Is the Death Penalty Justifiable?

@Shostakovich phil,

The powers that be don't want to take chances implementing capital punishment because it's someones life they are playing with. I understand your feelings K about murder, if someone killed my own I would want to hunt them down and kill em myself. But it's about what works, how would you like to be wrongly imprisoned for a murder you didn't comitt or would you prefer hanging? Hmmm?

@Caroline,

Caroline;104903 wrote:

The powers that be don't want to take chances implementing capital punishment because it's someones life they are playing with. I understand your feelings K about murder, if someone killed my own I would want to hunt them down and kill em myself. But it's about what works, how would you like to be wrongly imprisoned for a murder you didn't comitt or would you prefer hanging? Hmmm?

I would not like it at all. But what has that to do with it?

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;104803 wrote:

My opinion on the Death Penalty is that it is justifiable only under certain circumstances but I won't explain my reasoning here. They are too complicated. And I prefer to leave the thread open for arguments either way. I will simply state my opinion: That there are in the world monstrous inhumans (not humans ... for to call them such would be irrational) whom the world would be far better off without.

The question is phrased wrongly... That which is just needs no justification because it is clearly accepted... Injustice is always justified because it must be pushed forward against resistence... For an example, you can see all kinds or prisoners justifying their murders, and very often they do kill people for whom death is justice, but justice is never decided by contests of force, or by a single side...Rather, justice is a form of relationship...And it is not because it is not just that we should not kill, even officially... First, what a state can morally do is only what citizens can do...In a democracy we delegate only the authority we have, and If cannot kill except in dire defense of life, neither can they...We rather resist the death penalty because it is inexpedient...When it comes to taking human life, it is rather better than worse that the state should suffer some impediments...And we should also keep clean hands for those who might want to break bread with them...Some people abhore capital punishment as immoral, and it is entirely fair to them that their taxes not go to support immorality...What is just is that if justice requires a death, that the people not have to bear the guilt of a murder, and that the family and relatives of the killer should have to execute their own to satisfy justice and avoid feud...But we should also remember that for much of our history murderers often escaped execution with the payment of blood money... If today law is more certain, then justice is more fleeting...The power has went out of communities and into institutions, and it does not matter how many are killed, because justice is not earned there will always be more to kill...Having the power to kill in the hands of the state does not result in justice, and so we have no peace...

@Shostakovich phil,

It has everything to do with it, you don't want to die for something you didn't do if you're going to be wrongly accused of something which does happen sometimes would you rather live in a country that doesn't have capital punishment or would you rather die at the hands of a country that does have it, I know which one I'd rather be in. You see the problem lies in letting these murderers and rapists back out after only a few years or whatever so they do it again and again, if they were locked up for life and I mean life you would see a dramatic fall in these crimes.

@Caroline,

Caroline;104911 wrote:

It has everything to do with it, you don't want to die for something you didn't do if you're going to be wrongly accused of something which does happen sometimes would you rather live in a country that doesn't have capital punishment or would you rather die at the hands of a country that doesn't have it, I know which one I'd rather be in. You see the problem lies in letting these murderers and rapists back out after only a few years or whatever so they do it again and again, if they were locked up for life and I mean life you would see a dramatic fall in these crimes.

Yes, I agree, and if you executed both you would also see a dramatic fall in those crimes. In fact, I would predict an even more dramatic fall. Similarly for burglary, and speeding.

@Shostakovich phil,

I don't know some murderers claim that being put to death comes with the territory. I belive in longer prison terms for people who speed, I mean heavy prison sentances.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;104870 wrote:

But let's, at least, distinguish them: they are two moral questions. (1) Is capital punishment ever justifiable? (2) Does the possibility of killing innocents mean that no system of capital punishment is justifiable?

The problem is the question "Is capital punishment ever justifiable if perfection cannot be guaranteed."

@Aedes,

Aedes;104930 wrote:

The problem is the question "Is capital punishment ever justifiable if perfection cannot be guaranteed."

Is the sentence of death deserved if the accused is found guilty, is one question. Should a man be sentenced to death (even if deserved if he is guilty) is a quite different question.

