|
|
Debate:Capital Punishment
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Is the death penalty justified?
|
Editing tasks you can do:
- This article needs more "con" resources (bottom of the page). Research them via Google, post them in the pro/con resources section (using MLA style), and then draw from these articles more "con"-argument quotations. Make sure to place these quotations in the appropriate argument pages.
[ ] Background and Context of Debate:
Capital punishment is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. Crimes that can result in the death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offenses. Capital punishment has been used in societies throughout history as a way to punish crime and suppress political dissent. In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty, as do religious crimes such as apostasy (the formal renunciation of the State religion). In many retentionist countries (countries that use the death penalty), drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty.
 Many countries have abandoned capital punishment, including almost all European and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some countries, such as Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States (the federal government and 36 of its states), Guatemala, most of the Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia (e.g. Japan and India) and Africa (e.g. Botswana and Zambia) retain it. South Africa, which is probably the most developed African nation, and which has been a democracy since 1994, does not have the death penalty. This fact is currently quite controversial in that country, due to the high levels of violent crime, including murder and rape.
The latest countries to abolish the death penalty de facto for all crimes were Gabon, which announced on September 14, 2007 that they would no longer apply capital punishment and South Korea in practice on December 31, 2007 after ten years of disuse. The latest to abolish executions de jure was Uzbekistan on January 1, 2008.
Around the world, the capital punishment debate revolves around a number of questions, which are important to layout as a way of summarizing the moral trade-offs of the debate. They include, is capital punishment intended primarily as a punishment? Is it a just and proportional punishment for certain crimes, like murder? Do murderers and some other criminals commit crimes so horrific that they forfeit the right to life? Should innocent life be valued over a murderers life, and does capital punishment demonstrate this? Is life imprisonment without parole a sufficient punishment? Is the idea of proportional justice a slippery slope to abusive forms of punishment? Does capital punishment jeopardize our sense of the "dignity of life"? Or, is it important to demonstrate compassion even to murderers by sparing them their lives? Is the purpose of our prison system retribution or rehabilitation?
Is the execution of innocent convicts a serious problem. Is it OK that wrongful executions can't be corrected? Does this deprive due process, by foreclosing the option of appeal to those that have been executed? Does it generally contravene a right to due process, even for those that are guilty?
Is the death penalty a necessary means of demonstrating the horror felt by a family and a society at a crime? Or, should we draw a line before capital punishment? If a family or a public desires capital punishment to see "justice done", is it important for the law to grant these wishes? Does capital punishment give solace, closure, and comfort to families and society generally?
 Is the death penalty a legitimate means of protecting society? Is it important to kill a murderer so that they have a 0% chance of killing again? Or, can we trust that prisons should be able to hold these prisoners with 100% effectiveness so as to prevent further murders? Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect, dissuading criminals from committing future crimes? How disputed is this notion? If it remains highly disputed, can policy be based on it? Even if there is a deterrent effect, should this be considered? Or, would this be an instance of the ends (deterrence) justifying the means (capital punishment)?
Is it a major concern that innocent people may be wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to death? Does this happen infrequently? Is it statistically insignificant, or does it only have to happen once for it to put the whole idea of capital punishment on hold? Does capital punishment violate the notion of due process by killing those that might make future appeals?
Are capital punishment convictions given in a discriminatory manner? If so, is this a problem with capital punishment or the judicial system? Is it possible to apply capital punishment consistently, or is it susceptible to arbitrary application?
What are the economics of capital punishment? Is capital punishment more expensive than life imprisonment? Should the economics be considered?
These are the moral questions that must be asked by an individual considering this debate, and attempting to fully weigh its pro and con arguments.
|
[ ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Justice/desert: Are executions sometimes required to uphold justice/due desert?
Many people believe that the only appropriate punishment for murder is the death penalty, as this matches the original crime. Some people, however, argue that life in prison is a greater punishment than the death penalty. As a result they say that if the goal is to punish a person as severely as possible, life without parole can be seen as meeting this objective better than capital punishment. END
|
[  ] [ ] Yes
- The death penalty is proportional punishment/due desert for murder US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, Majority opinion in 7-2 ruling that the death penalty is a constitutionally acceptable form of punishment for premeditated murder. 2 Jul. 1976. - "We are concerned here only with the imposition of capital punishment for the crime of murder, and when a life has been taken deliberately by the offender, we cannot say that the punishment is invariably disproportionate to the crime. It is an extreme sanction suitable to the most extreme of crimes."[1]
- Bernstein has it exactly wrong. A society that bans the death penalty outright is confirming that it does not utterly repudiate its worst murderers. The United States last week made clear just how seriously it regards McVeigh's monstrous crime. Change the law so that no future McVeigh can be put to death, and the United States will be sending a different message: Mass murder isn't that bad."
