- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I think different people respond to and process that stuff differently. To be honest, I'm more inclined to your camp than the other. That's why I think there's something to be said for putting the decision of life or execution into the hands of those closest to the victims (admittedly complicated where multiple victims are involved, though).
Plenty of people have forgiven incredible violence against themselves, their relations, and their loved ones. So you're just factually incorrect on that point. There are people who value their own ethical standards more highly than retribution, and assuming that they're deluded or misinformed is nothing more than a very simplistic presumption of your own moral values as superior without the effort of any real argumentation. If you want to make an actual case for your position that requires more than an emotive appeal to sentiment...
Wrongful conviction is not limited to the death penalty but exists at all levels of sentencing, and presumably occurs at even higher rates for some offenses where the sentence is (regarded as) less severe. if wrongful conviction is enough basis from which to stop using execution, why is it not enough of a basis from which to stop using sentencing?
Moreover, the criminal justice system you are referencing has a very bad record of racism and classism that arguably contributes to higher mortality rates and economic unrest among those demographics... so again why don't we stop the whole criminal justice system? Or, as long as this a bad record is the whole standard for something why don't we just abandon government?
It does not necessarily follow that someone deserves to die just because it is prudent to kill them. Those are distinct, albeit potentially interrelated, questions.
The notion that opposition to state executions is responsible for school shootings, home invasion, rape, arson, etc. is not only unsubstantiated but so extreme as to sound nothing short of ludicrous. All of these have existed alongside state executions and continue to occur where such executions take place, and notably have lower incidence in some nations that do not have state executions than in some of those which do. Nor is execution the only option, since lifetime incarceration is generally also an option. "Keeping society safe" may be one of the weakest argument for state executions, even wen it's given a strong defense which I don't think yours is.