Of course, if we demand absolute certainty about anything, that is not achievable. The question is whether absolute certainty should even be demanded. Jack Ruby was seen by millions on TV murdering Oswald. Were we still not as certain as human beings can be that Jack Ruby killed Oswald? Of course, whether he deserved to be executed is a very different question. In fact he was sent to prison. But don't you agree that if he deserved death he should have been executed since there was not doubt that he committed the murder of Oswald?

@Shostakovich phil,

You cant say one rule for him and another rule for the rest. You'd have to apply the same law accross the board and it has room for chance.

@Caroline,

Caroline;104934 wrote:

You cant say one rule for him and another rule for the rest. You'd have to apply the same law accross the board and it has room for chance.

And what is your conclusion? If Ruby deserved death if it was certain that he killed Oswald should he have been executed?

@Shostakovich phil,

It's tricky which is why we debate it, does he deserve death, yeah probably but it's not so cut and dry as that, it's complicated. Who is to say he deserves death, who plays God and are your opinions born out of anger? Some believe there is no justice in a swift excution but to leave them for a lifetime to suffer in prison, the main thing is to protect society as long as that is being done then job done, is it out of revenge or justice you kill them and are you willing to take the chance of killing an innocent by mistake, like I said K, you can't have one rule for him and another rule for the rest of society.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;104933 wrote:

Is the sentence of death deserved if the accused is found guilty, is one question. Should a man be sentenced to death (even if deserved if he is guilty) is a quite different question.

Of course, if we demand absolute certainty about anything, that is not achievable. The question is whether absolute certainty should even be demanded. Jack Ruby was seen by millions on TV murdering Oswald. Were we still not as certain as human beings can be that Jack Ruby killed Oswald? Of course, whether he deserved to be executed is a very different question. In fact he was sent to prison. But don't you agree that if he deserved death he should have been executed since there was not doubt that he committed the murder of Oswald?

So we hang Jack, then we discover he was being compromised by the mafia. They had held his wife and child in exchange for the murder of Oswald.Do we judge him as harshly? So many impossible scenarios. To have your justice we need more than human infallibility.

If your an atheist, free will is an impossibility , so do you say we are all just victims of circumstance? a product of society that is comparable. If your a believer wots worse an a eternity in purgatory or a six foot drop?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;104933 wrote:

Of course, if we demand absolute certainty about anything, that is not achievable. The question is whether absolute certainty should even be demanded.

The question is whether it should be demanded for something irrevocable like execution, as opposed to life imprisonment which is revocable. And whether the irrevocability of it makes it completely immoral in the absence of absolute certainty (both about guilt AND whether execution is appropriate). And whether the inherent biases (i.e. the indisputable fact that racial minorities are more likely to be executed for the same crime) make it morally unsupportable.

kennethamy;104933 wrote:

Jack Ruby was seen by millions on TV murdering Oswald. Were we still not as certain as human beings can be that Jack Ruby killed Oswald?

That's missing the point, though. Yes, we were certain that he had committed the crime. But no, we will never be certain whether or not he deserved to die.

@xris,

xris;104856 wrote:

Quote:
Any one who claims it is justified should be prepared to carry out the sentence themselves. The UK stopped capital punishment because of the many incorrect judgements that they suffered.

Ten Rillington Street ... the movie, has John Hurt playing the part of the innocent man hung for murdering his wife and child. They arrested the real killer (Christie) and hung him later, then they abolished capital punishment due to the outcry from the public.

Quote:
I for one can see the necessity for vengeance and often would be only too pleased to kill the child murderer.

The only case where I would have agreed with the death penalty over life imprisonment in Canada is with regard to Clifford Olson, who murdered I think it was 12 children, after torturing them. He said himself that he would have preferred the death penalty over life in prison.

Otherwise, I'm opposed to the death penalty for the reasons Jpers has pointed out. It is better to abolish the death penalty than have one innocent person murdered by the state. There are two cases again in Canada where an innocent person spent 25 years in prison only to be cleared when they caught the real killer ... Stephen Truscott was perhaps the better known case of an innocent man railroaded by the system. Had there been the death penalty at the time he could have been wrongly executed by the Federal Justice system in Canada. The police also did a massive cover up job in his case to avoid public condemnation. So the death penalty is highly arguable.

