the electric chair, or lethal injections, as well as de facto death penalties enforced through life imprisonment and consecutive sentencing. The method used for execution does not change the fact that it is the ultimate molestation, and should be opposed vigorously.

[Ferguson97]

I oppose the death penalty because whereas a falsely incarcerated person can be compensated financially if their innocence is discovered, it is impossible to compensate a dead person for their wrongful execution.

If there is even a miniscule chance of a person being wrongfully executed, then there should be no death penalty. Even 1 in 10,000,000 is too many.

[Del Tachi]

Murderers should be put to death because it is the penalty they have earned by their offense.  It is no more complex than this simple truth. 

[afleitch]

Being vehemently against the death penalty is an admittedly visceral opinion I've had since I was probably a child. I'm in full agreement with Damocles' reasoning.

[John Dule]

Murderers should be put to death because it is the penalty they have earned by their offense.  It is no more complex than this simple truth. 

The state cannot be trusted to accurately determine a person's guilt or innocence in every possible instance. It is no more complex than this simple truth.

[Del Tachi]

Murderers should be put to death because it is the penalty they have earned by their offense.  It is no more complex than this simple truth. 

The state cannot be trusted to accurately determine a person's guilt or innocence in every possible instance. It is no more complex than this simple truth.

The state doesn't determine such:  unanimous juries of our citizen peers do.  The question of someone's criminal guilt or innocence isn't decided by administrative fiat, it's applied consistently with majoritarian principles and standards of community conduct.     

The potential of some vanishingly few innocents being put to death is an appropriate price to pay for maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract.   

[Damocles]

The state doesn't determine such:  unanimous juries of our citizen peers do.  The question of someone's criminal guilt or innocence isn't decided by administrative fiat, it's applied consistently with majoritarian principles and standards of community conduct.     

The potential of some vanishingly few innocents being put to death is an appropriate price to pay for maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract.   

So you’d be okay with a racist Southern jury condemning a Black man to be condemned to death or lifetime slave labor for some minor offense? After all, that could conceivably count as “maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract,” and examples of this exact phenomenon existed and persist in the South to this day.

[John Dule]

Murderers should be put to death because it is the penalty they have earned by their offense.  It is no more complex than this simple truth. 

The state cannot be trusted to accurately determine a person's guilt or innocence in every possible instance. It is no more complex than this simple truth.

The state doesn't determine such:  unanimous juries of our citizen peers do.  The question of someone's criminal guilt or innocence isn't decided by administrative fiat, it's applied consistently with majoritarian principles and standards of community conduct.     

The potential of some vanishingly few innocents being put to death is an appropriate price to pay for maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract.   

Collectivism is morally bankrupt: Example 21,293,047,255

[Del Tachi]

The state doesn't determine such:  unanimous juries of our citizen peers do.  The question of someone's criminal guilt or innocence isn't decided by administrative fiat, it's applied consistently with majoritarian principles and standards of community conduct.     

The potential of some vanishingly few innocents being put to death is an appropriate price to pay for maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract.   

So you’d be okay with a racist Southern jury condemning a Black man to be condemned to death or lifetime slave labor for some minor offense? After all, that could conceivably count as “maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract,” and examples of this exact phenomenon existed and persist in the South to this day.

No, of course not.  Firstly, a racially segregated jury is hardly valid in that it isn't constituted "of one's peers."  Secondly, a retributive theory of justice demands punishments that are proportionate to the crime.   "An eye for an eye" means minor offenses receive the most minor punishments, while more severe crimes get harsher ones.   Theories of punishment based on criminal deterrence or rehabilitation cannot actually answer this question of how severe sentences should be.  In an ideal system, legislatures set bounds for what the prescribed criminal punishments ought to be and judges and juries dole out specific sentences considering any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Collectivism is morally bankrupt: Example 21,293,047,255

You gave a meme response so you'll get a meme retort:  I guess it was also "morally bankrupt" for the Allies to invade Nazi Germany knowing that a certain amount of innocent civilian death would happen?  Some ends justify collateral damage; maintaining the notion that the state proportionately acts to restore moral wrongs is pretty high on that list.

[MarkD]

I support the death penalty because I believe the severity of the punishment should match the severity of the crime. Note I am not oversimplifying the concept by merely saying the punishment should fit the crime, nor an eye for an eye. As I said it, I emphasized the severity of the punishment and the crime. I believe the most appropriate form of the death penalty should be firing squad.

