Shadow1980 said:
Is it really suffering? If it is an injection. It's not like they're ripping someones testicles out. Then laughing. But that's hardly the only issue at hand. What of the fact that innocent people have been mistakenly put to death? Where is the justice there? Is making sure that murders feel the full might of our righteous fury important enough to where we should tolerate the occasional execution of an innocent person? Both sides have errors. No side will be 100%. That is the meaning acceptable losses. What isn't acceptable is the lose of life, for no reason, by a 100% convincted killer, in the first place. How about a compromised. A person is 100% caught by video. That person is allowed the death sentence. While other forms of eveidence has to do more to allow it. The purpose of justice is not retribution or revenge, and we should not accept the collateral damage that is the wrongly condemned. And even aside from moral concerns there's also pragmatic concerns. As mentioned earlier, it costs more on average to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life. Also, the death penalty is not a proven deterrent The cost is thanks to all the checks that are avaible to the person who is sentenced. It's that long year wait to finally do it. That's the saftey net. When did the Boston bombing happen? And they're now just sentence. Shows those checks are working. I seriously doubt a deterrent is the real point. From my POV it's to get rid of the life. So they have no chance of repeat. Just like you killing a rat or bug in your home. You're doing it to end the situation. Not for revenge or justice. Would it be acceptable if say: the persons death would bring the dead back to life? That's an even harder grey area. Granted, not possible. But still that thought is there. |