Alright, trying to get your point through in a language your not really comfortable with is hard, but here it goes:
Some crimes are horrific, detestable, mindblowingly evil and and not even remotely understandable. Serial killers, rapists, child molesters, animal torturers and some others. My gut feeling here is: "Kill them bastards!"
I truly feel that many of the lunatics comitting these crimes have surely lost their right to live, and the world would be far better off without them. I do.
There is, however, more to consider than my gut feeling.
One very strong argument against the death penalty is this:
Definition.
Who has the right to define what crime constitutes such an evil that an execution is justifiable, and who has the right to alter the definition? Laws are written by people, and are therefore affected by the worldview of those in power to write them or affect those who do.
Let's say the lawmakers decide a serial rapist should be sentenced to death. You might agree, and the rest of society too. The law is in effect for some time (1 year, 50 years, 500, take your pick), and people are ok with it's application - but after a while they want more. They want one-time rapists to be included if the crime is "violent enough" (or some such) - and the law is changed. You might still agree, i might too. Society moves along, killing of more perpetrators, and soon advocates for even stronger punishment gains momentum and the law is changed so that it doesn't have to be very violent (a rape is sort of violent by definition, but i think you get my point) or well proved (rape crimes stirs up alot of emotion and laws against it tend to be in constant debate over what constitutes a well proved rape) to be punishable by death. And moving on, the next logical step may very well be executing minors. "Whats the difference between a 16 year old rapist and a 18 year old? None!", the argument goes. And who are you to say they're wrong? It's a logical step that might very well happen. You possibly agree with it, too.
But when it evolves into executing 10-12 year olds? Do you still agree? It has been done in the past, it can be done again. It's not an illogical development and it can't really be condemned since it's the will of society at large - at least it can't if you support the death penalty.
This does apply to every crime or made up crime you can think of - not only to obvious atrocities like rape. Who has the right to define what act causes someone to lose his/her right to live? Who has the right to redefine?
Did Mao Zedong have that right?
Did George W Bush?
Stalin?
Society?
The Quran? [Let us starve women guilty of lewdness to death!]
The Bible? [Let us stone the unholy who gathers wood on a sunday!]
You?
Another big problem with the death penalty is:
Innocence.
There is always -
always - a risk that someone isn't guilty of what they're being accused of, however microscopically small. There is also a risk that they are found guilty and punished accordingly even when in fact innocent. It has happened numerous times, it will continue to happen numerous times. There are close to no cases that has not even a shred of doubt about guilt.
Just take a look at
this list. De facto cases where people sentenced to death has later been acquitted. Now, do you truly believe that those actually killed of during the history of capital punishment has all been guilty? Even if only considering such crimes that you find death to be a reasonably punishment for? I don't - neither should you.
No system is infallable. Every system does therefore have an obligation to be able to revoke what it has done, to the best of it's ability. Death cannot be revoked, or alleviated.
No system that kills innocent people is just. And every system with capital punishment
will. I cannot defend that. Even if the ratio is 99 dead rapists to 1 dead innocent, i cannot. Not only does it say that it's ok for society to kill innocent people, but it does also say that the lives of 99 rapists are more important than the life of 1 innocent citizen - which i most definately do not agree with.
GabonX wrote:
People are given a trial which is where the decisions should be made.
No system is infallable. What you are saying here is that everyone should agree with everything the justice system is doing, simply because it
should be infallable.
Symmetry wrote:
One of the big problems with the death sentence is that it often follows a period of public outrage over a crime.
This is a very good point. This is exactly what happened during the madness of the witch trials in the 17th century. Someones cow dried up [the crime] and accused a neighbour of witchcraft. Soon another also testified to a cow drying up. O, the outrage! More and more people came forward, and soon the poor woman accused had overwhelming "evidence" against her. A priest or somesuch held interrogations - using torture, of course - and forced confession as well as names of more "witches" out of her [whoever she could remember and/or disliked, of course]. "It's a plauge! There's witches everywhere! O good Lord, help us poor souls! Satan is trying to off us all!". Madness ensued.
Anton Scalia wrote:
[that there has not been, in the modern judicial system: ] “a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit."
This is backwards logic. "It is unfortunately not entirely certain that you are innocent, so you need to be executed as a precautionary measure". This is not how things should work.