- Death penalty addresses crimes where victim can never be compensated Steven Farrell. "A Conservative Case for the Capital Punishment". 18 Mar. 2005 - "If one robs a store, the captured thief can pay back the debt and, in fact, under biblical law (which is better than today's law) would be tasked to work for the man he robbed until the debt was satisfied seven times the value of the goods stolen. With such a bounteous payback, the thief is then freed and, by his honorable labor, restored to a position of trust..." Farrell continues that murder is not a repayable crime, that society can never again trust that person again, and that the person, therefore, permanently forfeits all rights as a citizen, including the right to life.
- Executing killers is not comparable to raping rapists "The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?". Casey's Critical Thinking - "Abolitionists often insist that if we argue for lex talion justice we must be prepared to rape rapists, beat sadists, and burn down the houses of arsonists...Why then, if it is not morally okay to rape rapists, is it acceptable to execute murderers? The answer is simple. There is no redeeming value to carrying out the former punishment. Raping the rapist will only cause someone else to degrade themselves by doing it. It will not prevent the rapist from raping again. Executing murderers, however, prevents them from committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims. The good, therefore, outweighs the bad, and the executioner is morally justified in taking the murderer's life."[2]
- The death penalty is about punishment/due desert, not vengeance David Gelernter. "What do Murderers Deserve?". Commentary Magazine. March/April 1999 - "Opponents of capital punishment describe it as a surrender to emotions--to grief, rage, fear, blood lust. For most supporters of the death penalty, this is false. Even when we resolve in principle to go ahead, we have to steel ourselves. Many of us would find it hard to kill a dog, much less a man. Endorsing capital punishment means not that we yield to our emotions but that we overcome them. If we favor executing murderers, it is not because we want to but because, however much we do not want to, we consider ourselves obliged to."
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Life in prison is a greater punishment than the death penalty If the goal is to punish a person as severely as possible, life without parole can be seen as meeting this objective better than capital punishment. The reason is that life without parole forces a murderer to live out their remorseful life, whereas capital punishment saves them from living it. This is why many people on death row express feelings of relief about being put to death.
- The punishment principle of an "eye for an eye" is debunked. Steve Kangas. "Myth: Murderers deserve death." The Long FAQ on Liberalism. - "Fact: Only God or an omniscient being could determine that; Jesus argued against "an eye for an eye.". Summary. Almost all societies have dispensed with the principle of "an eye for an eye," and considered it a step toward more enlightened civilization. Christians who cite "an eye for an eye" in their defense of the death penalty are usually unaware of the strict criteria that God imposed before it could be used to take human life. The Old Testament also allowed the death penalty for crimes that today we consider less than misdemeanors -- clearly, the Old Testament law is archaic. Finally, Jesus himself argued against the principle of "an eye for an eye."
- Proportional justice risks justifying extreme punishment such as torture If the death penalty is considered a "proportional" punishment for someone who commits 1 murder, wouldn't we need a harsher sentence for a person that tortures and murders 10 people? If proportionality is the model, we might have to torture criminals in order to exert sufficient punishment. Therefore, the inherent flaw in a concept of justice based on "proportionality" is that it has no limits, creating a slippery slope to torture in the name of justice.
- The death penalty is merely a vehicle for vengeance Harry Lee Anstead, Florida Supreme Court Justice, dissenting from a ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the electric chair. St. Petersburg Times. 26 Sept. 1999 - "Our justice system is not simply an instrument of vengeance, despite the connotation to that effect contained in the extreme rhetoric that sometimes surrounds the constitutional debate over continuing use of the electric chair."[3]
- Murderers might "deserve" death, but decency requires mercy. George N. Boyd, professor of religion at Trinity University. "Capital Punishment: Deserved and Wrong". The Christian Century. February 17, 1988 - "Opponents of the death penalty should be emphatic that relative to what is 'deserved' -- that is, to what those who have committed murder have reason to claim from their society -- there are many who 'deserve' to die. Indeed there must also be many who similarly 'deserve' that penalty among those who receive lesser sentences (as also among other guilty persons who are never apprehended or are not convicted). Indeed, there are some for whom legal execution is much better than what they 'deserve.' If the rhetoric rings a bit harsh to anti-capital punishment sensibilities, it is not designed for preaching to the converted. Somehow it must be conveyed that the capital punishment debate is not about what murderers deserve, but rather about how society should express and defend its fundamental values."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Killing: Is killing ever appropriate in society? Might capital punishment qualify?
