Death Penalty

[Flee Fleet!]

8 hours ago, Rezzy said:

The law should treat all victims equally, and the families affecting the sentence would be a bad idea.  One instance would be if it's, say a trans person who's been disowned by their family, and didn't have any people around the mourn their death.  A second would be honor killings where it's the victim's family who killed them in the first place.  The government should be the neutral party that stands up for everybody.

Ahh, okay then. 

 

I guess I was wrong. The government should be the neutral party, and all victims will have to be treated equally.

[Makaze]

It is impossible to remove all doubt from criminal prosecution except in cases where hard evidence like video evidence is available. There is almost always a chance that the death penalty will be used on an innocent. That chance, while it may be small, is meaningful. Incredibly meaningful because almost every person will cry out and say that killing an innocent man is wrong. In a movie, you know they are innocent because the movie tells you. In real life, you don't know. You make a judgment call. Lots of people judge quickly because of their desire for revenge and sometimes an innocent man dies. Sometimes the person who finds themselves on the block is someone intentionally set up to help the real criminal get away. A swift death penalty quickly settles the matter of who dunnit. You could be the person in the movie who is so hard out for some kind of payback that you kill the innocent man. It has happened several times that we know of. Many more that we do not.

Secondly, it does not do what it is supposed to do. Other criminals do not take the death penalty into account when committing a crime. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime in general, or even murder. Murder rates manage to decrease after death penalty is removed and there is little difference in crime between similar cities despite only one having the death penalty. The only use it has is to take a recurring and incurable threat off the streets.

Thirdly, consider the opportunity cost. No one "deserves" any kind of penalty for any crime. No one deserves to have good things to happen them, or to have bad things happen to them. What people deserve comes from your feelings. An eye for an eye makes you feel like the world is a better place without actually adding anything to anyone's life but that feeling that "Things were balanced out". Your feelings don't change reality. No one has a better standard of living because you killed them. No one has more more people taking care of them. No one has their loved ones back. No one is saved. Killing someone only affects the world inside of your head, not the one outside it, unless that person is a real and present danger to the world.

Sometimes—perhaps even most of the time—we have an opportunity to turn a bad influence into a good one with therapy and rehabilitation. That person might go on to become someone who cares for the elderly, runs an orphanage, or becomes a nurse. Why would you choose revenge based justice in a "penalty" system over something that actually makes the world a better place in a provable way? Selfish short-sighted revenge fantasy? Who are you really helping? Who aren't you helping?

Edited January 27, 2017 by Makaze