The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and ...
Death Penalty
-
Upload
pranav-lakhina -
Category
Documents
-
view
34 -
download
3
Transcript of Death Penalty
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][Edit]
Is the death penalty justified?
[Edit]
Background and context
Capital punishment is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. The word "capital" comes
from the Latin word "capitalis", which means "regarding the head". At one point and time capital crimes where
punished by severing the head. 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.
In the past, capital punishment has been practiced in almost every society. Currently, only 58 nations actively
practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it. 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.
Contents
[hide]
Is the death penalty justified?
Justice/desert: Are executions sometimes required to uphold justice/due desert?
Compassion: Does capital punishment demonstrate compassion and decency?
Innocents: Is it wrong to be concerned about executing innocent people?
Cruel and unusual? Is it wrong to consider the death penalty cruel and unusual?
Families: Is capital punishment good for the families of victims?
Modern society: Is capital punishment appropriate in modern society?
Crime: Does capital punishment help protect the public and deter crime?
Implementation: Is capital punishment implemented consistently and fairly?
Public opinion: Do publics support capital punishment and should they be heeded?
Costs: Is capital punishment economically justifiable and cost-effective?
Pro-life: Is the pro-life, anti-abortionist consistent in supporting executions?
Rehabilitation: Are retributive executions superior to notions of rehabilitation?
International law: Is the death penalty legal under international law?
US law: Is capital punishment justifiable under US law?
Religion: What are the religious arguments in this debate?
External links and resources
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ]
Justice/desert: Are executions sometimes required to uphold justice/due desert?
[ ][Edit]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
[ ][Edit]No
Eternal torture worse than clean
break Imagine this room. It's a dirty, unkept
room, with cockroaches and rats looking for
bits of food. The people living near you are
ready to kill, rape, and hurt you. The food is
horrible. You feel terror in the night when
you hear someone being beaten up. Now,
this is life imprisonment, and you have to
live this way until the rest of your life. Now,
cannot say that the punishment is invariably
disproportionate to the crime. It is an extreme
sanction suitable to the most extreme of crimes."[1]
Executions respond appropriately to the
most heinous crimes Michael D. Bradbury,
Ventura County District Attorney. "The Death
Penalty is an Affirmation of the Sanctity of Life".
LA Times. - A two and a half-year-old girl was
kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured and
mutilated with vise grips over six hours. Then she
was strangled to death. Her assailant, Theodore
Frank, according to court records and his own
admissions, had already molested more than 100
children during a 20-year period. A sentence of
death is the only appropriate punishment for such a
serial assailant committing such an extraordinarily
heinous crime."
Innocent life must be valued over
that of a murderer.
Executions help society express horror and
abhorrence of murder Don Feder, Boston Herald
Columnist. "McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital
Punishment". 21 May 2001 - "Executing a
murderer is the only way to adequately express our
horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing
else suffices...A murderer sentenced to life in
prison without the possibility of parole can still
laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read,
form friendships, and do the thousand-and-one
things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to
his victims."
Life imprisonment does not repudiate
murder like capital punishment Jeff Jacoby,
Boston Globe Columnist. "The feeble 'arguments'
the death penalty. It's a clean break, where
you are shown in TV, have a conjugal visit,
have an expensive, delicious last meal, then
you are painlessly killed by lethal injection.
It's humane and painless. Now, compare
these two punishments. Life imprisonment is
certainly worse than death penalty. Life
imprisonment is the same as torture, while in
the death penalty, you get a clean, painless
break wihtout having remorse for your
crimes. Plus you shouldn't have committed a
murder if your life is perfect. If you got a
happy family and people that care about, you
shouldn't even be thinking about murdering
someone unless you have a reason for
wanting life imprisonment, or the death
penalty. A perfect life is when you have
people who love you and you love them
back. One of the many reason someone
might chose to do something against the law
is because they are after money, too much
money.
Life in prison is a sufficient punishment;
execution is excessive James Bernstein.
"The Death of McVeigh: A Time to
Reflect". Letter to the New York Times.
June 13, 2001 - "The loss of freedom for the
remainder of one's life is no mild
punishment. We do not need the death
penalty to express society's utter repudation
of those who would take the lives of others."
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
against capital punishment". Jewish World Review.
19 June 2001 - "'The loss of freedom for the
remainder of one's life is no mild punishment,'
James Bernstein of New York wrote to the Times.
'We do not need the death penalty to express
society's utter repudation of those who would take
the lives of others.'
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 compensatedSteven
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
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,
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."
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 never justified; the
death penalty is no exception.
The death penalty does not advance any
social objective P. N. Bhagwati, former
Chief Justice of India. - "Death penalty does
not serve any social purpose or advance any
Constitutional value"[4]
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Compassion: Does capital punishment demonstrate compassion and decency?
[ ][Edit]Yes
Capital punishment is compassionate to the
victims Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe
Columnist. "The Unjust Logic of Sparing
Murderers". August 1998 - "It is up to the
law 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."
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
[ ][Edit]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."[6]
Capital punishment is void of
compassion Jesus Chris interrupting a
public execution of a woman for adultery.
John 8:7, (NKJ) - "He who is without sin
among you, let him throw a stone at her
first." Jesus said this to point out that no man
is sinless, and, therefore, that no man or
woman can maintain a perfect moral high
ground from which to severely punish
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,
another person with execution. Jesus' actions
here are commonly interpreted to mean that
a level of compassion, sympathy, and
forgiveness is needed in any just law, and
that a law that lacks such principles - such as
capital punishment - is unjust.
