A number of people have written and asked "surely this man is a good candidate for the death penalty"? I agree, if we had the death penalty, it would be hard to imagine a better candidate -- clearly guilty of monstrous crimes.
And the fact the death penalty has been found impermissible by the Supreme Court of Canada does not stop bringing it back by use of the notwithstanding clause.
But I oppose the death penalty.
Why?
First, sometimes we get things wrong and the death penalty cannot be reversed. Even today the newspapers write about a wrongfully convicted man being compensated. You cannot compensate a corpse. And there are cases where people have been convicted of death penalty level crimes (sexual sadistic child murder) and found wrongfully convicted. We say this guy is "really guilty", so he can be put to death, and then the goalposts slide and we start executing people who we are "pretty sure is really guilty".
Second, the death penalty does not reflect a proper respect for the sanctity of human life. Murderers are monstrous and evil -- that does not mean society should copy them.
Finally, the death penalty does not (and there are plenty of studies here) deter crime and (at least in the USA) does not even save money -- keeping someone in for life is cheaper than putting them to death,
So, I oppose and continue to oppose the death penalty. It risks putting the innocent to death, is morally wrong and doesn't even save money.
15 comments:
I agree. Much as I think Wms should be tarred, feathered, and carried around tied to a pole while being flogged, I don't want to live in a country where people are executed. It's bizarre.
Look at the list of countries now who do execute, and those who don't.
Your second point is ridiculous but otherwise it is sound.
The problem as I see it is that far too many murderers do get released. It is equally bad to execute them as it is to release these repugnant individuals back into society.
I think your second argument is the only necessary one. It's not ok to kill people, so the state can't do that.
I don't know who the second anonymous is but he or she lack the most basic understanding of ethics. The very essence of ethical behavior is that to act ethically one must represent the actions that one hopes to cultivate in others. Therefore, anonymous #3 is correct, this is the only salient point.
"Murderers are monstrous and evil -- that does not mean society should copy them."
Absolutely.
But may I ask that you stop referring to him as Colonel Williams? He is Mr. Williams now.
I see a profound difference between execution and murder. They are not morally or ethically equivalent as I see it.
That does not mean that all executions are ethical or moral but they are quite different.
I don't believe the death penalty is appropriate either but the arguement is not strengthened by this platitude.
As a reminder the morality and ethics of abortion is another example where there is profound difference of opinion.
kirbycairo in particular seems to think that ethics is as simple as grade one arithmetic. There is usually no clear answer in morality and ethics. I'd suggest that it is he who doesn't understand the subject's basics.
He's still officially a Colonel, but he is obviously going to lose this.
I don't know of many people convicted of a capital crime that have been release in Canada. Can someone name one?
Death penalty makes little sense to me... Punish someone for killing by killing? In my opinion, no one should have the right to play God. They are not above the law, we aren't either.
Setting aside the moral and ethical arguments, the economic argument against capital punishment is a compelling one. See http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084.
Life imprisonment costs so much less. Do people really want to see their tax dollars going to death penalty cases when there are so many places for that money to be better spent?
The death penalty is barbaric. It doesn't make things right for the victims, nor does it pay a debt to society. These debts can never be repaid. It doesn't make the world a safer place. Absolutely no upside to it.
You say that we cannot reverse the death penalty and I agree. Still, when we KNOW the man is guilty, when we have video of him committing the crime and we have him admitting he did it that is not the case. We know he should never get out of jail so why should we have to pay for this waste of a life?
Second you say that if we allow capital punishment in this case it is a slippery slope towards other less well defined cases. But we have the other side of that slippery slope where murderers do get released. In fact we have bleeding hearts saying that life without parole shouldn't happen because hopeless prisoners are more dangerous to guards! (Funny how guards wouldn't have to worry about that if the threat were, you know, dead)
You then bring up the cost of "life" vs the cost of capital punishment. Again, it's a false argument because you are comparing the necessary costs of food, shelter, medical care, and security to the unnecessary costs of lengthy and expensive appeals. If we restricted capital punishment to only cases with incontrovertible evidence (DNA is not good enough), then the only real cost is the bullet. And we could even copy the Chinese on that one and bill the family.
Finally James, the dignity of human life is a bit of a joke coming from people who support abortion on demand up to and including the minute the child is in the birth canal. We can literally and legally drill out a baby's brain as it is being born and the people you associate with won't even discuss a law that might restrict that (in fact they argue that because it is rare it is OK, kinda like how others feel on the death penalty).
"Still, when we KNOW the man is guilty..."
So you think we should have "extra first degree murder"? No one should ever be convicted unless we KNOW they are guilty. That is kind of the basis of our criminal justice system.
Thanks Gayle, I wasn't aware that the justice system was infallible. Still, isn't it Liberals like you who are arguing that capital punishment is wrong because of mistakes being made by the justice system? I guess that means yes, in certain cases there should be "extra first degree" because we have moved from BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT into NO DOUBT. There is a difference, you know.
Post a Comment