Is the death penalty/capital punishment morally correct?
Yes.
Side Score: 11
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
All sanctions are based upon that which we find to be just, appropriate and proportional to the crime. The death penalty is just such a sanction when considering the worste of all crimes. Sactions are also based upon taking away that which we value, be it money, with fines, freedon, with incarceration, or life, with execution. A sanction cannot be a sanction unless we take away that which is valued. Life is the most valued of all wordly goods, therefore taking it away is the most serious of sanctions. Side: Yes.
1
point
The death penalty has a foundation in justice and it spares more innocent lives.
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.
1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/
2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/ Side: Yes.
1
point
The majority populations of all countries may support the death penalty for some crimes (1).
Why? Justice.
MORAL FOUNDATIONS: DEATH PENALTY PT. 1
1) Saint (& Pope) Pius V: "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).
2) Pope Pius XII; "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.
3) John Murray: "Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life."
"... it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty."
"It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit." (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct).
4) Immanuel Kant: "If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.".
"A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral."
5) Billy Graham: "God will not tolerate sin. He condemns it and demands payment for it. God could not remain a righteous God and compromise with sin. His holiness and His justice demand the death penalty." ( "The Power of the Cross," published in the Apr. 2007 issue of Decision magazine ).
6) Theodore Roosevelt: "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.".
7) Jean-Jacques Rousseau: "Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgments are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State." (The Social Contract).
8) John Locke: "A criminal who, having renounced reason... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security." And upon this is grounded the great law of Nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Second Treatise of Civil Government.
====
"Moral/ethical Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars" http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html
"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx
"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx
"Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
====
1) US Death Penalty Support at 80%; World Support Remains High http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/04/ Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
I don't see where in your first source it says that the majority of all countries (or the majority of people in every country) support the death penalty in some cases. In fact, only 12% of countries maintain the practice of capital punishment (1). But I guess that's kind of irrelevant to your argument, just wanted to mention. You would make a much more convincing argument if you weren't just pasting quotes from famous people. You may believe that their moral arguments are correct, but you're not convincing anyone of that. Why should I just take these guys' word for it that it's moral? Agree with MasterKage, smells like argument from authority fallacy. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Side: No.
2
points
1
point
|
Basically the Death Penalty is just revenge, if it the person convicted was definately Guilty I would'nt be totally anti but there have been too many mistakes and travesties of Justice and also the fact that you have people sitting on Death Row for years which is a cruel and unusual punishment which makes me anti Side: No.
1
point
The death penalty is no more revnege than is any other sanction, meaning not at all. The death penalty is imposed for the same reason all sanctions are, which is that sanction is based upon a just, appopriate and proportional sanction, in consideration of the crime committed. Please review: "The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge" http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/ Side: Yes.
The death penalty can be viewed as legalized murder, which is ironic considering that such a punishment is only imposed because of the cruelty of the crime - murder. Who decides that the murderer be killed just because s/he killed? Two wrongs don't make a right. The death of the murderer does not offset the harm caused, and even though might bring "justice" to the bereaved, does not bring the victim back to life. Also, consider the feelings of the murderer's family. Who will do them justice in return? By sentencing the death penalty, the judge is indicating that some humans can be of higher moral superiority than others such as the murderers. But Man are born equal, no one is more important than the other. The right to take away another man's life is not in our hands and therefore, I think that the death penalty is morally incorrect. Also, the death penalty kills all chances of reformation. It might have been a mistake, one that was too grave, but I believe that it is morally wrong to rob one of the chances to redeem himself. Not only that, the death penalty might also kill the innocent. Due to time constraints, these wronged victims are deprived of a chance to save themselves - where is the justice in that? Is that morally correct, to kill an innocent life to serve as a warning to the rest, allowing him or her to die for a crime that he or she did not commit? I don't think so. Side: No.
Of course not. Where is the justification in killing one man, because he killed someone else? It is simply immoral, and illogical. And what if there is an innocent man? I cannot think of much more mental torture than having to wait 1,2, maybe 50 years in jail to await your death fir something you didn't do. Every morning, waking up thinking that today might be the day. Waiting for it to come. It's barbaric. more so than the crimes the criminals committed. Side: No.
Under the ethical norms of Western culture, the death penalty is wrong. In theory, a secular, liberal society employs utilitarianism as a standard for making laws. The death penalty doesn't benefit humanity -- it doesn't improve deterrence or make the world safer, and sometimes it doesn't even make the victim's family feel better. The death penalty also a massive overreach of state authority, which is why virtually all countries in the Western world have abandoned it completely. Therefore, it is immoral. Side: No.
In theory, a secular, liberal society employs utilitarianism as a standard for making laws. Indeed, although utilitarianism can be used too much, but I suppose that's besides the point. The death penalty doesn't benefit humanity Why not? The death penalty is gives the ability to off killers and murderers, as, if they were given life in parole, they have the ability to escape and continue their crimes. it doesn't improve deterrence Killing criminals would cause fear in free-of-custody criminals, so yes, in theory the death penalty does have a deterrence element. or make the world safer Killing criminals (murderers specifically) doesn't make the world any more safe? and sometimes it doesn't even make the victim's family feel better. What does that matter for? The death penalty is in place to prevent further crimes, not to please the victim's family. This isn't my actual belief, by the way. Side: Yes.
The death penalty is usually given as a sentence in place of lifetime in a max security prison without parole. Without the death penalty, the criminal would probably die in prison because it is very unlikely he would be released or escape. So, no, it doesn't prevent criminals from continuing their crimes -- they wouldn't continue anyway. As you say, in theory the death penalty improves deterrence, but in practice it doesn't[1]. Why would it? Do horrible criminals really draw the line at death, when the punishment otherwise would be life in prison? Also, death row inmates tend to spend most of their lives in prison anyway; rarely are they actually executed. I mentioned relief for the family as a possible utilitarian benefit. Sometimes people defend the death penalty saying, "But how could you make the family suffer knowing the criminal is still alive?!" Side: No.
Why is it that you will almost never find a rich man on death row? Could it be something to do with the lawyers they can afford to hire...? Criminals with an impoverished background shouldn't be executed while those with high incomes have their necks saved. This is, admittedly, a problem with the justice system as a whole - however, when a person's whole life is at stake the consequences of such inequality are severe. Side: No.
1
point
Surely keeping someone in a small cell for the rest of their lives and making their life horrible is worse than killing them outright. And then there is always the possibility that they are innocent and then sentenced to death, at least if they were in prison they could be released. you cant come back from the dead. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
