Remind me again why I’m against the death penalty

Actually, it’s because of the near-certainty that, sooner or later, an innocent person will have his or her life taken by the state.
That doesn’t mean some don’t deserve the ultimate penalty, however. Rest in peace, Karissa.
Damian P.


8 thoughts on “Remind me again why I’m against the death penalty

  1. An innocent person loosing their life b/c of the death penalty is ultamitly a failure of the system. Anti death penalty people love to bring that argument up, about what if we loose an innocent guy in the process. Innocent people get screwed all the time, and a utopian heart only clouds and obstructs justice from happening.
    It’s very simple, if there aren’t other witnesses to the murder, you don’t give them the death penalty. For some wacko that murders a bunch of people in a bank robbery or whatever, you have plenty of witnesses to give him a penalty, with a quick trial, last rites should he want them, a chance to reconcile to the victims family, a quick death with the least amount of suffering.
    Gives a lot of closure to the familys, less financial burden on the system, a detterant, and chance for the person to realize how he has lived his life, and the judgement that will quickly await him.
    I don’t get inflamed or emotional when talking about the death sentence, I am more or less calm and collected, and have really thought through the matter. Some people like to kick and scream if they find out your are pro-death penalty, like you are some monster, yet at the same time would’nt care of some bleeding heart liberal judge gives some rapist murderer 5 years for his ugly deeds.

  2. We’ve seen a few of these cases, the most famous one being Diane Downs, featured in the book written by Ann Rule, “Small Sacrifices”.
    The really sick part of this whole thing is that the boyfriend probably was only using the kid as an excuse to dump the woman, and with or without kids, she was NOT going to be with him.
    “Men are pigs”, as John Goodman once said, in character, and I’ve seen and heard friends use every bullshit excuse in the book to end a relationship, EXCEPT tell the truth!
    Maybe it’s because of the old saying, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, and he’s trying to find an easy way out.
    I cannot imagine any mother being so desperate to please anyone, that she’d kill her own child,maybe I just lack imagination.

  3. I have never understood why the likelihood that some innocent people will have their lives taken by the state through direct action if we allow the death penalty is unacceptable, but the near-certainty that more innocent people will die as a result of not enforcing the death penalty is okay. (So few people are actually executed that there needs be almost no deterrent effect at all to reduce the number of deaths, and the fear of the death penalty leads many criminals to enter pleas.)
    I guess it’s just a very particular moral sense about what kinds of state action are permissible.
    It’s okay to put a man in a cage for his entire life, even though we know that we’re going to be imprisoning innocent men some fraction of the time. So it’s not the innocent-victim receives-horrible-fate-at-the-hands-of-the-state aspect that’t the problem; we accept that every day.
    It’s also okay for the state to knowingly kill innocent people, which it does all the time in military action, at least if the attack’s cause was just and steps were taken to minimize casualities. So it can’t be the fact that it’s killing and not mere imprisonment that’s the problem either; neither can it be numbers, as vastly more innocents die in just wars than via execution.
    Instead, somehow it’s the situation “possibility-of-innocent-victim” plus “killing” plus “non-military state action” which renders the death penalty unacceptable even though almost every variation is acceptable despite the likelihood of error being much greater.
    Well, everyone evaluates these things differently, and we all draw the lines as best we can. But it would be nice if non-pacifist, prison-supporting death-penalty opponents recognized just how quirky and special-pleading their position seems from the outside.

  4. The problem is that under our legal system all verdicts are equal, regardless of the strength of the evidence supporting them.
    Thus guilt established by incontrovertable evidence is the same in law as guilt established by, say, circumstantial evidence, and the possible penalities are no different.
    What needs to be done is establish two different categories for findings of guilt:
    1) Those that are beyond any/any doubt; and
    2) Those that are beyond reasonable/reasonable doubt.
    Convictions in the first category would permit the death penalty since there would be no conceivable apprehension of error (one hopes).
    But that–admitting that all verdicts are not equally sound–will never happen under our legal tradition.

  5. Canadians don’t have the moral fortitude to protect our society from evil. Someday we may have to show strength, but for now we’ll simply spread the suffering among the innocent.

  6. I can’t even bear to think about this case. It was bad enough when I thought the poor kid had died at the hands of a stranger. But that it was her own Mom . . . horrible beyond belief. And the woman shows no real remorse, even now.
    But some people still insist we should not use the word “evil”!

  7. Yeah, because government has shown itself to be so competent at everything else it does. I’m sure they can be trusted at deciding who to kill. /sarc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s