Many people argue that murderers lose the right to life upon taking another life in justification of capital punishment. Some people, however, say that killing is never justified; the death penalty is no exception. END
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Murderers forfeit the right to life In most modern societies, a state has the right to withdraw many of a citizen's rights when they are convicted of a crime. Usually, this is only for a period of time, and when the sentence is served, the prisoner's rights, particularly liberty, are restored. Many argue that a murderer's crime is so aborrent that it warrants all rights, including the right to life, being permanently revoked. It is within the authority of a state and its citizenry to determine that such a revocation is appropriate and that the death penalty is justified.
- Killing by execution is not "murder" and can be justified Killing is not always wrong. This is the lynch pin argument of the anti-capital punishment camp. Yet, it is faulty. There are many circumstances in which killing is justified. Killing is justified in self-defense. And, it is justified in wars. It is invalid to argue, therefore, that killing is always wrong. It is, rather, simply a matter of whether it can be reasonably justified. The rest of this case goes toward demonstrating that it is be justified.
- Death penalty is justified in context of high murder rates. David Gelernter. "What do Murderers Deserve?". Commentarymagazine.com. March/April 1999 - "we could make the same point less emphatically, by locking up murderers for life. The question then becomes: Is the death penalty overdoing it? The answer might be yes if we were a community in which murder was a shocking anomaly. But we are not. 'One can guesstimate,' writes the criminologist and political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr., 'that we are nearing or may already have passed the day when 500,000 murderers, convicted and undetected, are living in American society.'"
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The death penalty violates the inalienable right to life The right to life is inalienable. It cannot be given, and it cannot be taken away. It is innate, or God given. This means, first, that a person's acts on earth cannot take away their right to life. They cannot commit crimes that cause them to forego an innate and inalienable right. Other rights can be taken, but not inalienable ones such as the right to life. By taking away what it has no authority to take, the state attempts to play God. It must not play this role.
- Society can't show that killing is wrong by killing Daniel Gaul, Cleveland Judge. - "Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that it's wrong to kill people? It's not about his soul. It's about our souls -- the community's soul. It deals with the sanctity of life."[6]
- Executions violate notion that killing is only acceptable in self-defense. It is widely believed that it is only appropriate to kill in self-defense. Yet, capital punishment is not about self-defense, it is about punishment and "balancing the scales of justice". This is a faulty justification. Some argue that capital punishment is done in self-defense because it supposedly prevents murderers from murdering again and because it is claimed to have a deterrent effect on crime. Yet, neither of these justifications are primary considerations. They are, rather, incidental. Executions are not performed when it is the only option available to save a life; they are performed by choice under shaky presumptions that it might have some effect on public safety.
- The state should simply not be involved in killing people Paul Pfeifer, Ohio Supreme Court Justice - "As we stand poised on history's doorstep, I find myself wondering if it's a step that we really want to take. Should the state be in the business of ending people's lives, no matter how reprehensible those people are? ... Knowing what I know now, my name wouldn't have been on it."[7]
- It is wrong to give a person the job of executing another person Albert Einstein p.83, Albert Einstein-The human side, Princeton University Press 1979. - "I have reached the conviction that the abolition of the death penalty is desirable. Reasons: 1) Irreparability in the event of an error of justice, 2) Detrimental moral influence of the execution procedure on those who, whether directly or indirectly, have to do with the procedure."[8]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Innocents: Is it wrong to be concerned about executing innocent people?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Unquestioned guilt does not carry risk of wrongful execution. There is often no doubt of the guilt of an individual. The evidence may be obvious, with clear DNA testing, witnesses, and a guilty plea from the murderer. In these instances, there is no risk of executing the innocent, making this argument irrelevant. When there is room for doubt, this should be weighed into the equation. Therefore, the concerns of executing an innocent person must be approached on an individual basis.
- Mistaken convictions have not translated into wrongful executions Michael Nevin, Freelance Journalist. "Death Decisions". The American Daily. 8 Apr. 2004 - "Several myths about the death penalty have been reported but continue to be debunked upon closer examination. The Liebman study at Columbia University, 'Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995,' released its results in 2000 claiming serious flaws in the system, including a high 'error' rate. It was later revealed that the misleading 'error' included any issue requiring further review by a lower court, even when the court upheld the sentence. The 23-year study found no cases of mistaken executions. The numerous appeals in capital cases demonstrate the extraordinary adherence to due process. The fallacy that innocent people are being executed cannot be validated, and it is intellectually dishonest for opponents of the death penalty to perpetrate this myth. The death penalty in America is undoubtedly one of the most accurately administered criminal justice procedures in the world."
