I've been studying this subject recently and have had some heated discussions in the past about it with friends and the like. Recently though I've been looking at some polls which have been conducted and it seems that the vast majority of people actually agree with the death penalty. I think it would be interesting to have a discussion with the Bitcoin community on this as I tend to find that they are much more logical and open minded to things than the normal targeted audience that these polls are presented too.
Quotes may be shorter than they are in sources to cut down on filler content and pick out the most important aspects.
According to the guardian[1] "China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and the US carried out the most executions in 2012. At least 1,722 people were sentenced to death in 58 countries in 2012."
I think if we look at all the countries there the most surprising one would likely be the US. Iran which isn't on the greatest terms with American currently shares a common characteristic with America in terms of people getting sentenced to death. In fact according to this source between 2007-2012 America sentenced 504 people to death whilst Iran sentenced much less (156).
I'm not at all defending the approach that these countries take and aren't saying that 156 lives taken isn't worse/better than 504 as this is another debate and hard dilemma. I personally feel that the death penalty should be abolished worldwide and I'll go on to list my counter arguments to common statements about why the death penalty should remain. Although I think it would be interesting if we could have an actual discussion about this and possibly my view point will change.
I feel that these are the major points people seem to come up with is either for revenge, justice, if the crime is severe enough or as a deterrent for future criminals.
First of all I don't understand why revenge is considered a good thing. In most major movies revenge is normally seen being done by the 'good' guys and is justified just because someone is the bad guy in the movie. Revenge doesn't gain you anything and the only thing you are actually doing is lowering yourself down to their level. In my opinion revenge should only be felt by those who are personally affected by the situation and shouldn't impact the public at all and therefore I feel this is a poor argument when it comes to an argument for pro death penalty.
A common argument that I see is that if the crime is severe enough such as murder then it's perfectly acceptable for ordering the death of someone. I fail to see the logic here and I would invite anyone that has this mindset to explain your reasoning. I think we can all agree that to take someones life is wrong and there's got to be something chemically wrong or what ever for you to carry out the act but this also applies to sentencing someone to death. You are literally supporting a system which will put yet another person to death. Let's not forget that basic human rights and that everyone has the right to live. You may not feel like this is the case in more severe crimes but let's not forget that the amount of news articles which have been released after someone has been sentenced to death where new evidence has been discovered or brought up which proves that the prisoner was in fact innocent. Is this justice? Is the jury, court and executor now murderers too?
Finally, the argument that it will act as a deterrent for future cases. Well I think it's a common opinion that people feel that the death sentence is the 'easy' way out and making someone live with what they have done is more appropriate. Although this brings up the point of the physiological affects on the person who committed the crime and how that may affect them. So it might not actually act as a deterrent if someone knows they are going to die shortly after anyway. It could also be argued that it doesn't severe as a deterrent anyway due to the amount of crimes which have been committed since the death penalty has been abolished elsewhere in the world.
[1]
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/death-penalty-countries-world My opinion is Mixed.
I recognize that the state has the authority to administer the death penalty. I have no problem with this, in principal. However, it is poorly administered and does not perform its function well if at all.
It is also vastly expensive as presently conducted.
I recognize that there are seriously bad people who will remain a danger to society for all their lives. Incarcerating them in inhuman conditions (like the Supermax prison) for life seems far more inhumane than execution.
At the same time, I recognize that many of these really bad people are insane, and that this mitigates to some degree their level of responsibility. Unfortunately, we have no reliable way to treat such people at this time.
The death penalty is inequitably administered. Everyone knows this. If you are poor and/or a minority, you are vastly more likely to be given death than if you are wealthy/white.
Thats unacceptable.
Additionally, programs like the innocence project have proved that many people presently on death row were in fact innocent and had been improperly convicted, either by incompetent representation, faulty evidence, jury bias, or prosecutorial malfeasance. (withholding exculpatory evidence, not putting contrary witnesses on the stand
)
Thats horrifying.
Our state just executed a fellow who had been on death row for 30 years. 30 years
Waiting to be executed.
Finally, the stated purpose of the death penalty is deterrence. That the prospect of being exeted will deter people from committing serious crimes. It doesnt. Death-penalty crimes are committed either in a state of rage, or under the influence of psychosis, or due to long-standing pschological or psychiatric conditions.
There has not been any evidence shown (to my knowledge) that the death penalty provides any such deterrance. Instead, what it provides is vengeance. Closure as we so euphemistically say these days.