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.[7].
Opposition to executions is not about
sympathizing with murderers Hugo Adam
Bedau. "The Case Against The Death
Penalty". American Civil Liberties Union.
1992 - "Opposition to the death penalty does
not arise from misplaced sympathy for
convicted murderers. On the contrary,
murder demonstrates a lack of respect for
human life. For this very reason, murder is
abhorrent, and any policy of state-authorized
killings is immoral."
Only love can conquer hatred and
murderous acts Hector Black, whose
daughter Patricia was murdered in Atlanta,
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.'"
Death is more compassionate than life in
prison Patrick Henry: - "Is life so dear... as
to be purchased at the price of chains and
slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! ...but as
for me, give me liberty or give me death."[5]
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."[8]
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Innocents: Is it wrong to be concerned about executing innocent people?
[ ][Edit]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
[ ][Edit]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]
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
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.
Wrongful executions cannot be corrected,
violating due process Benjamin Weiser,
NYTimes columnist. "A Legal Quest
Against the Death Penalty". NYTimes. 2
Jan. 2005- "DISPLAYING ABSTRACT -
Judge Jed S Rakoff of Federal District Court
in Manhattan discusses novel legal argument
against capital punishment which he
developed while overseeing death penalty
case; interview; his 2002 ruling pointed to
increasing number of DNA exonerations and
wondered whether death penalty violates due
process because executed prisoners cannot
pursue claims of innocence."
Individuals are executed on murder
charges whom deserved
manslaughter"Thoughts on the death
penalty". Retrieved 1 May 2008 -
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
"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."
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.
Wrongful convictions do not mean that the
system is wrong. It is true that occasionally
people are wrongly executed under the
capital punishment. However, this does not
mean that the death penalty should be
abolished. Rather, it means that suspects
should be scrutinized more closely.
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Cruel and unusual? Is it wrong to consider the death penalty cruel and unusual?
[ ][Edit]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
[ ][Edit]No
Mistakes in executions can be very
cruel/unusual. It can be cruel and unusual.
e.g, if someone is hanged, but strangle to
death. Also, sometimes, criminals do not die,
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]
Capital punishment is not "unusual"
("cruel and unusual") Thomas R. Eddlem.
"Ten anti-death penalty fallacies". The New
American. 3 June 2002. - "The death penalty
is not unusual. All of the nations of the
world have had the death penalty on the law
books throughout most of their recorded
history, and the death penalty remains on the
statute books of about half of the nations of
the world. The death penalty was on the
statute books of all the states of the U.S.
when the Constitution was adopted. It is far
more unusual to have no death penalty than
to have a death penalty."
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.
and are still taking the effects of the
punishment, for example, being electrocuted,
but still being alive, and taking the pain of
the volts.
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.
The death penalty violates the inalienable
right to life.
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Families: Is capital punishment good for the families of victims?
[ ][Edit]Yes
Executions give solace to families; killer will
never kill again Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe
Columnist. "The feeble 'arguments' against
capital punishment". Jewish World Review.
19 June 2001 - "The families of murder
victims do not stop mourning when the killer
dies, but for many, there is indeed a measure
of solace in knowing that the monster who
destroyed their loved one will never hurt
anyone again. Abolishing executions
certainly won't bring 'closure' to grieving
relatives. On the contrary, it will deepen
their torment, mocking them each time they
remember that the person they loved is in the
grave, while his killer continues to breathe."
Executions take vengeance out of 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
[ ][Edit]No
Capital punishment does not bring
"closure" to families Larry Fitzgerald,
Spokeswoman for Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. - "With an execution,
everyone is a victim. I never believed any of
that crap about closure."[14]
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."[15]
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
process. In a court of law."[13]
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.
Can any one say that the people who hit the
twin towers should be let free.Punishment
is to create fear among the likes who are in
line to do this kind of criminal acts.
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."[16]
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Modern society: Is capital punishment appropriate in modern society?
[ ][Edit]Yes
It is acceptable to give a person the job of
executing another. Some argue that it is
cruel to delegate the task of execution;
however, it is perfectly acceptable if the
executioner opted for the job. While it is
[ ][Edit]No
Same footing The state kills the murderer.
The murderer kills an innocent soul. The
state then kills the murderer. The murderer
kills, and the state kills the murderer too.
What's the difference? Every life is valuable.
indeed unfair to pressure someone into
becoming an executioner, claiming that "it is
wrong to give a person the job of executing
another" is not a reasonable argument.
Capital punishment is not barbaric; it is
often a civilized punishment Charles
Colson. "Preserving the Dignity of Man. The
Case for Capital Punishment". Prison
Fellowship Ministries. 2001 - "Why is it
barbaric to require that one who violently
steals the life of an innocent (or 168
innocents) not be allowed to keep his own?
Where is the moral tradition that prescribes
life for mass-murderers? How can it be
civilizing to tell the world's worst people that
no matter no matter how many victims they
butcher, no matter what cruelty they inflict
on others, the worst that will happen to them
is that they will go to prison? Those are
questions that abolitionists never answer."
Modern states regulate executions, unlike
barbaric executions elsewhereThomas R.
Eddlem. "Ten anti-death penalty fallacies".
