"Let the punishment match the offense." - Cicero (Capital punishment)

Member Name: ILoveJackDaniels

Product:	Capital punishment
Date:	26/07/01 (140 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Possibly the prevention of murder, May save money for the nation

Disadvantages: Risks to innocent people, INNOCENT PEOPLE!

The title just goes to show that even philosophers from thousdans of years ago are not infallible. There are many issues where everyone has an opinion, and even fewer where their opinions are based on facts, but this is one of those issues.

Everyone knows the basic arguements. Is it wrong to kill in the name of law? Should someone who has taken away someone's life in cold blood have the same done to them? Does someone who takes away a person's life forfeit the right to live? This is what you will hear in every debate on this subject.

What the entire thing comes down to, basically, is whether or not a government has the right to say that if a person does something wrong, they will die, and if they do, is it a morally correct thing to do?

Looking at the arguements behind what people say, I was a touch shocked. I am against capital punishment. What if one day I was convicted on a murder I had nothing to do with? I could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time - it happens. If capital punishment was applied to murders, I would be killed. People acknowledge that this could happen, so how could they argue for bringing it back?

First and foremost, the arguements for bringing it back revolve around 2 or 3 key points. The first is cost - a murderer spending 30 years in jail costs thousands. Who cares? Frankly, a murderer rotting away is just as good as a dead one to me, and if the government didn't spend that money on making sure they didn't die in prison, they'd probably find something else to spend it on.

'Eye for an eye,' tooth for a tooth' is another commonly mentioned point, and I can understand why. If someone I cared about was murdered, I'd want the person-who-did-it's head on a pole, preferably burning. On the other hand, what if the conviction is unsound? Someone would be killed, and it would be no fault of their own. Who can say they have the right to risk that? Surely the
law is there to protect the innocent, and has been proven to make mistakes. Those mistakes at the moment do not carry with them the risk of hanging...

The third arguement is deterrent, on which John McAdams says "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

And that, dear reader, is the only thing I agree with. He is right on this point, if it IS a deterrant to criminals, good. You save some people. If not, you lose a lot of murderers.


I could write for hours on the againts points, and bore you with statistics and conjecture. I'm not going to, because I feel I've already stated the only arguement against bringing back the death penalty has been stated. What if there is a mistake? It could be you, me or someone we know and care about who is hung for a crime they didn't commit, and what then? From prison, there is release. From death, there is not. You can't say Sorry once you've killed someone.

Anyone arguing for the death penalty, I feel, needs to balance the pros and cons more carefully. It's all very well saving money for the nation, but I am sure there are better ways than large-scale culling. It's all very well saying you want to protect the innocent, but if you are putting one life at risk by the death penalty, isn't it better to keep it where it belongs - in the past?

There is a reason why it has been banned by our forefathers. Mistakes were made, innocent people were killed. If someone can prove to me that it would be different now, I will re-consider my opinion. Until then, I choose Life.

Summary: