Is the death penalty justified in certain circumstances?

[Eraldo Coil]

I believe it is. Many people commit attrocious crimes and get time in prison, when really their existance should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Just want to hear your thoughts on this.

[SoylentGreen]

atrocious as in taking a life without the persons consent. Hmmm just like the death penalty.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The Death Penalty is morally defensible in cases where the justice system is so flawed that the criminal would be likely to escape and cause more harm to society if allowed to live in a prison. (not applicable in mostg western countries) I also see it as defensible in a case where it is not possible to give the criminal due process (say, a battlefield) and releasing will cause great harm.

[LadiesMan217]

The death penalty is most certainly justified in many cases of murder. If you take someone else's life than you forfeit your own and also not to mention the great financial benefit of having to pay $30,000 a year of taxpayer's money for the rest of that person's life while they rot in prison.

[LadiesMan217]

Edit: great financial benefit of NOT having to pay...

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The Death Penalty is morally defensible in cases where the justice system is so flawed that the criminal would be likely to escape and cause more harm to society if allowed to live in a prison. (not applicable in mostg western countries).

And morally indefensible in a country where police are capable of falsifying evidence and the court system depends on how wealthy you are and whether your stuck with a court appointed lawyer going up against a lawyer who charges 1000's of dollars for his services.(applicable in most western countries)

I also see it as defensible in a case where it is not possible to give the criminal due process (say, a battlefield) and releasing will cause great harm

Yea that's a separate issue and requires it's own thread.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen atrocious as in taking a life without the persons consent. Hmmm just like the death penalty.

Consent doesn't have much to do with it, unless their guts are hanging out after being shot or something and they're beyond the pale, If a guy swears he wants to die, and I push him off a building, I'm still committing evil, when some medication could have fixed his damaged psyche up.

Yea that's a separate issue and requires it's own thread.

Agreed, but on topic.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Eraldo Coil I believe it is. Many people commit attrocious crimes and get time in prison, when really their existance should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Just want to hear your thoughts on this.

If the death penalty served a practical purpose, I might support it, but seems to me like it does the following:

1. Is not cost effective.

2. Encourages a vengeful mentality throughout the culture (psychologically unhealthy).

3. Risks innocent life.

4. Gives the state a power it shouldn't have.

5. Probably isn't worse of a punishment than life in prison without parole.

6. In a high functioning society, capture, containment, and rehabilitation should be given far higher priority than punishment anyway, since the aim of community is social harmony and not fulfillment of the mob's wrath.

I don't see the death penalty as a legal policy grounded in good sense.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Consent doesn't have much to do with it, unless their guts are hanging out after being shot or something and they're beyond the pale,

This is more the euthanasia question than death penalty.

, If a guy swears he wants to die, and I push him off a building, I'm still committing evil, when some medication could have fixed his damaged psyche up

Again this is more an example on the morality of euthanasia.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Alright, then. Ignore those statements.

[LadiesMan217]

1. Is not cost effective.

How is it more cost effective to pay for that person to spend the rest of their entire life in prison, because that is the alternative.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't care if it's cost effective, you're murdering another human being that is totally under your control. I had thought we in western civilization were supposed to have moved beyond eye for an eye justice (but I was never naive enough to beleive it) Human nature is to wish revenge, to destroy that which has stepped outside the bounds we set, I understand that, but don't tell me it's enlightened or civilized.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Alright, then. Ignore those statements.

Not ignore there good questions to ask in a thread about euthanasia but not really applicable to the death penalty.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 The death penalty is most certainly justified in many cases of murder. If you take someone else's life than you forfeit your own and also not to mention the great financial benefit of having to pay $30,000 a year of taxpayer's money for the rest of that person's life while they rot in prison.

The cost of carrying out the death penalty exceeds the cost of keeping them in prison for life, largely due to the fact that in order to preserve a person's Constitutional rights while taking their life is an incredibly difficult process, as it should be.

Also, you seriously overestimate the cost of keeping someone imprisoned. Federal prisons spend about $21,000 per year, state and local corrections much less.
Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration: Drugwar.com

The death penalty is a useless punishment in that it does not deter crime, does not rehabilitate the offender, and in even a marginally well-run facility is no better at removing the offender from society. It only exists as a way to placate simple-minded people who seek revenge and "satisfaction" against criminal offenders.

[ItsDarts]

Tivo is right. It costs more to prosecute death penalty cases due to lawyer fees being jacked up to defend someone facing the death penalty. Not to mention that people convicted and sentenced to death have the right to appeal many many times, each time the appeal is allowed, it cost more in higher jacked up fees, often payed for by tax payer money since the convict has no money. Information on related death penalty costs vs federal crimes with life and no parole can be found here.

For me, its a double edged sword. If someone murdered one of my family members, I'd want death for the perp, no matter what the cost. It is clearly a revenge thing for me. I gladly admit it even though I think its wrong on the whole as it doesn't deter crime and it can be a financial burden on tax payers and it has the potential to put innocent people to death. Reform of the laws regarding death penalty cases might help. If, for instance we could only carry out the DP with DNA evidence that clearly links the perp to the crime, lessen appeal chances due to the DNA evidence. I'm sure there could be other reforms, but thats for another debate.

Is the DP justified? I think on a personal level it can be, but with that said, its up to each person. If someone killed your family, would you be satisfied with life in prison, knowing that he could still see his family? He could still watch his family grow, even from behind bars? I wouldn't be satisfied. I have no belief in the afterlife, so I'd be content to know that this person wasn't going to heaven on a last minute plea to some god for forgiveness. He would be just like he was before birth, nothing.

[Lullaby Chainer]

It's justified because it saves lives.

There are people who would murder if they weren't afraid of being killed themselves.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 How is it more cost effective to pay for that person to spend the rest of their entire life in prison, because that is the alternative.

Carrying out the death penalty is actually overwhelmingly more expensive than just putting them away for life.

Costs of the Death Penalty

A lot to pay for something that doesn't actually do anything.

There are people who would murder if they weren't afraid of being killed themselves.

Then it is unjustified, since statistics indicate it hasn't deterred murders at all. People about to commit premeditated murder are either enraged to the point they can't think straight or have little empathy and a craving to kill. 'Fear' and 'self-interested reasoning' don't really play into the process so much, although the non-empathic person exercises at least the second to some degree.

I don't care if it's cost effective, you're murdering another human being that is totally under your control.

That's my feeling as well, but personal sentiments are irrelevant in public policy (they may coincide with the law, but they are always second-tier to the law), and cost-effectiveness will always be an important part of the legal-cultural dialogue when it comes to government programs.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Morality Games Carrying out the death penalty is actually far more expensive than not because of all the trials and other fees involved during the process -- it doesn't stop with one trial. And trials, especially those pertaining to the death penalty, are very costly and time consuming.

I've heard the same thing.. yet it sounds so counter-intuitive to me.. can anyone cite this?

EDIT: it seems you've edited it which accommodates my wishes

[sgrainger]

i think the death penalty should be brought back into uk law. i think it is a good punishment because, and i'm gonna be a typical 17 year old here, if you take someone else's life then you don't deserve to have your own. period. i also believe that the threat of the death penalty would decrease the homicide rate significantly. evidently, some kill out of passion are not likely to be threatened by the death penalty but for those who do not kill out of passion, the death penalty is going to be great deterrent.

i know you're all probably going to disagree with me here but i welcome your counter-arguments.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I've heard the same thing.. yet it sounds so counter-intuitive to me.. can anyone cite this?

It's the legal costs, not the actual action itself thanks to guaranteed appeals.