Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
This is really stupid.
The existence of the death penalty is not what results in a lower murder rate. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates owing to other factors. The US's gun regulation laws result in more gun deaths and still would regardless. Similarly, if Sweden suddenly decided to institute the death penalty tomorrow, murder rate would not increase. How could it?
Just stop and think about this statement: "the death penalty leads to more murders". How on earth does that make sense? How could it possibly have that effect? If ever there was a time to say "correlation does not imply causation", this is it.
I am against it, like most European adults I would add. There are an outstanding number of capital punishment supporters on here, whether due to age or nationality I don’t know.
Firstly, the cost: to all those discussing this, step back for a minute. Even if it’s 10x more expensive, 10x less expensive or costs the same as life in prison, it’s completely deluded to reduce the justice system to simply whatever is cheapest, it defies the point of having one. I mean, it’s probably cheaper to just have no trials ever and send anyone arrested straight to prison. Or why not just mass execute all those serving jail time of 20 years or more huh? Much simpler. . .
Similarly, to all those posting pictures of ‘nice comfy prisons’ most of that is basic human rights. The point of prison is that you have had your freedom taken away from you. So what if you’ve got a playstation and a microwave, it’s not like you can leave the room whenever you want, go into town for a drink, or sit outside all day long in the sun.
Also, no justice system is perfect. Trials can be complicated, everyone should have a right to a re-trial, especially in cases where new evidence comes up, and it is not unheard of for people to be released midway through life sentences etc. Retrials are particularly hard to apply for if you are dead. (Also I just watched the film ’12 angry men’, food for thought.)
To those supporting death as a just response to a crime, where do you draw the line? What kind of murderer should get the death penalty? What if they kill 1 person? Or 2? Or 50? Or 1 toddler? What about a manslaughter case with 20 victims? We don’t know what all murderers ‘deserve’. They may have serious psychological issues, mitigating circumstances or yes, some may just be plain fucked up, but does every death ‘deserve’ another one to make up for it?
You also completely ignore the idea of reform. We know that other criminals often do their time and come out changed men. Why should this be impossible for murderers?
The main thing that worries me however, is the central fact that in supporting capital punishment, we assume that we have some self-given right to take someone else’s life from them. No-one has that right, and that is why (in short) murderers are bad and go to prison. It is not up to us to apply our subjective opinions of morality and justice upon someone else when the result is death. The more I think about it, the more it astounds me how serious a thing it is to take someone else’s life. Yes, that is why murderers are despicable people, but a justice system based on retaliation not rehabilitation is not justice, it is revenge and it leads to nothing but more problems.
yeah i know, tl;dr
This is a fallacy, you're creating a false dilemma. The choices are not between whatever we have now and whatever is cheapest. The point is that we strike a balance as to what we're willing to accept as cost-effective as a society. At some point, we have to draw the line as to what is too much to pay. We think criminals should be fed, but we shouldn't be feeding them steak. We think they should get a bed with a mattress and heat their cells, but we don't think a queen-sized bed and wall to wall carpeting is appropriate. We think several levels of appeal is necessary to ensure people are rightly convicted, but we don't think we should pay for 20 levels of courts, even though that would create greater certainty.
Cost is a reasonable basis on which to say, in certain circumstances, we are not willing to pay to keep you alive, fed, clothed, housed and guarded for the remainder of your natural life. There are a number of reasonable counter-arguments to this, but "well if you want to take that view, no trials for anyone" is not one of them.