Mr. RubangB, sir, I've always admired you... and I'm a little afraid of running afoul of you.  But I do support the death penalty, and so I hope you don't mind if I discuss a couple of these points here.  Maybe you can help me to figure out that I'm on the wrong side of this.

I'm not sure whether I feel "little tinglies," but I do believe in punishing certain actions.  I support the death penalty primarily because I don't believe that life imprisonment is a strong enough penalty for certain crimes.

While I understand (kinda) Godwin's Law, I figure we might as well go directly to the most extreme example:  Adolf Hitler committed suicide and was never brought to trial.  Had he been, however, and stood before the justices at Nuremburg, he certainly would have been convicted and condemned to death.

And I find that appropriate.

Life imprisonment, to me, means that Hitler would have had time to read, to write, to think.  He could have possibly developed friendships, or dreamed sweet dreams.  He might have found ways to have happy days in prison.

Now, possibly that's all wrong--maybe he never would have had another happy day, and would have always been haunted by the ghosts of his millions of victims.  But I dislike the idea that he would have had the possibility of another happy day on earth; in my opinion, in robbing so many of those same possibilities, he forfeited the right to his own.

Regarding some of the objections I've seen here:

* Cost.  I am all for cost-effective justice.  But, in my opinion, if we determine death to be an appropriate penalty for a given crime, then cost ceases to be a relevant concern.  Just as, it might be cheaper to release a criminal after a year than after twenty years... but if we judge that twenty years is the appropriate sentence, then twenty years it is.

* The death penalty is not a deterrent.  I'm sure this is probably true.  I've heard that, during France's infatuation with the guillotine, pickpocketers use to frequent the public executions of thieves, the pickings were so good.  That's possibly apocryphal, but still, I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent.

I mean, I myself would restrict its use to crimes that are so plainly wrong that, if a person committed them still, it would be such a break from all norms of morality and sense that I can't see any possible penalty as keeping them from it.

But anyways, deterrence isn't my main consideration where justice is concerned, but a redress of wrongs committed.

* Mistaken convictions.  Obviously, this is a huge problem, and the one I'm most sympathetic to.  However, I don't see the problem as being with the death penalty itself, but inherent to the entire justice system.

After all, I wouldn't argue against life in prison (which is an enormous sentence), because someone might mistakenly be convicted.  While I understand that, theoretically, a bad sentence could later be overturned (or it might not be), to me it doesn't make the problem we're addressing any better, or mean that we should stop delivering sentences to the best of our ability.

I believe that our efforts should be directed towards improving justice to reduce mistakes on every level; not withholding justice out of fear that some mistake might possibly be made.

* Abuse by government.  Similar to mistaken convictions, I think that the actual problem isn't the death penalty, but bad government itself.  I mean, governments, by their nature, have the police and military powers; a tyrannical government is a frightening thing.

But a good government's job is a righteous application of both police and military power.  If the death penalty is deserved in a particular instance, I believe that the government should be free to exercise it.  (Just as I believe that there are times when war is justified, and must be waged.)

* Hypocrisy.  If we, as a society, believe that murder is bad, then ought the government have the right to murder?  Of course the answer is "no."  But a death penalty, administered according to the principles of justice, would not be "murder" any more than the killings in the justified wars I referred to earlier.

You've said that the government and the population should be under the same laws, and I agree.  However, government is a special case when it comes to the enforcement of law; if there were no official/proper government--on the "frontier"--people would have to administer justice on their own.  In civilized society, people surrender their own police powers to the government.

That is why the police can obtain a search warrant and thereby legally enter someone else's property against their will, but citizens can only trespass.  And, where punishment is concerned, governments can incarcerate people for years, but citizens cannot.  I submit that the death penalty is much the same. 

Or, if I'm mistaken, and your statement still holds (I want criminals and governments to follow the same law: no murders, no executions, no torture.), then should we also say "we want criminals and governments to follow the same law: no imprisonment"?

I don't believe so.  Governments have a legal mandate to use force in certain ways; you may not believe that lethal force is appropriate, but if you're right, I don't believe that hypocrisy is the reason why.

So, yeah.  I'm interested in your feedback, should you have any.

Murder is unlawful killing. So by definition, the death penalty is not murder.

@donathos, oh I don't care if we disagree. I'd kill myself if the whole world was just like me. That post was just for Tyrannical, not everybody who disagrees with me.


If you think it's a deserved punishment, then that's where our disagreement is. I don't think we should justify killing of people who are defenseless. I don't see a difference between tying somebody up and shooting them or handcuffing them and giving them a lethal injection. I forget who it was, Obi Wan Kenobi or Gandalf or somebody, that said that nobody should have the power to take life unless they also have the power to give it back. I think that's a better summary of my feelings on the subject.

And for your last point about my point about hypocrisy, yeah you're right. I can't extend my argument to cover everything, including getting warrants and issuing prison sentences.

I just see an individual murdering somebody and a jury murdering somebody as equally bad and not helpful. If somebody killed my wife there's a chance I'd go nuts and try to get revenge. But I wouldn't want the government to do that for me.

You are correct, however murder is only a word. The fact that the death penalty is not murder doesn not make it right or wrong.

Ah, so legal things are legal.  Good point.  I think we can look up where it's legal and where it's illegal, but I don't think anybody is arguing that.

You seem to say things like this all the time without any examples, so I don't believe you.  If you have been confused by any of my comments feel free to point them out and I'll do my best to make sense of them.  You've also accused me of dishonest misdirection without providing any examples, and you were wrong then too.

Here is where you demonstrate your inability to tell legal and moral appart.

I still don't think a government should have the power to kill.  I think all murders should be against the law, no matter the reason and no matter the killer.  I want criminals and governments to follow the same law: no murders, no executions, no torture.

I just see an individual murdering somebody and a jury murdering somebody as equally bad and not helpful.

Here is your dishonest misdirection. It has nothing to do with the cost, or the possibility of executing the wrongly conviected as you later admit.

The death penalty costs way too much money. There are 2 ways to lower the costs: abolish the death penalty entirely, which will save tons of money (good) and never accidentally kill an innocent person again (very good), or allow for speedier executions with fewer appeals, which will save money (good), but leads to more accidental executions of the innocent (very bad).

I think in this case it is 100% guaranteed the man is guilty of one of the most horrible crimes, but I still don't want to allow the government to kill him

Are you arguing semantics because I used the word murder instead of the word kill?  I think it was pretty obvious that I was saying I think it should be illegal because I think it is immoral.  I think 12 assholes hanging a guy in the woods and 12 jurors sending a guy to death in a courtroom are equally immoral, but one is legal.  I think that is bad.

I don't see any misdirection in the 2nd part.  I am arguing from a financial perspective there.  Those are the 2 ways to lower the cost, and one involves killing more innocent people.  I think that is bad.  And yes, the cost involved is important.  As a taxpayer I would like to know why my money has to kill people in a way that has been proven to not benefit society.  It doesn't deter crime more than life sentences, and it costs more than life sentences.

Is something I'm saying a lie or confused?  Or can we just disagree?