The New American. 3 June 2002 - "The
arbitrary use of capital punishment in
totalitarian societies argues for ensuring that
government never abuses this power; it does
not argue against the principle of capital
If the state kills, then the state is at the same
footing with the murderer. Surely the state is
better than a murderer? We cry when
animals are killed, but we don't cry when
humans are killed legally?
The death penalty is uncharacteristic of a
decent society Abe Fortas, former U.S.
Supreme Court Justice - "Why, when we
have bravely and nobly progressed so far in
the recent past to create a decent, humane
society, must we perpetuate the senseless
barbarism of official murder?"[17]
Executions characterize oppressive,
undemocratic countries deathpenalty.org -
"The USA is keeping company with
notorious human rights abusers. The vast
majority of countries in Western Europe,
North America and South America -- more
than 105 nations worldwide -- have
abandoned capital punishment. The United
States remains in the same company as Iraq,
Iran, and China as one of the major
advocates and users of capital
punishment."[18]
Killing in any form victimizes all of
humankind [19] John Donne (1572-1631), a
Jacobean poet and preacher. "Meditation
XVII: No man is an island...". 1624 - "All
mankind is of one author, and is one volume;
when one man dies, one chapter is not torn
out of the book, but translated into a better
language; and every chapter must be so
translated...As therefore the bell that rings to
a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only,
punishment, which, in a free society, is
applied justly under the rule of law."
but upon the congregation to come: so this
bell calls us all: but how much more me,
who am brought so near the door by this
sickness....No man is an island, entire of
itself...any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind; and
therefore never send to know for whom the
bell tolls; it tolls for thee." In other words,
the death of a fellow human kills a part of all
of us, and, therefore, the death penalty kills a
part of all of us.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world
blind" - Mahatma Ghandi. In other words,
if we insist on holding to an ideology of
punishing a crime with proportional harm
and suffering to that which was inflicted on
victims, we will all lose sight of the real
solution to our problems, which is
compassion and love.
Society is judged by how it treats prisoners;
executions fail test Oscar Wilde - "One is
absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that
the wicked have committed, but by the
punishment that the good have
inflicted."[20]
It is wrong to give a person the job of
executing another person.
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Crime: Does capital punishment help protect the public and deter crime?
[ ][Edit]Yes
[ ][Edit]No
Capital punishment has a deterrent effect
on criminal activities As a deterrent to
others, it depends on how effectively the
death penalty is applied; in the USA where
less than 1% of murderers are executed, it is
difficult to assess the true effect of
deterrence. But for example, a 1985 study
(Stephen K. Layson, University of North
Carolina) showed that 1 execution deterred
18 murders.
Capital punishment is 100% effective in
preventing a murderer from killing
again. There are many instances in which
released, paroled, or escaped murderers have
gone on to kill again. Capital punishment
eliminates this risk. In this way, capital
punishment is important to ensuring that
murderers will never kill again, and in
protecting innocent citizens.
Criminals fear death and the death
penalty Pro Death Penalty Webpage -
Abolitionists also hold the notion that
criminals do not fear death because they do
not take time to think about the
consequences of their acts. If that were true,
then I wonder how police officers manage to
arrest criminals without killing them. When
a policeman holds a criminal at gunpoint and
tells him to get on the ground, the criminal
What's a detterant?Many former death row
inmates along with murderers testified that
before, during, and after the crime, they
didn't think or even consider the death
penalty. They never thought about the death
penalty as a punishment to their crimes.
Then how could people say that it serves as a
detterant when the criminals never even
considered it?
Life in prison deters crime/murder as well
as the death penalty Archbishop Charles J.
Chaput. "Justice, Mercy, and Capital
Punishment". 2005 - "The Catechism of the
Catholic Church explains it in these words:
If 'non-lethal means [such as life without
parole] are sufficient to defend and protect
people’s safety from the aggressor [i.e., the
convicted murderer], authority [should] limit
itself to such means, as these are more in
keeping with the concrete conditions of the
common good and more in conformity with
the dignity of the human person'. (2267).
John Paul II, writing in The Gospel of Life,
stressed that 'the nature and extent of the
punishment [for capital crimes] must be
carefully evaluated and decided upon, and
ought not to go to the extreme of executing
the offender except in cases of absolute
necessity; in other words, when it would not
be possible otherwise to defend society.
Today however, as a result of steady
improvements to the organization of the
penal system, such cases are very rare, if not
practically non-existent' (no. 56). In modern
industrialized states, killing convicted
murderers adds nothing to anyone’s safety. It
will comply fully in the vast majority of of
these cases. Why would they do that unless
they were afraid of the lethal power of the
gun? It is because regardless of what
abolitionists claim, criminals are not immune
to fear! It is a common misconception to
believe that fear is a thought process that has
to be worked out with a piece of paper. It's
not! It is an instinct that automatically kicks
in when one is faced with lethal force! The
examples below should confirm that point.
The death penalty helps protect inmates
and prison guards Life in prison without
parole does not protect everyone from a
murderer. Instead, it puts fellow inmates as
well as prison guards in jeopardy of being
assaulted or murdered. This is particularly
true when a prisoner calculates that their life
is hopeless and that their punishment could
not get any worse, so why not boundlessly
murder?
