52
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [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.

Death Penalty

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 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

Page 2: Death Penalty

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

Page 3: Death Penalty

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?

Page 4: Death Penalty

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,

Page 5: Death Penalty

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

Page 6: Death Penalty

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,

Page 7: Death Penalty

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

Page 8: Death Penalty

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

Page 9: Death Penalty

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,

Page 10: Death Penalty

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]

Page 11: Death Penalty

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 - 

Page 12: Death Penalty

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."

Page 13: Death Penalty

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,

Page 14: Death Penalty

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]

Page 15: Death Penalty

[ ]

[ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

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

Page 16: Death Penalty

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.

Page 17: Death Penalty

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,

Page 18: Death Penalty

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

Page 19: Death Penalty

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

Page 20: Death Penalty

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

Page 21: Death Penalty

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

Page 22: Death Penalty

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

Page 23: Death Penalty

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]

Page 24: Death Penalty

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

Page 25: Death Penalty

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

Page 26: Death Penalty

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]

Page 27: Death Penalty

[ ]

[ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

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

Page 28: Death Penalty

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

Page 29: Death Penalty

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

Page 30: Death Penalty

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

Page 31: Death Penalty

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

Page 32: Death Penalty

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]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ][ ][ ]

Page 33: Death Penalty

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

Page 34: Death Penalty

[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

Page 35: Death Penalty

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

Page 36: Death Penalty

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)."

Page 37: Death Penalty

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