- Some risk of executing the innocent must be tolerated G. Edward Griffin in The Great Prison Break - "If we design a legal system that will be so generous to the suspect that there is absolutely no possibility of unjustly convicting that one out of ten thousand defendants who, in spite of overwhelming evidence, is really innocent, then we have also designed a legal system that is utterly incapable of convicting the other 9999 about whose guilt there is no mistake."[9]
- DNA testing increases assurances of guilt; basis for executions Some argue that DNA testing has revealed the innocence of some that have been on Death Row, believing it indicates that the system is flawed. Yet, DNA testing cuts in favor of capital punishment, increasing assurances that the guilty are guilty and the innocent are innocent. If we can be more certain of guilt, we can be more certain that capital punishment is justified.
- Wrongful convictions can be fixed with better prosecutors. Peter Bronson. "Death Penalty Guards What is Valued Most". International Herald Tribune. 8 Mar. 2001 - "American media, already biased against capital punishment, made a sensation of stories from Chicago about wrongful prosecution. The governor of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions. Most of the stories did not say, however, that the "innocence" was often technical. More than half the "innocent" defendants were later convicted. And malfeasance by prosecutors does not mean the death penalty is wrong, it means Illinois needs better prosecutors."
- Exoneration from death row is not proof of innocence When people are let out of death row, it is often because re-consideration found that there was not sufficient proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not necessarily because proof was found of innocence.
- Due process is all that is required, even if it risks wrongful execution The law does require only due process to justify the execution of the orders of a conviction. As long as the person is seen to have received due process in receiving a death penalty conviction, it is justifiable to execute them. It matters not if they are later determined to have been innocent; justice was carried out.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Risk of executing innocent people undermines death penalty Since 1973, 123 in 25 US states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.[10] The Innocence project indicated that more than 150 people have been exonerated on the basis of DNA testing that concluded that they were innocent.[11] This appears to create a likelihood that many individuals have actually been executed that were innocent. This is too many, particularly when the executed are seen as innocent victims of the state. This is harmful to the state and the judicial system, and is sufficient evidence to shut down the practice.
- Individuals are executed on murder charges whom deserved manslaughter "Thoughts on the death penalty". Retrieved 1 May 2008 - "The person convicted of the murder may have actually killed the victim and may even admit having done so but does not agree that the killing was murder. Often the only people who know what really happened are the accused and the deceased. It then comes down to the skill of the prosecution and defence lawyers as to whether there will be a conviction for murder or for manslaughter. It is thus highly probable that people are convicted of murder when they should really have only been convicted of manslaughter."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Cruel and unusual? Is it wrong to consider the death penalty cruel and unusual?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- The death penalty is not cruel Chief Justice Earl Warren, Trop v. Dulles. - "Whatever the arguments may be against capital punishment, both on moral grounds and on grounds and in terms of accomplishing the purposes of punishment.... the death penalty has been employed throughout our history, and in a day when it is still widely accepted, it cannot be said to violate the conceptional concept of cruelty".[12]
- Death penalty can/should inflict pain on murderers; due desert. Bob Greene. "Who Weeps for the Blood of the Weiler Family?". Chicago Tribune. 14 July 1999 - "When Allen Lee Davis got a nosebleed during his execution, it caused an uproar. Few of those crying foul even knew what he had done to deserve execution." Some go beyond this, arguing that causing pain to the executed is justified as a proportional (due desert) response to the heinous crimes they've committed.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Executions are cruel and unusual punishment, violating human rights The death penalty is severe in the damage it causes to the human body. Inflicting mortal damage on the human body, whether by electric chair or lethal injection, is equivalent to or even worse than torture, and violates basic human rights that are inherent and irrevocable. The death penalty is also cruel and torturous in the way that it inflicts psychological damage on convicts that wait on death row.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Compassion: Does capital punishment demonstrate compassion and decency?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- The executed are not deprived of everything; they keep their souls. Capital punishment could only be the severest and most horrific punishment if it was able to deprive the executed of their souls and their after lives. But, it only deprives them of their bodies and lives on earth.
- Capital punishment best prepares an evil soul for the after life Some argue that capital punishment is something like a spiritual medicine in the sense that it saves a man's soul from an evil life on earth. That is, capital punishment prevents a man from committing additional crimes and sins on earth, and so saves them from further damnation in the afterlife.