The death penalty deters crime only if it is a
certainty When the death penalty is a 100%
assured punishment for certain crimes, it has
a strong deterrent effect. When it is a
possible, "maybe" punishment, it has a much
less certain deterrent effect. In the United
States, few states have established capital
punishment as a 100% certain punishment,
with it generally being a very rare and
arbitrary practice. This is one of the reasons
why its deterrent effect is unclear in the
states, and why US-focused studies (used
frequently by anti-death penalty advocates)
are less credible in determining the real
deterrent effect of capital punishment.
is an excess. It cannot be justified except in
the most extraordinary conditions."
Capital punishment does not deter
crime Jeffrey Fagan, Columbia Law
Professor. "Deterrence and the Death
Penalty: A Critical Review of the New
Evidence". Testimony to the New York State
Assembly Standing Committee on Codes
and other committees on the Future of
Capital Punishment in the State of New
York. 21 Jan. 2005 - "These new studies
[that claim a new evidence supports the
conclusion that capital punishment has a
positive deterrent effect] are fraught with
technical and conceptual errors:
inappropriate methods of statistical analysis,
failures to consider all the relevant factors
that drive murder rates, missing data on key
variables in key states, the tyranny of a few
outlier states and years, and the absence of
any direct test of deterrence. These studies
fail to reach the demanding standards of
social science to make such strong claims,
standards such as replication and basic
comparisons with other scenarios. Some
simple examples and contrasts, including a
careful analysis of the experience in New
York State compared to others, lead to a
rejection of the idea that either death
sentences or executions deter murder."
"Deterrent-effect" of executions is too
controversial to justify policy. It is not
proper to conclude that more executions
cause higher crime rates with the limited
information available. At a minimum, the
issue is too contested to base any policies on
Looking to cases around the world where it
is a certainty show a closer causality
between capital punishment and crime-
deterrence.
The death penalty is a just means of
protecting society Steven Farrell, professor
of political economy at George Wythe
College. "A Conservative Case for the
Capital Punishment". 18 Mar. 2005 - "The
legitimate role of government involves the
protection of life, liberty and property. Just
as the role of the government is to raise an
armed force and rain down deadly force
upon a bloodthirsty invading army, so also
the government is duty bound to inflict death
upon the man who chooses to slaughter
fellow citizens in their own backyards. Few,
if any, object to the use of deadly force
against an invading army. Yet those
invading soldiers, ordered to fight and likely
whipped up by propaganda to go into battle,
are far less deserving of death than the
assailant who has been proven guilty and
convicted in a court of law, by a jury of his
peers, of shedding the innocent blood of his
neighbor – and this of his own free will. Yet
we do and must condone war in such
situations. Governments must protect life.
This is no less true regarding individual
life."
Deterrence is not a necessary pillar of the
case for the death penalty Thomas R.
Eddlem. "Ten anti-death penalty fallacies".
The New American. 3 June 2002 - "Death
penalty opponents love to assume that the
principal purpose for capital punishment is
the conclusion that the death penalty "deters
crimes".
Executions have a brutalizing social effect
that can increase crime Capital punishment
has a "brutalizing effect" that increases the
willingness of criminals to take life.[22] If
state-sanctioned killings are occurring, might
an individual feel more justified in
murdering another person? If governments
of men can take the power of life-and-death
into their hands, might this make a man
more comfortable with also taking that
power into his own hands?
Higher execution rates may actually
increase violent crime rates: California
averaged 6 executions a year from 1952 to
1967, and had twice the murder rate than the
period from 1968 until 1991 when there
were no executions. In New York, from
1907 to 1964, months immediately following
an execution showed a net increase of two
murders - an average over a 57-year period.
The ends (deterrence) should not justify
means (capital punishment) It is
unacceptable to justify capital punishment
on the idea that it will produce a desirable
social end, such deterrence. This is an
example of the ends justifying the means and
deterrence, possibly realizing it is a perfect
straw argument. Tangible proof of
deterrence alone is not a valid reason for
capital punishment (or any other form of
punishment, for that matter), nor is it the
main rationale employed by astute death
penalty advocates. As Christian writer C.S.
Lewis observes, '[deterrence] in itself, would
be a very wicked thing to do. On the
classical theory of punishment it was of
course justified on the ground that the man
deserved it. Why, in Heaven's name, am I to
be sacrificed to the good of society in this
way?-unless, of course, I deserve it.'
Inflicting a penalty merely to deter -- rather
than to punish for deeds done -- is the very
definition of cruelty. A purely deterrent
penalty is one where a man is punished --
not for something that he did -- but for
something someone else might do. Lewis
explained the logical end of this argument:
'If deterrence is all that matters, the
execution of an innocent man, provided the
public think him guilty, would be fully
justified.'" Men should be punished for their
own crimes and not merely to deter others.
That said, the death penalty undoubtedly
does deter in some cases. For starters, those
executed will no longer be around to commit
any more crimes."
Executions punish the guilty so can't
encourage killing the innocent Thomas R.
Eddlem. "Ten anti-death penalty fallacies".
The New American. 3 June 2002 - "If capital
punishment teaches that it's permissible to
kill, do prison sentences teach that it's
permissible to hold someone against his will,
is unacceptable, as it could be used to justify,
for instance, crucifixions in order to deter
crime. More broadly, it is important not to
bring utilitarian, practical considerations into
a debate about life and death.
Using death penalty to fight crimes
distracts from underlying
problemsBedau/ACLU. "The Case Against
the Death Penalty". 1992 - "Reliance on the
death penalty obscures the true causes of
crime and distracts attention from the social
measures that effectively contribute to its
control. Politicians who preach the
desirability of executions as a weapon of
crime control deceive the public and mask
their own failure to support anti-crime
measures that will really work."