It's also important to note that the death penalty is not unconstitutional for two reasons: one is an originalism-based support for the death penalty and the other is a textualism-based argument.
1) The death penalty was in very common use when the Bill of Rights was proposed and ratified. The men who adopted the Eighth Amendment did not intend to prohibit what they themselves were often doing.
2) The text of the Fifth Amendment refers three times to the availability and presumed legality of using the death penalty: the Grand Jury Clause begins with the words "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury," then the Double Jeopardy Clause says, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb," and then the Due Process Clause says no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." So people CAN be prosecuted for a CAPITAL crime with indictment by a grand jury, and people CAN be put in jeopardy of their LIFE so long as they are only tried once, and people CAN be deprived of LIFE with due process of law.

[Schiff for Senate]

The potential of some vanishingly few innocents being put to death is an appropriate price to pay for maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract.  

I oppose ending the death penalty, but this statement is blatantly false, and if you truly believe this, I don't know what to say. Yes, criminals deserve punishment, and I agree that might sometimes (in severe cases)mean the death penalty. But killing innocent people to make sure those who are guilty die too is not a solution at all.This isn't utalitarianism like in the Trolley Problem - it's the polar opposite. It's honestly bloodlust. Yes, those guilty of murder deserve the death penalty, but no, not at the cost of innocent people dying as well. There's not that much of a necessity for the death penalty, at all. This is disturbing, frankly. You are saying that it's so necessary that those guilty of certain crimes die, that this right supercedes the right to life an innocent person holds. This argument - that it's for the greater good, and as long as all the bad get caught it's okay if a few good people go down as well - is a good argument for maintaing the police (some innocent people are jailed, but on the whole, policing is a positive good). On the other hand, condemning an innocent person to death just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, are misunderstood, and/or they are someone against whom thevidence could be miscontrued - is just sick. Honestly, how would you like it if you or a loved one were at a crime scence (at the wrong place at the wrong time), and the evidence was misinterpreted, you were mistaken as the criminal, and were killed because of prosecutorial misconduct. It's all right to say the death penalty shouldn't be banned, but this argument - that it's all right for some innocent people to die - is deplorable, and is actually a case against the death penalty.

[Schiff for Senate]

I read a post by a Michigander (I think it was a Democrat, or maybe a Green Partier) that made a very compelling case against the death penalty, but can't seem to find it now.

[John Dule]

The state doesn't determine such:  unanimous juries of our citizen peers do.  The question of someone's criminal guilt or innocence isn't decided by administrative fiat, it's applied consistently with majoritarian principles and standards of community conduct.     

The potential of some vanishingly few innocents being put to death is an appropriate price to pay for maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract.   

So you’d be okay with a racist Southern jury condemning a Black man to be condemned to death or lifetime slave labor for some minor offense? After all, that could conceivably count as “maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract,” and examples of this exact phenomenon existed and persist in the South to this day.

No, of course not.  Firstly, a racially segregated jury is hardly valid in that it isn't constituted "of one's peers."  Secondly, a retributive theory of justice demands punishments that are proportionate to the crime.   "An eye for an eye" means minor offenses receive the most minor punishments, while more severe crimes get harsher ones.   Theories of punishment based on criminal deterrence or rehabilitation cannot actually answer this question of how severe sentences should be.  In an ideal system, legislatures set bounds for what the prescribed criminal punishments ought to be and judges and juries dole out specific sentences considering any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Collectivism is morally bankrupt: Example 21,293,047,255

You gave a meme response so you'll get a meme retort:  I guess it was also "morally bankrupt" for the Allies to invade Nazi Germany knowing that a certain amount of innocent civilian death would happen?  Some ends justify collateral damage; maintaining the notion that the state proportionately acts to restore moral wrongs is pretty high on that list.

The Germans were still in the process of committing their crimes, unlike a criminal who is safely behind bars, so the comparison is moronic.

[AGA]

I oppose the death penalty due to the possibility of wrongful convictions. The death penalty costs more when considering appeals, so there isn't any clear benefit anyway.

[Schiff for Senate]

I oppose the death penalty because whereas a falsely incarcerated person can be compensated financially if their innocence is discovered, it is impossible to compensate a dead person for their wrongful execution.

If there is even a miniscule chance of a person being wrongfully executed, then there should be no death penalty. Even 1 in 10,000,000 is too many.

True, which is why I do favour scaling down the death penalty's use. If you're absolutely against the death penalty, you oppose it even for people who are undeniably guilty of a crime such as murder. Yes, there can be wrongful executions, so the death penalty should only be used when there's 100% certainty of the criminal's guilt (and the crime is something terrible, like murder). This isn't an all or nothing scenario; if it were, I may lean toward nothing. You can support the death penalty for specific cases - when the criminal's guilt has been proven beyond doubt.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

The state doesn't determine such:  unanimous juries of our citizen peers do.  The question of someone's criminal guilt or innocence isn't decided by administrative fiat, it's applied consistently with majoritarian principles and standards of community conduct.     