- The death penalty best fosters repentance Pro Death Penalty Webpage - "Death can actually be a peaceful and spiritually enlightening experience. Victims rights activist group 'Justice for All' presents an excellent example of my meaning below: 'The movie Dead Man Walking demonstrates a very good example of how just punishment and Jesus' message of love and redemption can work together: Had rapist/murderer Matthew Poncelet not been properly sentenced to death by the civil authority, he would not have met Sister Prejean, he would not have taken responsibility for his crimes and he would not have reconciled with God. Had Poncelet never been caught or had he only been given a prison sentence, his character makes it very clear that those elements would not have come together. Indeed, for the entire film and up until those last moments, prior to his execution, Poncelet was not fully truthful with Sister Prejean. His lying and manipulative nature was fully exposed at that crucial time. It was not at all surprising, then, that it was just prior to his execution that all of the spiritual elements have come together for his salvation, something no prison sentence is able to do. It was now, or never. Truly, it was his pending execution which finally led to his repentance. For Christians, the most crucial concerns of Dead Man Walking must be and are redemption and eternal salvation. And, for that reason, it may well be, for Christians, the most important pro-death penalty movie ever made.'"
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The state does not honor the victim by emulating the murderer. William Brennan, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice. - "the state does not honor the victim by emulating his murderer."[14]
- Capital punishment does not allow for repenting as life imprisonment does John Paul II was one of the strongest advocates of life without parole over capital punishment, and applied the above rationale. He strongly upheld the Catholic principle of repentance as well as social forgiveness, in the tradition of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and maintained that any just legal order would need to apply these principles at the same time as penalizing criminals. He argued that life imprisonment was the best route to achieving all the objectives of redress, societal protection, repentance, and restitution simultaneously.[15].
- Only love can conquer hatred and murderous acts. Hector Black, whose daughter Patricia was murdered in Atlanta, Georgia in 2000, Victim Impact Statement delivered before the Fulton County (Georgia) Superior court, January 2002. - "I know that love does not seek revenge. We do not want a life for a life. Love seeks healing, peace and wholeness. Hatred can never overcome hatred. Only love can overcome hatred and violence. Love is that light. It is that candle that cannot be extinguished by all the darkness and hatred in the world. Judge Goger, that is the reason we are not asking for the death penalty."[16]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Families: Is capital punishment good for the families of victims?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Executions take vengeance out of the hands of loved ones. Jeff Jacoby - "It is up to the law to speak to them-to speak for all grief-stricken survivors confronted with the butchery of someone near and dear. Capital punishment says to them: We, the community, take your loss with the utmost seriousness. We know that you are filled with rage and pain. We know that you may cry for vengeance, may yearn to strangle the murderer with your bare hands. You are right to feel that way. But it is not for you to wreak retribution. As a decent and just society, we will do it. Fairly. After due process. In a court of law."[17]
- Loved ones should not have to support a killer in prison. "The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?". Casey's Critical Thinking - Take, for example, a murderer who took the life of a teenager. The parents of the victim will be among the taxpayers that pay for his meals and his cable television. Should he choose to take advantage of college courses the prison may offer, the parents of the victim will be indirectly financing those expenses as well. Nothing could be further from justice. It is of this type of situation that the abolitionist approves. Somewhere along the line, their priorities have been turned upside down.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The death penalty does not bring back a loved one -- Sharon Borcyzewski, whose daughter was murdered in 1997, Arizona Republic, 12 Apr. 2004. - "The assumption is all too often made that all murder-victim family members want the death penalty. The horrible reality for those of us who have lost loved ones to homicide is that nothing that happens to their murderers is going to bring our loved ones back."[19]
- The death penalty does not honor the memory of a loved one Jennifer Bishop, whose sister Nancy Bishop Langert and her husband Richard Langert were murdered in 1990. - "Our sister Nancy and her husband Richard were a young couple expecting their first child when they were shot to death in their home. They loved and valued life; our sister was carrying life within her when she died a terrifying and brutal death. Her last act as she was dying was to write a message of love in her blood. We can't imagine making the death of another human being her memorial."
- The death penalty harms the family of the executed Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography - "almost any criminal, however brutal, has usually some person, often a person whom he has greatly wronged, who will plead for him. If the mother is alive she will always come, and she cannot help feeling that the case in which she is so concerned is peculiar, that in this case a pardon should be granted. It was really heartrending to have to see the kinfolk and friends of murderers who were condemned to death, and among the very rare occasions when anything governmental or official caused me to lose sleep were times when I had to listen to some poor mother making a plea for a criminal so wicked, so utterly brutal and depraved, that it would have been a crime on my part to remit his punishment."[20]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Modern society: Is capital punishment appropriate in modern society?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
| |