The death penalty denies the opportunity to
study murderers to prevent future ones. It
is important that scientists be able to study
murderers to determine what drives them to
perform such heinous acts. If society has a
better understanding of the causes of
murderous rages, it should be better able to
prevent them in the future. Capital
punishment prevents this research from
occurring.
Executions contradict strategy of sensitivity
to urban neighborhoods Daniel F. Conley,
Suffolk County District Attorney, Boston
Globe. 19 Sept. 2003. - "I do not believe the
death penalty is a deterrent or appropriate
punishment for inner-city homicide. The
death penalty runs counter to the strategies
for preventing and prosecuting urban crime
and do fines teach that it's permissible to
steal? In actuality, this fallacy confuses
killing the innocent with punishing the
guilty. To punish the guilty via the death
penalty is not to condone the shedding of
innocent blood. Just the opposite, in fact,
since capital punishment sends a strong
message that murder and other capital crimes
will not be tolerated."
Capital punishment protects more
innocents than it does accidentally take
the life of innocent convicts. While it is
possible that an innocent person may be
executed through capital punishment, more
innocent people have been killed by
released, paroled or escaped murderers than
innocent people executed. If a society
chooses not to execute its most dangerous
members, it risks these people killing again.
The risk of innocent people being killed
exists on both sides of the topic. It is wrong
for the affirmative to assert that the risk of
innocent lives being lost exists only when a
society uses the death penalty. It would be
difficult if not impossible to determine
whether more innocent lives are risked on
either side of this topic. Unless the
affirmative could prove that a society that
employs the the death penalty will always
end up killing more innocent people than it
saves, the death penalty cannot be said to be
inherently immoral. So long as a just society
reasonably believes that using the death
penalty will protect human lives and is
shown no evidence to the contrary, it could
justly use the death penalty.
-- which include sensitivity to the
neighborhoods we serve -- that have proven
successful in Boston over the last
decade."[23]
Deterrent of capital punishment varies
across the states.-"on average, the states
where capital punishment deters murder
execute many more people than do the states
where capital punishment incites crime or
has no effect.Using various statistical
techniques, I show that a threshold number
of executions for deterrence exists, which is
approximately nine executions during the
sample period. In states that conducted more
executions than the threshold, executions, on
average,deterred murder. In states that
conducted fewer executions than the
threshold, the average execution increased
the murder rate or had no effect."
It is impossible to determine that
deterrence is not working John Stuart Mill,
in a speech in favor of capital punishment -
"As for what is called the failure of death
punishment, who is able to judge of that?
We partly know who those are whom it has
not deterred; but who is there who knows
whom it has deterred, or how many human
beings it has saved who would have lived to
be murderers if that awful association had
not been thrown round the idea of murder
from their earliest infancy?"[21]
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Implementation: Is capital punishment implemented consistently and fairly?
[ ][Edit]Yes
[ ][Edit]No
Capital punishment should be based on
principle, not implementation. Some of the
main criticisms of capital punishment are
that innocent convicts may be executed and
that the form of execution may be faulty and
cause the convict excessive pain. Yet, these
criticisms are simply a matter of
implementation, which can be improved;
they are not a matter of the basic principles
of justice surrounding capital punishment.
Race is not a significant factor in capital
punishment cases Michael Nevin, San
Francisco based columnist. "Death
Decisions". 8 Apr. 2004 - "The issue of race
has been cited by critics, who complain that
minorities are unfairly chosen for death
sentences. According to the U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics, since the death penalty was
reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976,
white inmates have made up more than half
of those under sentence of death. In 2002, 71
persons in 13 states were executed: 53 were
white and 18 were black. The Cornell
University study found that African
Americans represented 41.3% of condemned
inmates while they committed 51.5% of
homicides."
Any discrimination in capital punishment
cases can be corrected Instances of
discrimination in capital punishment cases
does not mean capital punishment is wrong.
Rather, it would simply show that the
judicial system is acting with bias. Yet, it
would be unnecessary and inappropriate to
ban capital punishment on these grounds.
Capital punishment is too often the decision
of a single authority. Because Capital
Punishment is resolute and irreconcilable, its
application is either reserved for extremities,
or for judicial statements regarding the
severity of the law concerned. Thus, it may
be either used exceedingly sparingly or
overtly. Any sentence that welds such
influential decision changing power cannot
possibly be applied equally and fairly across
all Judges/Juries deciding the sentence. As
such, it should be removed as sentence the
court has over the people.
The death penalty is often motivated by
discrimination -- Steward F. Hancock,
former associate judge of New York's Court
of Appeals. - "As a matter of common sense,
one would have to conclude, as the court in
Massachusetts did, that since racial prejudice
affects the death sentencing systems
throughout the United States and since it has
affected death sentencing under the previous
statute, it will affect death sentences under
the present statute as well."
Capital punishment is excercised
irregularly and arbitrarily US Supreme
Court Justice William J. Brennan, Furman v
Georgia, 1972 - "When a country of over
200 million people inflicts an unusually
The problem should be solved by reforms
that would ensure that the judiciary is not
discriminating.
severe punishment no more than 50 times a
year, the inference is strong that the
punishment is not being regularly and fairly
applied.'"[24]
The poor are unfairly vulnerable to capital
punishment The poor are less able to afford
a good lawyer that will defend their interests.
