Why all this moralising about the death penalty?

Well I'm sure I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but why the hell does everyone get so morally het-up about the death penalty? Time and time again, when people argue against it, their main point boils down to the entirely subjective opinion that "killing people is wrong".

I don't have a problem with people presenting valid, well-thought through, practical arguments against the death penalty. I disagree with some of these, but if you think it costs too much, or it doesn't deter people, or we might accidentally murder an innocent, by all means argue along those lines.

But why take issue with the principle of killing a white supremacist who dragged a black along behind his truck until he died a horrendous death? There was a case in the US some time back where a group of guys carjacked a woman and her boyfriend for no reason, and did horrendous things to both of them. The woman, I recall, was raped repeatedly and very violently in three different orafices, sodomised with a chair-leg, had cleaning-fluid poured down her throat and rubbed on her wounds, and then was dumped into a bin to suffocate because of the plastic bag put round her head.

I appreciate that we shouldn't lower ourselves to the level of criminals for the sake of revenge, but what about for deterrence, or the protection of society? If you don't think the dp achieves either of these, then, as I said above, I have no problem with practical arguments. But why be concerned about the principle of killing people such as those who committed the crime in the above paragraph?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

DontJudge

If we kill too many people, they will take our precious space in a graveyard! :biggrin:

Reply 2

Rob da Mop

While the opinion that killing people is wrong is subjective it is one held by the vast majority of people - hence laws against murder. I think that a widely held opinion like that has its place in any debate about how our society should be run. Welcome to democracy.

Reply 3

Steezy

Basically the "we might kill an innocent" argument.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they set up a structure so that only people who we are 99% sure committed the crime (you can never be 100% sure) are sentenced to death.

This recent guy who supposedly killed a policeman in the 90's & basically all the witnesses changed their stories and the only evidence against him was circumstancial.... How on Earth can you justify killing that man?!

Reply 4

Selkarn

Because these people don't care about the greater protection of society. They're short sighted. I take comfort in the fact that places like Japan, Singapore, etc, still manage to retain their culture and justice even though they are highly developed societies. Sadly the UK is ran by a *cough* intellectual elite *cough* who are completely disengaged from the rest of society. There's also a lot of bigoted, quite racist cultural supremacy perpetuated by those against the death penalty - "we don't offer the death penalty, we're so civilised compared to all these barbarians in Africa, the Middle East and Asia", etc. Snotty justice for snotty people.

Also, they whine about how "killing is wrong", yet have no problem with locking somebody up for 50 years in a small barred cell (aka, torture). That's why I support the death penalty. It is both brutal and forgiving at the same time. It punishes the criminal to a maximum extent, gives the victim's family and the criminal's family complete closure, but also releases the criminal from a lifetime of torture behind bars.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 5

michael321

Original post by Rob da Mop

We have laws against kidnapping and false imprisonment, and yet we throw thousands of people into jail every year. I don't believe that laws against murder show a very widely held opposition to the very principle of killing people - more the principle of not killing people arbitrarily, without due process, for doing nothing wrong, or for committing a crime which is not of the very worst order.

Original post by Steezy

Well I disagree with that argument for a variety of reasons, but it's a whole different question. That is a practical argument, and I have no problem with the idea of positing such an argument. It's just the "killing people is wrong, therefore we should not have the dp" argument I really dislike.

Reply 6

Rob da Mop

Original post by michael321

Yes, in that way the argument as I put it falls through, but the more general point I was trying to make is that if all morals are subjective then all laws based upon them are too, and in a democracy where (theoretically) the public majority can control the law then subjective morals relating to where the denial of "rights" to convicts ends will play their part. In this way most people believe that for some crimes a custodial sentence is justified, many people believe that for some crimes capital punishment is justified and few believe that physical or mental torture is justified.

What I'm saying is that subjective moral opinions such as "it is wrong to kill people" will always have a place in the argument over the death penalty, which you seemed to disagree with.

Reply 7

innerhollow

I'm happy with some arguments against the death penalty (i.e. it's very expensive, irreversible if a miscarriages of justice is found) but the most common arguments against it are that it's just 'barbaric' or that it makes us just as bad as the murderers themselves. The former of these is not even a legitimate point, and the latter suggests that an innocent person and a guilty person deserve the same consideration and protection. We do not treat these two groups equally at all, nor should we.

Reply 8

shotter's nation

The Justice system should serve two main purposes: To act as a deterrent and to protect society.
The thing is with extreme caes (such as the ones you mentioned,) keeping these people in jail would protect the public and I think these people are clearly mentally unstable and would commit such horrific crimes regardless of the punishment (hence you still see such crimes being comitted in US states where capital punishment is used.)
There is an argument thay the Justice system should also be used as a punishment, which is where you could make the case for the death penalty. But the 'punishment that fits the crime' is as equally, if not more, subjective than the argument: 'killing someone is wrong.' I just don't see it as being a necessary punishment. (And I don't think it's up to us who deserves to love and who doesn't)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 9

DynamicSyngery

Original post by Rob da Mop

While the opinion that killing people is wrong is subjective it is one held by the vast majority of people - hence laws against murder.