The potential of some vanishingly few innocents being put to death is an appropriate price to pay for maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract.   

So you’d be okay with a racist Southern jury condemning a Black man to be condemned to death or lifetime slave labor for some minor offense? After all, that could conceivably count as “maintaining the retributive principle that protects and maintains the social contract,” and examples of this exact phenomenon existed and persist in the South to this day.

No, of course not.  Firstly, a racially segregated jury is hardly valid in that it isn't constituted "of one's peers."  Secondly, a retributive theory of justice demands punishments that are proportionate to the crime.   "An eye for an eye" means minor offenses receive the most minor punishments, while more severe crimes get harsher ones.   Theories of punishment based on criminal deterrence or rehabilitation cannot actually answer this question of how severe sentences should be.  In an ideal system, legislatures set bounds for what the prescribed criminal punishments ought to be and judges and juries dole out specific sentences considering any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

But the 'hardly valid' jury can still sentence someone to death.



This is the problem I have with the death penalty. People could be innocent, no matter how 'air tight' the evidence is against them. Unless you literally catch Osama bin-Laden it's not morally right.

Also I love how 'pro-life evangelicals' support the death penalty.

[Schiff for Senate]

Also I love how 'pro-life evangelicals' support the death penalty.

Yes, this is the sick irony and hypocrisy of the rabid religious right. If we're being totally fair and looking at it from their 'perspective,' they could argue abortion is infanticide, whereas the death penalty is used against those convicted of heinous crime, and could then state that they value the life of an 'unborn child' more than that of a criminal. Some of these are good points. But what I find much more hypocritic and disgusting is the aversion of vaccination and mask-wearing by some on the rabid religious right who profess to be pro-life while endangering the lives of those around them - because then they believe the life of a fetus is worth more than the lives of those who are exposed to the unvaccinated religious right. Of course, some on the religious right are reasonable on mask-wearing and vaccination, but many aren't, and that's where the biggest hypocrisy creeps in.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also I love how 'pro-life evangelicals' support the death penalty.

This is not the "own" you guys think it is given you can come to both positions from the due process clause.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Also I love how 'pro-life evangelicals' support the death penalty.

This is not the "own" you guys think it is given you can come to both positions from the due process clause.

Social Liberalism (noun)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also I love how 'pro-life evangelicals' support the death penalty.

This is not the "own" you guys think it is given you can come to both positions from the due process clause.

Social Liberalism (noun)

Classical Liberalism isnt modern Liberalism

[Vice President Christian Man]

I believe the death penalty should be abolished because of its racial statistics, people killed who are later presumed to be innocent, and that the death penalty is a form of involuntary death in which does not produce the greater good in a situation. It denies justice to those who have repented, many of whom have turned their lives around in prison and mentored others. Denying their chance to teach those who are at risk of going down their own road, isn't going to help to deter crime.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Also I love how 'pro-life evangelicals' support the death penalty.

This is not the "own" you guys think it is given you can come to both positions from the due process clause.

Social Liberalism (noun)

Classical Liberalism isnt modern Liberalism

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[Schiff for Senate]

Also I love how 'pro-life evangelicals' support the death penalty.

This is not the "own" you guys think it is given you can come to both positions from the due process clause.

Perhaps, but it displays contradiction and hpyocrisy among those who call themselves 'pro-life' but support the death penalty. I support the death penalty (to an extent) but am not necessarily 'pro-life,' or if I am, not nearly to the extent the rabid religious right says it is. It is hypocritical to call yourself 'pro-life' and then support the death penalty, because then you are saying you are only 'pro-life' in some cases and to an extent, that the lives of criminals don't really matter and that 'pro-life' shouldn't extend to criminals. I'm not saying that one can't oppose abortion and simultaneously suppot the death penalty, but only that they are liars if they call themselves 'pro-life.' You can't seriously expect the rabid religious right to care about the due process clause; they either don't know about it or don't care about it in most cases.

[progressive85]

Argument for: Nuking a child molester and serial killer keeps them from doing it again, and you can still feel great afterwards... You hear that he's been blown to bits, and then you go out to Sonic with your Friday night crew for some grub... nobody cares that the waste of sperm is dead.

Argument against: The fact that so many were actually ing innocent and then bumped off by the State anyway... not good.

Also, the Pope doesn't like it... even when the Pope is a right-wing conservative, he doesn't like it, which says a lot actually. 

and it's probably not a good look for a government to formally execute people in the 21st century.  It's not really the kind of thing that the government should be in the business of doing.... Life behind bars rotting away in a dark empty cell with no Cable TV and lousy food and no chance of ever getting out is a much better alternative than death.