Quote:
Society alternatively, should regard it with the view that mistakes can and are made so it has to be excluded from our justice system. Many given a life sentence would prefer death, should that influence our feelings on punishment?

As I said, I only know of one person, Clifford Olson, who should have been put to death, and that's but one case out of how many? Otherwise, I'm opposed on the grounds of potentially executing an innocent person.

@Shostakovich phil,

If you have the desire for individual vengeance should society reflect that desire? Do we incarcerate the individual for forty years or hang them? I cant imagine in that same position what would be more painful.

Are we submitting to ethics or logic? I just dont know. I do know our system is fallible and we must accept that in or demands.

@Shostakovich phil,

People who kill don't seem to care about the laws of the state or country to begin with. Most criminals don't care about the law, if they did, they wouldn't be committing crimes to start with.

There is an odd discrepancy with states that have the death penalty and murder rates. It seems that a majority of those states that still have capital punishment for murder have the most murders still. This could be because those states originally had high murder rates and installing capital punishment was found necessary, but that still does not answer why murder rates remain so high in those states with it.

If you are correct in saying that the threat of capital punishment reduces murder then you should see the opposite with the US statistics, but clearly it is not the case. But then why is it not working? I say because a person who is willing to take another life, is not considering either in that moment, or that day or when ever, the results of their actions. I would go as far as to make the claim that those who are willing to kill plan on never getting caught for the crime as well. If you plan on not getting caught then technically they wouldn't care about the punishment either.

Another example of this is sharia law. I watched a video of a man getting his hand and foot cut off for a stealing conviction. This to me is rather harsh and the punishment is something the guy can never recover from. Everyone who sees him for the rest of his life will immediately know what he did. But the real question is, even though he lived in a place where he probably knew what the results of his actions would potentially bring, why did he go through with the act of stealing? Was he not aware that he might have his hand and foot cut off for stealing? If he did know, it did nothing to prevent his actions.

@Krumple,

The largest numbers come from underprivileged societies can we as a society therefor be indirectly held responsible?

In 12c England they say you had a one in twenty chance of dying of homicide. Obviously hanging had very little effect on them but then you could be hung for the most trivia of offence. You might as well be hung for sheep than a lamb.

@Caroline,

Caroline;104937 wrote:

It's tricky which is why we debate it, does he deserve death, yeah probably but it's not so cut and dry as that, it's complicated. Who is to say he deserves death, who plays God and are your opinions born out of anger? Some believe there is no justice in a swift excution but to leave them for a lifetime to suffer in prison, the main thing is to protect society as long as that is being done then job done, is it out of revenge or justice you kill them and are you willing to take the chance of killing an innocent by mistake, like I said K, you can't have one rule for him and another rule for the rest of society.

There was no chance that Harvey Oswald was innocent. He was seen by millions to have murdered Jack Ruby. So, the only question was whether he deserved death. Isn't that right? Therefore, if you say it was right for him not to be executed you are saying that even if we know for certain that someone murdered his victim, he should not be executed. Isn't that right?

@Shostakovich phil,

There's a difference between philosophy and jurisprudence is there not? I mean something may be logically justifiable or consistent but the reality of the legal system has to take into account a great deal of uncertainty, the possibility of error and wrong-doing on the part of prosecutors, and many other factors, none of which ever feature much in 'philosophical debate'. It means one thing in a philosophical argument and something else in the 'real world'. I think many agree that there are people for whom the death penalty is an apt penalty, but the point we are having difficulties with is the inevitable imperfections of a criminal justice system, which is hardly a philosophical matter.

@Shostakovich phil,

In a rational society men are entitled to certain rights. Those who initiate force against another individual's rights open themselves to a just punishment. A punishment that is proportional to their crime. Where there is no proportionality there is no justice. A man who intentionally robs another of his most sacred right to life, deserves no less and probably more than capital punishment. Any less is a mockery of justice, because any less would not be proportional. The only obstacle to the Justice system is it's infallibility. This is a deficiency improving simultaneously with scientific development. Which is a more moral choice practicing justice at the expense of the rare, albeit horrible fate of a few, or voiding the Justice system of it's founding principle, proportionality?

Philosophy Forum

Is the Death Penalty Justifiable?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know