Not really a legit comparison - we have laws against kidnap but we still imprison criminals, we have laws against theft but we still fine criminals, etc.

What's the difference here?

EDIT: Seems someone already said this. Makes me look rather foolish.

Reply 10

michael321

Original post by Rob da Mop

I do disagree with that, yes. I think that a great many moral positions have a very strong practical foundation. The idea that we shouldn't imprison arbitrarily, for instance, is crucial for the good of society; the knowledge that due process will always be followed, and that the state's powers are limited, stops us sliding into authoritarian government, protects the innocent and the dissident, and contributes to our mental well-being as we feel that the law protects us.

We dislike torture because it has little value beyond vindictive punishment and, conceivably, deterrence. The death penalty, on the other hand, removes the worst criminals from society (safeguarding the rights of the innocent) and, depending on how it's implemented (again, I appreciate this is a whole different argument), potentially saves money which can then be spent on cancer drugs, welfare, and so on.

Most human rights or widely held moral positions contribute clearly to collective well-being. On the other hand, the right to life even after extensive due process is not obviously beneficial to society as a whole.

Original post by innerhollow

This is exactly my point. I lean towards the pro-death penalty side of things, though I think there are weaknesses on both sides of the deterrent/cost/innocent people arguments. But I don't object to to practical arguments, just the nonsensical "it's wrong" and derivatives thereof (like the vague notion that it degrades us or is barbaric).

Reply 11

WelshBluebird

Original post by michael321

Time and time again, when people argue against it, their main point boils down to the entirely subjective opinion that "killing people is wrong".

1 - Wrong. Many of the points presenting are about the possibility of an innocent person being sentenced the death, about the (huge) legal costs, etc etc. (which you go on to say you have no problem with those arguments).

2 - That is not subjective. Indeed, as a society we do say killing people is wrong (by punishing people for doing it). Surely it is a bit hypocritical to say that, and then turn around and so "so we shall kill you"?

Reply 12

WelshBluebird

Original post by Steezy

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they set up a structure so that only people who we are 99% sure committed the crime

I still would have a problem with it. Because that 1% would mean that there is the chance of an innocent person wrongly being killed by the state.

Reply 13

Rob da Mop

Original post by DynamicSyngery

Yeah, sorry :tongue:

I also replied - the point I was trying (rather poorly it would seem) to make was that we live in a democracy where subjective opinions to an extent control the law, thus allowing subjective moral opinions to be a valid part of the debate.

Reply 14

Selkarn

Original post by WelshBluebird

I still would have a problem with it. Because that 1% would mean that there is the chance of an innocent person wrongly being killed by the state.

But you have no problem with an innocent person being locked up for 50 years :tongue:

sadist.

Reply 15

WelshBluebird

Original post by Selkarn

But you have no problem with an innocent person being locked up for 50 years :tongue:

sadist.

The difference there is that even after that, you still have your life.
With the death penalty, it is final. So even if you are later found guilty - its tough luck.
Of course, any miscarriage of justice is horrible and unforgivable really. But at least with life sentences, you have a way out.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 16

michael321

Original post by WelshBluebird

1 - Correct. Please understand, I am not saying that everyone's arguments come down to this - just that a significant number do, and that I object to such arguments. As you acknowledge, though I disagree with them (largely), I have no problem with the principle of arguing on practical terms rather than baseless moral ones. This thread was not posted to argue these practical issues - just to take issue with pointless moralising.

2 - It is subjective, and more so than many of our human rights and moral positions (see my last post above). As I say in my second post above, we have laws against kidnapping and wrongful imprisonment, and yet we jail thousands every year. Our laws of murder were formed not just from the notion that killing people is wrong, but also the idea that we should not arbitrarily kill people, that we should not kill without due process, that citizens with no higher authority should not kill one-another, and that we should only kill people in response to the very worst crimes. Many of the attendant downsides of allowing these things to happen are not present with a state-administered death penalty.

Reply 17

Guygp

I think one of the biggest issues with the death penalty and such at the moment is the criminal justice procedure. Sadly, a person can go down for life, but this does not actually mean life and that is what is making more and more people support the death penalty. It is difficult obviously to keep people in jail for life, and it costs a lot, but there are so many loopholes regarding a criminal sentence, that if they were tightened and what you were given was actually what you received then i think a lot more people wouldn't consider the dp.
My thoughts on the death penalty is that the dp should be given to certain acts, such as paedophilia, now i expect some negs for that but sorry, it's my opinion.

Reply 18

WelshBluebird

Original post by Guygp

Sadly, a person can go down for life, but this does not actually mean life and that is what is making more and more people support the death penalty.

And of course, anyone who does start to support the death penalty just because of that is an idiot (as that argument has nothing at all to do with the death penalty).

Reply 19

Selkarn

Original post by WelshBluebird

I think you're one of the cultural bigots I mentioned earlier:

"There's also a lot of bigoted, quite racist cultural supremacy perpetuated by those against the death penalty - "we don't offer the death penalty, we're so civilised compared to all these barbarians in Africa, the Middle East and Asia", etc. Snotty justice for snotty people."