For this reason, their defense is generally
weaker, and they are more susceptible to
capital punishment convictions. It is also
true that the poor are likely to suffer from
certain biases that make their conviction
more likely.
Overburdened courts cut-corners on death
penalty cases Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court
of Appeals, 9th Circuit, dissenting in the
decision to allow Thomas Thompson to be
executed in California; Reinhardt, S.: "The
Supreme Court, The Death Penalty, and the
Harris Case" (1992) - "We are presently
barely able to handle our current caseload
properly .... We are always looking for new
fast-track procedures -- which means less
careful, less thorough review of cases on the
merits. ... [Soon] not only will we not be
able to handle those death penalty cases
properly, but we will not, in all likelihood,
be able to handle any of our cases in a
manner that is consistent with the standards
that have traditionally marked the federal
courts."[25]
The state should simply not be involved in
killing people.
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Public opinion: Do publics support capital punishment and should they be heeded?
[ ][Edit]Yes
Majority of Americans support the death
penalty "Majority of Americans favor death
penalty: poll". Reuters. 9 Jun 2007
Public calls for capital punishment must be
met to uphold justice If a public demands
capital punishment, and yet a government
does not deliver it, the public will likely feel
that justice has not been served, which is
highly socially damaging. One of the risks is
that a public rejects the legitimacy of their
judicial system and becomes more prone to
flaunting its laws.
Rejecting calls for capital punishment risks
inciting vigilante justice If the public will
for capital punishment is consistently
rejected by a government, elements of the
public may feel that they need to uphold
justice themselves, leading to vigilante
justice.
Death penalty popular internationally;
politicians aren't listening Joshua Micah
Marshall. "Death in Venice. Europe's death-
penalty elitism". The New Republic. 31 Jul.
2001. - "opinion polls show that Europeans
and Canadians crave executions almost as
much as their American counterparts do. It's
[ ][Edit]No
Public opinion is not necessarily rightOK.
Let's concede that public opinion does
support the death penalty. However, public
opinion isn't always right nor justified. The
public disapproved of the Civil War of the
US when it first occured, but looking from
hindsight, it was one of the most important
decisions in US history. Public opinion
supported segregation during the time of the
KKK, but racism is now illegal. Just when
had public opinion has always been right?
Public opinion should not determine
justice. Justice is not supposed to be up to
public opinion. On a matter that is so
centrally about justice, public opinion should
play a minimal role.
National hysteria can lead to unjust
convictions and execution As with the
famous case of the Rosenburgs, capital
punishment is sometimes carried out in
response to national hysteria. Following
public opinion, therefore, is a dangerous
approach to capital punishment.
Much of the societal conditions
which condition persons to the idea of
state sponsored executions are the same
that are shared by those willing to
just that their politicians don't listen to
them."[26]
sacrifice occasionally innocent and later
exonerated inmates - so long as the
process could retain good enough face
to keep capital punishment operating.
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Costs: Is capital punishment economically justifiable and cost-effective?
[ ][Edit]Yes
Executions are no more costly than life in
prison Peter Bronson. "Death Penalty
Guards What is Valued Most". International
Herald Tribune. 8 Mar. 2001 - "I have heard
the death penalty is too costly, that life
without parole is cheaper. That is not true,
once long-term prison costs of $25,000 a
year are added up."
Costs of capital punishment are irrelevant
to justice New Jersey Senator John F. Russo
(D). "Don't Abolish the Death Penalty, Fix
it". Baltimore Sun. 1 Mar. 2007 - "It doesn't
matter what it costs. The taking of a human
life is something far too important to be
influenced either way by costs. Similarly, it
has been said that the death penalty diverts
resources from services for victims. Whether
or not the state has the death penalty, victims
of violent crime can and should be given
appropriate services to cope with their loss."
Opponents of capital punishment are
[ ][Edit]No
Capital punishment costs more than life
without parole Hugo Adam Bedau, Fletcher
Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University
and writing for the ACLU. "The Case
Against the Death Penalty". 1992 -
"Considerable delay in carrying out the death
sentence is unavoidable, given the
procedural safeguards required by the courts
in capital cases. Starting with empaneling
the trial jury, murder trials take far longer
when the death penalty is involved. Post-
conviction appeals in death-penalty cases are
far more frequent as well. All these factors
responsible for high costs. Opponents of
the death penalty prefer to ignore the fact
that they themselves are responsible for its
high costs, by causing a never-ending
succession of appeals.
Capital punishment relieves strains on
over-populated prisons. Prisons in many
countries are over-crowded and under-
funded, and this problem is made worse by
life sentences or delayed death sentences for
murderers. Many of the costs of over-
crowding of prisons are intangible, or they
accrue to the prisoners themselves in jails
and prisons who are unfairly harmed by the
conditions.
Why should taxpayers bear costs of
supporting a murderer for a
lifetime? Even if the costs of an execution
are greater due to the appeal processes, there
is a symbolic difficulty with taxpayers
paying to fully support the ongoing life of a
murderer.
increase the time and cost of administering
criminal justice. The sobering lesson is that
we can reduce such delay and costs only by
abandoning the procedural safeguards and
constitutional rights of suspects, defendants,
and convicts, with the attendant high risk of
convicting the wrong person and executing
the innocent."
Capital punishment wastes time and energy
and burdens courts Hugo Adam Bedau.
"The Case Against The Death Penalty".
