Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Legal
  4. / Criminal Law
  5. / Capital Punishment

by guizmo40 on August 17th, 2006

guizmo40

Question

Help answer this question below.

Are you for or against the death penalty?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by Anonymous on August 22nd, 2006

    Anonymous

    I'm against it for several reasons, (mainly practical rather than ethical to be honest):

    -To kill a criminal punishes not only them, but their family and friends. (This I think is probably the single most persuasive argument) Whatever a son, daughter, parent or sibling has done, it is near enough impossible to detach oneself enough as to be indifferent to their death. This is particularly the case where the condemned person is a parent of a young child, incapable of understanding the situation fully. With prison a relative can at least visit the prisoner.

    -It is very easily abused for political ends- victims of the death penalty in many countries are guilty only of opposing a particular regime. In the middle east girls as young as fifteen have been executed for "crimes against chastity".
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217424.stm

    It is often used as a tool of fear, oppression and control by governments, and is disproportionately used against specific groups in society (e.g. the black population in South Africa, the poorer classes almost everywhere.) There is no way to ensure that it is carried out in an impartial manner, and is scarily open to abuse as a way of cleansing "undesirables" from society. There is no better way to rid yourself of a political threat than to place threat of execution (often on a fabricated, exagerrated or grossly manipulated charge) on your opponents.
    Interesting article on race and the death penalty:
    http://www.mumia2000.org/race&injustice.html

    - I don't believe that any human being has the right to decide who deserves to live and who to die according to some arbitrary principle.
    Moral values change, and are culturally specific, many offences which would have been capital offences at one time, or still are in certain countries, are no longer even crimes (adultery, homosexuality for example). Whether someone faces the death penalty can depend very much on accident of birth.

    -It has a brutalising affect on society, and encourages a sort of state-sanctioned bloodlust. The sick t-shirts sold at the execution of Timothy McVeigh and the baying and cheering of execution crowds in Saudi Arabia, not to mention the numerous imaginative ways man has found to carry out the execution process, do nothing to persuade me that executions create a morally upstanding population. Listen to it- thats not a celebration of the judicial process, its pure animal lust for blood.
    This is vile:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/18/mcveigh_death_tshirts_for_sale/

    Many serial killers see themselves as vigilantes, cleansing society of perceived sin through violence. Or they enjoy lording the power of life and death over other "lesser" beings.The morals are different- the principle seems much the same. It makes me feel quite sick to feel I live in a world where people can cheer as a man dies, no matter how evil he may have been. A truly civilised society should raise itself above the level of a killer, not resort to its own self-righteous version of his perverted bloodlust.

    -I see it mainly as a process carried out for the satisfaction of the victims family and of popular society than a punishment as such. Many killers are unafraid of death, even welcoming it. (And I don't understand the logic of "humane" processes such as lethal injection - isn't that how we put an ill old dog to sleep? Seems strangely kind.) Murder still occurs in countries where the death penalty is carried out, often on a greater scale than those where it is not. Famously the US states that use the death penalty are still those with the highest homicide rates- see also "no deterent" argument below. Whilst the feelings of the victim and the public at large should always be a consideration when sentencing a criminal, they should not be the sole reasoning for a sentence. Whilst I have total sympathy for victims of violent crime, they and their families are in a heightened emotional state. Justice should be calm, rational and impartial, not powered by hysteria and personal emotion.

    -Its irreversible. A prisoner can be released if he is later found not guilty. A dead man is dead forever.

    -It can make martyrs of criminals. Particularly in the case of terrorists and political figures such as Saddam Hussein. Some people are effectively more dangerous dead than they are alive.

    -Its not a particularly effective deterrent http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/54068

    - Although I do think prisons are far too comfortable in the western world, with serial killers, or perpetrators of particularly unusual or horrific crimes, there is often something to be gained from analysing their reasons and psychology in the hope that similar crimes might be prevented in future. This is generally easier to do with someone who's still alive. We tend to dehumanise violent criminals and call them "monsters"- whilst this might be understandable, its not especially helpful in the long term. Its important to remember serial killers are human beings like the rest of us- various elements- genetic, psychological, social cause them to commit crimes. This doesn't excuse them of course, but if we can analyse these reasons, advancing our understanding of criminal behaviour, our chances of identifying risk factors and preventing future crime increase dramatically.

    - To a certain extent I don't really see how death is a punishment, particularly something such as death by lethal injection. Unless one believes in hell. In which case the convicted will be going there anyway, whether now or in twenty years time. Given the choice between twenty years in prison and an instant painless death, I think I'd probably opt for death.


    Interesting essay on topic:
    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR010031997?open&of=ENG-312


    EDIT: Castrate, I feel that "what about the family of the victim" argument, is slightly beside the point in this case. I don't believe that concern for the family of the perpetrator of a crime and concern for the family of the victim are mutually exclusive.
    The execution of a murderer does not bring their victim back to life either- In a sense I see it as a matter of damage limitation. The family of a murderer do not deserve punishment any more than the family of the victim.

    One of my favorite quotes ever comes from the father of a victim of the Oklahoma bombing who protested against the execution of Timothy McVeigh:

    "If I'm going to forgive him, I need him to be alive."

    I personally think it counterproductive to promote ideals of revenge within the justice system. Justice and vengeance are two entirely seperate things, one is based on animalistic hatred, the other on a humanitarian desire to make the world a better place.

    Comments
    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Are you for or against the death penalty?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company