American Civil Liberties Union. 1992 -
"Capital punishment wastes resources. It
squanders the time and energy of courts,
prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel,
juries, and courtroom and correctional
personnel. It unduly burdens the system of
criminal justice, and it is therefore
counterproductive as an instrument for
society's control of violent crime. It
epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality
of the resort to violence rather than reason
for the solution of difficult social problems."
Opponents of the death penalty are not to
blame for the costs. Capital cases cost more
on average than housing a criminal for life
because criminals are motivated to make
frivolous appeals that delay their execution.
Why should the taxpayer pay more per
criminal when they could pay less?
There is no such thing as a frivolous appeal
of the death penalty. No criminal wants to
die and any attempt to save a persons life
can not be deemed frivolous, nor
inappropriate simply on account of the costs.
The mass amount of appeals created are to
be blamed on the judicial system not the
criminal.
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Pro-life: Is the pro-life, anti-abortionist consistent in supporting executions?
[ ][Edit]Yes
The executed guilty cannot be equated with
aborted unborn innocent Thomas R.
Eddlem. "Ten anti-death penalty fallacies".
The New American. June 3, 2002 - "A
related fallacy is that the pro-lifer who
defends the right to life of an unborn baby in
the mother's womb, but who does not defend
the right to life of a convicted murderer on
death row, is being morally inconsistent. But
there is no inconsistency here: The unborn
baby is innocent; the convicted murderer is
not. It is the proabortion/anti-death penalty
liberal who is morally inconsistent, since he
supports putting to death only the innocent.
[ ][Edit]No
Pro-life anti-abortionists inconsistently
support the death penalty. How can you be
pro-life in one instance (abortion) and pro-
death in another instance (death penalty)?
This is a very common position of many
conservatives, and is inconsistent. If life is
too dignified to be taken in the case of
abortion shouldn't it also be too dignified to
take in the case of capital punishment?
While pro death penalty advocates defend
themselves by saying that murderers are
guilty, not innocent, and forgo their right to
life, there are reasons why this is a faulty
argument. The problem is that they talk in
the abortion debate about a fetus having a
"right to life". If such a "right to life" exists,
it must be a fundamental, inalienable right.
Yet, pro-death penalty advocates argue that
it is alienable or conditional upon whether a
person commits certain crimes. This is
wrong, a "right to life" can never be taken
away, it is innate.
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Rehabilitation: Are retributive executions superior to notions of rehabilitation?
[ ][Edit]Yes
Capital punishment is reserved for those
beyond rehabilitation. Some individuals
are simply evil. They have no prospects for
being rehabilitated. Their execution is a
completely appropriate in this regard.
[ ][Edit]No
By executing criminals society rules out the
possibility of rehabilitation and
productivity Killers may repent of their
crime, serve a sentence as punishment, and
emerge as a reformed and useful member of
society. One of the most cited examples of
this (provided on the argument page) is
Tookie Williams, a reformed and socially
productive former Cript murderer.
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
International law: Is the death penalty legal under international law?
[ ][Edit]Yes
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[ ][Edit]No
United Nations opposes the death
allows for death penalty Pro Death Penalty
Webpage - "Abolitionists interpret from
Article 3 in that [Universal Declaration of
Human Rights] to proclaim each person's
right to protection from deprivation of life,
especially murderers! And they also point to
Article 5, which states that no one shall be
subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
From this, abolitinists self-righteously
declare that the death penalty violates both
of these rights. But in fact, nowhere in that
declaration is the DP specifically condemned
as a human rights violation!
[...]And in Article 5, it states: No one shall be
subjected to cruel or degrading punishment.
From this, abolitionists insist that capital
punishment is ruled out because it is "the
ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading
punishment." But that is their opinion, only!
Indeed, what is stated in Article 5 is highly
subjective and open to interpretation and could
just as easily be applied to prisons as well.
And at the time it was implemented, most
nations who signed it had the had the death
penalty and continued to use it long after the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was
approved by them. So obviously, the signers
back then had the moral coherence to
appreciate the distinction between murders
and executions."
penalty Kofi Annan, Secretary
General of the United Nations. - "The
U.N. does not support death penalty.
In all the courts we have set up (U.N.
officials) have not included death
penalty".[27]
The European Union opposes the
death penalty Brian Cowen, Irish
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Politics,
4/22/2004. - "Ireland along with our
EU partners considers that the
abolition of the death penalty
contributes to the enhancement of
human dignity and the progressive
development of human rights. This
position is rooted in our belief in the
inherent dignity of all human beings
and the inviolability of the human
person. The European Union favours
the universal abolition of capital
punishment, and we work towards this
goal in our relations with third
countries."[28]
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
US law: Is capital punishment justifiable under US law?
[ ][Edit]Yes
5th amendment of US Constitution
allows for executions It states: "No
person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment
of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, when in actual service
in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation."[29]
US Founding Fathers approved of
death penalty Pro Death Penalty
Webpage - "I would imagine that the
Founding Fathers could not have
conceived of a world or nation
without capital punishment. Indeed, in
those days, there was absolutely no
question of the value of public safety
and personal responsibility. Had they
foreseen the rise in violent crime we
have had in the 70s, 80s, and into the
90s, they might have declared the
death penalty in the preamble!"
[ ][Edit]No
[Edit]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ][ ][ ]
Religion: What are the religious arguments in this debate?
[ ][Edit]Yes
Capital punishment is supported by
the Bible There are many passages in
the Bible that provide direct support
to capital punishment. Some of them
are (see the argument page for more
in-depth coverage):
Exodus 21:12-14: "Whoever strikes
a person mortally shall be put to
death. If it was not premeditated,
but came about by an act of God,
then I will appoint for you a
place to which the killer may
flee. But if someone willfully
attacks and kills another by
treachery, you shall take the
killer from my altar for
execution."[30]
Numbers 35:30,31,33 - "If anyone
kills another, the murderer shall
be put to death on the evidence
of witnesses; but no one shall be
put to death on the testimony of a
single witness. Moreover you
shall accept no ransom for the
life of a murderer who is subject
to the death penalty; a murderer
must be put to death...You shall
[ ]
[Edit]
No
Religious arguments are
irrelevant to the legality of
Capital Punishment. The
state cannot utilize religious
arguments in interpreting the
appropriateness of capital
punishment. The separation of
church and state prevents
this. Therefore, while it may
be interesting to consider
these arguments, they should
not be used one way or
another in deciding the law.
Bible does not support the
death penalty
Deuteronomy (30:19): "I
have set before you life
and death, blessing and
curse; therefore choose
life, that you and your
descendants may live".
[31]
Exodus (20:13): "You shall
not kill."
The Catholic Church has
long opposed the death
penalty "A Culture of Life and
the Death Penalty, A
Statement of the United
States Conference of Catholic
not pollute the land in which you
live; for blood pollutes the land,
and no expiation can be made for
the land, for the blood that is
shed in it, except by the blood of
the one who shed it."Cited by
Gunby as what God prescribes
for the breaking of the sixth
amendment
"Thou shall not kill" means "thou
shall not murder"; executions
okay Robert Meyer, Renew America
Columnist. "Why Capital Punishment
is Pro-Life". Renew America. 20
Sept. 2004 - "The commandment,
'Thou shalt not kill,' has been a source
of great confusion. Most modern
translations of the Bible have
corrected the Hebrew translation to
English rendering, 'Thou shalt commit
no murder." This is an important
distinction in the context of the death
penalty, as the death penalty cannot
be described as "murder". Therefore,
the Bible does not forbid the death
penalty.
The expression an "eye for an eye"
is a prescription for proportional
justice and capital
punishment Robert Meyer, Renew
America Columnist, "Why Capital
Punishment is Pro-Life", Renew
America. 20 Sept. 2004 - "The term
'an eye for an eye' in the scriptures, is
not a directive for authority to seek
vigilante vengeance, nor necessarily a
Bishops Calling for an End to
the Death Penalty". 2005. -
While complex, the teaching
of the Universal Church is
clear. It has developed over
time and has been taught
most powerfully in the words
and witness of Pope John Paul
II. Catholic teaching on the
death penalty is clearly
articulated in the encyclical
The Gospel of Life, the
Catechism of the Catholic
Church, and the Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the
Church. In Catholic teaching
the state has the recourse to
impose the death penalty
upon criminals convicted of
heinous crimes if this ultimate
sanction is the only available
means to protect society from
a grave threat to human life.
However, this right should not
be exercised when other ways
are available to punish
criminals and to protect
society that are more
respectful of human life (ie.
life without parole).
Most Catholics now reject
the death penalty Catholic
New Service, 2004 - "Catholic
support for the use of the
death penalty has dropped
significantly—from over 70%
of Catholics in the late 1990s
to now less than half (48%)."
(2005 Zogby Poll[32])
Bible's "an eye for an eye"
does not support death
penalty The United Methodist
Church. "In Opposition to
Capital Punishment". 2004 -
"In spite of a common
assumption to the contrary,
'an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth,' does not give
mandate to recompense a literal eye-
for-eye. This statement represents the
biblical principle of Lex Talionis, that
is, the crime must be proportional
with the punishment. Often times in
biblical law, the victim had rights in
determining the precise punishment,
up to a limit."
Gen. 9.6, "He who sheds the blood
of man, by man shall his blood be
shed", helps justify capital
punishment Robert Meyer, Renew
America Columnist, "Why Capital
Punishment is Pro-Life", Renew
America. 20 Sept. 2004 - "Since
biblical times, the death penalty has
been deemed as a just punishment for
capital offenses. 'He who sheds the
blood of man, by man shall his blood
be shed,' (Gen.9:6). Notice that the
scripture tells us that this is a duty
delegated to mankind, not exclusively
reserved for God. Specifically the
state is delegated the duty of bearing
the sword against the evil doer
(Romans chapter13), as a derivative
sovereign, until the final just
judgement of God. There is no
vigilantism or vengeance motive in
the equation."
Jesus' "judge not" does not apply to
the death penalty
The executed are not deprived of
everything; they keep their
souls. Capital punishment could only
justification for the imposing
of the penalty of death. Jesus
explicitly repudiated
retaliation (Matthew 5:38-39),
and the Talmud denies its
literal meaning and holds that
it refers to financial
indemnities. Christ came
among us and suffered death.
Christ also rose to new life for
the sake of all. His suffering,
death, and resurrection
brought a new dimension to
human life, the possibility of
reconciliation with God
through repentance. This gift
is offered to all without
exception, and human life was
given new dignity and
sacredness through it. The
death penalty, however,
denies Christ's power to
transform and restore all
human beings. In the New
Testament, when a woman
having committed a crime
was brought before Jesus, He
persisted in questioning her
accusers, so that they walked
away (John 8:1-11)."
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.
Jesus called for the death penalty in
some circumstances